In a dramatic turn in the ongoing Delhi excise policy case, the Delhi High Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several senior Aam Aadmi Party leaders, including Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Durgesh Pathak and Vinay Mishra, over alleged attempts to malign Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma through social media campaigns and edited videos.
The proceedings arose during hearings on the CBI’s appeal challenging the discharge of accused persons in the excise policy matter.
Justice Sharma accused Kejriwal of leading a “calculated campaign of vilification” after she refused to recuse herself from the case and said the respondents attempted to create “a parallel narrative” outside court to influence proceedings.
While transferring the main excise policy case to another bench to avoid future allegations of bias, the judge clarified she was not recusing herself but would continue to hear the contempt matter separately.
Kejriwal, reacting on social media platform X, welcomed the transfer and said, “Truth has triumphed, Gandhiji’s Satyagraha has won,” maintaining that moral strength ultimately prevails over political pressure.
Court Flags ‘Calculated Humiliation’
The developments unfolded during a special evening sitting of the Delhi High Court, where Justice Sharma reportedly read out portions of her order over nearly 90 minutes.
The judge strongly objected to social media posts and public statements circulated by AAP leaders and supporters after she declined earlier requests seeking her recusal from the excise policy case.
According to the court, edited videos of a speech delivered by Justice Sharma at an educational institution in Varanasi were circulated online to imply political allegiance and question her impartiality.
The court observed that instead of challenging judicial orders through legal remedies available before higher courts, Kejriwal allegedly attempted to undermine the judiciary publicly. “A deliberate attempt to lower the authority of the court cannot be permitted in the guise of free speech,” Justice Sharma remarked during the hearing.
She further stated that “judicial silence cannot be mistaken for weakness” and warned against normalising campaigns that seek to intimidate judges through online pressure.
The court also alleged that selective editing of letters, speeches and videos was used to drag even members of her family into public controversy, calling it an act of “calculated humiliation” aimed at eroding public trust in the judiciary.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing in the matter, reportedly described attacks on judges as a “lonely battle” for members of the judiciary and their families, arguing that such conduct could weaken institutional confidence if left unchecked.
Excise Policy Row Intensifies
The excise policy case has remained one of the most politically contentious legal battles involving the AAP leadership over the past two years.
The case stems from allegations surrounding the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy introduced in 2021, which investigating agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), claim involved irregularities and undue benefits extended to private entities.
AAP leaders have consistently denied wrongdoing, alleging that the investigations are politically motivated and aimed at weakening opposition voices ahead of elections.
Several senior party leaders, including Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh, were arrested during the investigation, while Kejriwal himself faced multiple rounds of questioning and legal scrutiny before securing relief from courts in various proceedings.
The latest controversy began after Justice Sharma refused to recuse herself from hearing the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge of accused persons in the excise policy matter.
Following this, Kejriwal publicly announced that he would boycott hearings before her bench, while several party leaders amplified criticism on social media platforms.
Justice Sharma said the tone and tenor of the campaign went beyond fair criticism and entered the territory of attempting to “scandalise” the judiciary. Clarifying her decision to transfer the main matter, the judge stated she was not stepping aside due to pressure but doing so to ensure the respondents could not later claim prejudice in proceedings.
The excise policy case will now reportedly be reassigned by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, while contempt proceedings against the political leaders will continue separately before Justice Sharma’s bench.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The developments surrounding the excise policy case raise difficult but important questions about the relationship between democratic accountability, free speech and institutional integrity. In a democracy, courts must remain open to scrutiny, criticism and public debate, especially in politically sensitive matters involving elected representatives.
At the same time, criticism carries responsibility. Public discourse becomes dangerous when allegations are amplified through misleading edits, personal attacks or attempts to delegitimise institutions rather than challenge decisions through established legal channels. Equally, institutions must continue earning public trust through transparency, consistency and fairness in judicial conduct.
Also read: India Caps Duty-Free Gold Imports At 100 Kg, Exporters Face Stricter Compliance Rules
