‘If judges are threatened to remain silent to the liking of politically powerful persons, justice itself may become a casualty’: Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma initiates criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Sisodia and other AAP leaders
While initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders for allegedly orchestrating a social media campaign to vilify and intimidate the presiding judge, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma transferred the excise policy case to the Chief Justice for reassignment — clarifying that the transfer was not an acceptance of recusal, which she continues to reject.
Tanishka Shah
Published on: 15 May 2026, 10:29 am
YESTERDAY, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma read out an order initiating criminal contempt proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against Arvind Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party leaders, including Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, for allegedly making defamatory and vilifying allegations against her on social media.
“A judicial order passed by this court displeased a politically influential accused. While the course legally open to him to take the matter to the Supreme Court was not taken by him. Instead, he carried the dispute to social media platforms where truth becomes secondary and amplification and intimidation to orchestrated narrative devoid of truth was clothed as democratic right to free speech,” she said. She also noted that portions of her lecture delivered at a law college were selectively edited and circulated online.
Consequently, the Court directed that the excise policy case be listed before the Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate bench. Justice Sharma made it explicitly clear that this administrative transfer was not an acceptance of the recusal application, which remains rejected. She stated, “I stand by my recusal order... I would not change even a single word of what I said then,” adding that her decision reflects “judicial discipline... even if you do anything, I will still be fair to you. I am not hearing [the case] because I have drawn your contempt.”
“If in the name of judicial tolerance and silence such conduct is allowed to pass unchecked and judges are threatened into silence or compelled to render orders to the liking of political[ly] powerful persons, justice itself may become a casualty,” Justice Sharma said.
Why were the contempt proceedings initiated?
The contempt proceedings were initiated after the Court noted that the respondents had moved beyond the bounds of fair criticism and had allegedly engaged in a coordinated campaign of vilification and intimidation aimed at scandalising the judiciary and eroding public faith in the institution.
A key basis for the contempt action was the circulation of selectively edited videos of a lecture delivered by Justice Sharma at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith in Varanasi. The Court noted that these clips were manipulated by removing contextual details, including university banners, and were used to falsely suggest that the judge had claimed receiving “promotions” for attending programmes linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) or the Bharatiya Janata Party (‘BJP’). Justice Sharma clarified that the statements made in her original lecture referred to spiritual visits to Lord Shiva and the personal sense of growth or spiritual upliftment associated with those visits.
Justice Sharma held that Kejriwal had, on one hand, professed respect for the court within the courtroom, while allegedly orchestrating a campaign outside it to damage the reputation of the presiding judge. “The accused repeatedly stated that he holds utmost respect for this court as an individual judge and integrity of this court. This court reiterates that it has reiterated during the proceedings this court also respects all litigants and persons who appear before it,” she noted. However, she held that the respondents had attacked judicial independence by publicly alleging that the Court was incapable of deciding matters fairly because of ideological or political alignment. Statements suggesting that the outcome of the case was “foretold” or “tilted in one direction” were viewed by the Court as attempts to overawe the judiciary and undermine confidence in the adjudicatory process.
Justice Sharma also noted that the alleged attacks extended beyond the judicial office to her family members, including her children, despite their having no connection to the proceedings. She described this as one of the most disturbing aspects of the campaign and observed that it conveyed a message that a judge’s personal life and reputation would be publicly broken and vilified if judicial orders did not conform to the expectations of politically influential individuals.
Several statements by leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party, including Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, and others, were also taken into account. The table below sets them out:
