New Delhi, May 19 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notices to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, ex-Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh and other party leaders in criminal contempt proceedings initiated over alleged attempts to scandalise the judiciary in connection with the excise policy case.
In its order, a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja recorded that the contempt proceedings had been initiated on the basis of an earlier order passed on May 14, in which a single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had taken exception to material allegedly circulated against the judiciary in a “derogatory” manner.
“The proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the order dated May 14. The single judge has placed reliance on the material from social media posts and other electronic and publication records. The Registry is directed to preserve copies of the same and place them before this Court,” the Delhi High Court observed.
It issued notice to the alleged contemnors, including AAP leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra and Durgesh Pathak, granting them four weeks to file their replies.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 4. Even as no counsel appeared on behalf of the alleged contemnors during the hearing, the Justice Chawla-led Bench indicated that it would appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court in adjudicating the criminal contempt proceedings.
The contempt of court case arose from an order passed last week by a single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who had observed that a “coordinated social media campaign” was carried out to scandalise the judiciary following her refusal to recuse from hearing the excise policy case.
In a detailed order, Justice Sharma had held that the actions of the proposed contemnors were “calculated to scandalise the Court, lower the authority of the institution of justice, interfere with the administration of justice, and intimidate the independent exercise of judicial functions”.
The Delhi High Court had observed that while criticism of judicial orders is permissible, there exists “a very thin line” between fair criticism and attempts to portray a judge as biased through organised campaigns.
“The Court cannot permit erosion of the constitutional system and the justice delivery mechanism by tolerating such assaults in the name of public discourse,” the order had said.
Justice Sharma had also clarified that the initiation of contempt proceedings was not driven by personal grievance but was aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary. The judge subsequently recused from hearing the main excise policy case, observing that the matter could be heard by another Bench to avoid any perception of bias.
Following Justice Sharma’s recusal, a single-judge Bench of Justice Manoj Jain was constituted to hear the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s revision plea challenging the trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the alleged corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy.
The trial court, in a judgment running into more than 1,100 paragraphs, had discharged all accused persons, holding that the now-scrapped excise policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative process and that the prosecution failed to establish an overarching conspiracy.
In its plea before the Delhi High Court, the CBI has alleged that the excise policy framed by the then AAP-led Delhi government was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks.
–IANS
pds/dpb
