Bhubaneswar: In a dramatic turn of events at the Delhi High Court on Thursday, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma initiated criminal contempt of court proceedings against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal and several high-ranking leaders, including Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and Saurabh Bharadwaj. The move follows what the court described as a "coordinated campaign of vilification" and "psychological coercion" aimed at the judiciary.

​While the judge had previously refused to recuse herself from the high-profile Delhi excise policy case, she announced today that she would now withdraw from the matter to ensure the integrity of the proceedings—though she made it clear this was not a concession to the litigants' demands.

​A "Coordinated Campaign" of Distorted Narratives

​The court highlighted a series of social media attacks and digital campaigns orchestrated by the accused after Justice Sharma rejected their initial recusal applications on April 20. In that previous order, the judge had warned that allowing politicians to "sow seeds of mistrust" would be akin to putting the judiciary itself on trial.

​According to Justice Sharma, the AAP leadership bypassed legal remedies in favour of a narrative-building exercise:

​Edited Media: The judge flagged a viral video, edited to just 59 seconds, which falsely suggested she was speaking at a political event. In reality, she was addressing a law college.

​Ignoring Fact-Checks: The court noted that even after outlets like Bar & Bench, PTI, and AltNews debunked the edited video, the contemnors continued to circulate the misinformation.

​Personal Attacks: The judge lamented that her children, who are among hundreds of panel lawyers for the Central government, were dragged into the fray to suggest a conflict of interest.

​"Though inside court, Mr. Kejriwal said he respects the court, outside court he orchestrated a coordinated campaign against me," Justice Sharma stated.

​The Decision to Recuse

​Despite impassioned pleas from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG SV Raju to continue hearing the CBI’s challenge against the discharge of the accused, Justice Sharma stood firm on her decision to step down from the main excise case.

​The SG argued that "unscrupulous litigants" should not be rewarded for avoiding the Supreme Court and attacking judges instead. He noted that his office never accepts briefs in courts where a judge’s child is practicing, dismissing the AAP’s conflict-of-interest claims as "stooping low."

​However, Justice Sharma reasoned that her continued involvement would only fuel the defendants' claims of bias:

​Preserving Public Confidence: "If I keep hearing this case, Arvind Kejriwal and other people might think that I have a grudge against him," she noted.

​Constitutional Injury: She clarified that while she is trained to handle fair criticism, the current campaign was a "constitutional injury" designed to destabilize the institution.

​Context of the Excise Policy Case

​The underlying legal battle stems from the 2021-22 Delhi Excise Policy, which the CBI and ED allege was manipulated to favour a "liquor cartel" in exchange for kickbacks. While a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others on February 27, Justice Sharma had stayed that order on March 9, finding some of the trial court’s observations to be prima facie erroneous.

​"A Reminder of Personal Price"

​In a poignant concluding sentiment, Justice Sharma emphasized that the initiation of contempt was a necessary shield for the judiciary's survival, which depends on public confidence rather than political power.

​"Let it be a reminder that you pay a personal price for constitutional courage," she remarked, as she ordered the excise policy matter to be posted before a different bench. The contempt proceedings, however, will move forward to address the allegations of "anarchy" and "vilification" leveled against the AAP leadership.