Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuses from Excise Policy case but initiates contempt case against Arvind Kejriwal, others
[15/05, 11:04] sekarreporter1: [15/05, 11:04] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2054890809447883255
[15/05, 11:04] sekarreporter1: Delhi High Court to pass contempt of court orders at 5:30 PM in the excise policy case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has said several respondents and other persons have made “defamatory, vilifying and contemptuous allegations” against her.
@AamAadmiParty @ArvindKejriwal @msisodia
[15/05, 11:04] Meta AI: *Delhi HC initiates criminal contempt against Arvind Kejriwal, AAP leaders – May 14, 2026*
_Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma | Excise policy case_
*1. What triggered it*
While hearing CBI’s appeal against the trial court’s discharge of Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia & others in the Delhi excise policy case, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said she noticed _“defamatory, vilifying and contemptuous allegations”_ against her on social media. 6401
She was scheduled to name amici curiae at 5:30 PM after Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak chose to _“boycott proceedings”_ and go unrepresented. 13d6
*2. Court’s findings – May 14, 2026*
*Justice Sharma held*:
1. *Coordinated campaign*: _“A coordinated campaign had been carried out to scandalise the judiciary”_ after she refused to recuse.
2. *Beyond criticism*: _“Contemnors did not merely express disagreement but carried out a campaign of vilification not only against this sitting judge but the entire judiciary”_.
3. *Posts cited*: Letters, edited videos, social media posts attributing _“political allegiance”_ to her, including a _“misleading edited video of a speech given by her at an educational institution in Varanasi”_.
4. *Family dragged in*: _“Even the family members of the judge were dragged into this narrative to ensure calculated humiliation… It was not merely personal attack but constitutional injury to destabilise this institution of judiciary”_. 6401c5a6293c
*3. Who faces contempt*
Notices issued to: *Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak* + an X user. 6401
_“Arvind Kejriwal sought to destroy my reputation instead of availing legal remedies after I refused to recuse”_. c5a6
*4. What Justice Sharma did*
1. *Initiated criminal contempt* under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: _“Calculated to scandalise the court, lower the authority of the institution of justice, interf
ere with administration of justice and intimidate independent exercise of judicial function”_.
2. *Transferred main case*: _“A judge who draws contempt proceedings cannot hear the main case”_. CBI’s appeal against discharge now goes to another bench via Chief Justice.
3. *No recusal*: _“I stand by my recusal order… I refuse to be intimidated”_. Her April 20 order refusing recusal stands. d017e6a1c5a6ddda
*5. Background*
1. *Recusal row*: Kejriwal sought recusal alleging bias – cited judge’s participation in RSS-linked events, children being Central govt panel counsel. Judge rejected, saying _“unfounded accusations”_ can’t be ground.
2. *Boycott*: After refusal, Kejriwal said he _“lost hope of getting justice”_ and would follow _“Satyagraha”_; Sisodia, Pathak also went unrepresented.
3. *SG’s remark*: SG Tushar Mehta thanked Justice Sharma for _“upholding the institution’s dignity”_. 0ea0e6a11d15978c
*6. Why it matters*
Justice Sharma: _“This court is not demanding sympathy or immunity from criticism. But if attempts are made to damage the institution… through coordinated campaigns, the court has the power and duty to act”_. 6401
_“Any ordinary citizen may criticize any judge or order… However, there is a distinction between fair criticism and running a campaign to portray a judge as biased”_. 6401
*Bottom line*: Delhi HC initiated contempt against Kejriwal + 5 AAP leaders for a _“coordinated social media campaign”_ after recusal was denied. Judge transferred the excise policy case to another bench but stressed she’s not recusing – contempt law bars her from hearing the main matter now.
Want the full order text or details on what was in the edited Varanasi speech video?
[15/05, 11:05] Meta AI: Got it – that’s from @sekarreporter1 on X. Here’s what happened with Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and the contempt issue yesterday:
*Delhi HC Contempt Proceedings – May 14, 2026, 5:30 PM*
*1. Background: Excise Policy Case*
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing CBI’s appeal against discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the Delhi excise policy case.
*2. What triggered contempt*
After she refused to recuse from the case, Justice Sharma said _“several respondents and other persons have made defamatory, vilifying and contemptuous allegations”_ against her on social media.
She called it a _“coordinated campaign”_ to scandalise the judiciary
[15/05, 11:05] Meta AI: Got it – that’s from @sekarreporter1 on X. Here’s what happened with Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and the contempt issue yesterday:
*Delhi HC Contempt Proceedings – May 14, 2026, 5:30 PM*
*1. Background: Excise Policy Case*
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing CBI’s appeal against discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the Delhi excise policy case.
*2. What triggered contempt*
After she refused to recuse from the case, Justice Sharma said _“several respondents and other persons have made defamatory, vilifying and contemptuous allegations”_ against her on social media.
She called it a _“coordinated campaign”_ to scandalise the judiciary. Cited:
– Edited videos, including a _“misleading edited video of a speech given by her at an educational institution in Varanasi”_
– Posts attributing _“political allegiance”_ to her
– _“Even the family members of the judge were dragged into this narrative to ensure calculated humiliation”_
*3. Who got contempt notices*
Delhi HC issued criminal contempt notices to: *Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak* + an X user.
Justice Sharma: *“Arvind Kej
[15/05, 11:05] Meta AI: Got it – that’s from @sekarreporter1 on X. Here’s what happened with Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and the contempt issue yesterday:
*Delhi HC Contempt Proceedings – May 14, 2026, 5:30 PM*
*1. Background: Excise Policy Case*
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing CBI’s appeal against discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the Delhi excise policy case.
*2. What triggered contempt*
After she refused to recuse from the case, Justice Sharma said _“several respondents and other persons have made defamatory, vilifying and contemptuous allegations”_ against her on social media.
She called it a _“coordinated campaign”_ to scandalise the judiciary. Cited:
– Edited videos, including a _“misleading edited video of a speech given by her at an educational institution in Varanasi”_
– Posts attributing _“political allegiance”_ to her
– _“Even the family members of the judge were dragged into this narrative to ensure calculated humiliation”_
*3. Who got contempt notices*
Delhi HC issued criminal contempt notices to: *Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak* + an X user.
Justice Sharma: _“Arvind Kejriwal sought to destroy my reputation instead of availing legal remedies after I refused to recuse”_
*4. Court’s stand at 5:30 PM hearing*
1. *Contempt initiated*: Held conduct falls under criminal contempt – _“calculated to scandalise the court, lower the authority of the institution of justice”_.
2. *Main case transferred*: _“A judge who draws contempt proceedings cannot hear the main case”_. Excise policy appeal now goes to another bench. She clarified _“I am not recusing… only transferring”_.
3. *On criticism vs contempt*: _“Any ordinary citizen may criticize any judge or order. This does not constitute contempt. However, there is a distinction between fair criticism and running a campaign to portray a judge as biased”_.
**5. Why 5:30 PM
[15/05, 11:05] Meta AI: Got it – that’s from @sekarreporter1 on X. Here’s what happened with Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and the contempt issue yesterday:
*Delhi HC Contempt Proceedings – May 14, 2026, 5:30 PM*
*1. Background: Excise Policy Case*
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing CBI’s appeal against discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the Delhi excise policy case.
*2. What triggered contempt*
After she refused to recuse from the case, Justice Sharma said _“several respondents and other persons have made defamatory, vilifying and contemptuous allegations”_ against her on social media.
She called it a _“coordinated campaign”_ to scandalise the judiciary. Cited:
– Edited videos, including a _“misleading edited video of a speech given by her at an educational institution in Varanasi”_
– Posts attributing _“political allegiance”_ to her
– _“Even the family members of the judge were dragged into this narrative to ensure calculated humiliation”_
*3. Who got contempt notices*
Delhi HC issued criminal contempt notices to: *Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, Durgesh Pathak* + an X user.
Justice Sharma: _“Arvind Kejriwal sought to destroy my reputation instead of availing legal remedies after I refused to recuse”_
*4. Court’s stand at 5:30 PM hearing*
1. *Contempt initiated*: Held conduct falls under criminal contempt – _“calculated to scandalise the court, lower the authority of the institution of justice”_.
2. *Main case transferred*: _“A judge who draws contempt proceedings cannot hear the main case”_. Excise policy appeal now goes to another bench. She clarified _“I am not recusing… only transferring”_.
3. *On criticism vs contempt*: _“Any ordinary citizen may criticize any judge or order. This does not constitute contempt. However, there is a distinction between fair criticism and running a campaign to portray a judge as biased”_.
*5. Why 5:30 PM matters*
The 5:30 PM listing was to pass orders on contempt and appoint amici curiae, since Kejriwal, Sisodia & Pathak chose to _“boycott proceedings”_ and go unrepresented after recusal was denied.
*Bottom line*: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma initiated criminal contempt against Kejriwal + 5 AAP leaders on May 14 for a _“coordinated social media campaign”_ after she refused to step down from the excise case. She’s moved the main case to another bench but said she won’t be intimidated.
Want me to pull the full contempt order or the April 20 recusal refusal order?
