The Delhi High Court has initiated contempt of court proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal and other senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders [1].
The move signals a deepening conflict between the Delhi judiciary and the city's political leadership, highlighting the legal boundaries of public criticism against sitting judges.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the proceedings follow the posting of material online that she described as "extremely vilifying, extremely contemptuous, and defamatory" [1, 2]. The judge said the content was an attack on the judiciary [1, 2].
During the proceedings, Justice Sharma addressed the attempt to influence her court. "They wanted to intimidate me. Mujhe darana chahte the. I REFUSE TO BE INTIMIDATED," she said [1]. She said that Arvind Kejriwal cannot intimidate her [2].
As a result of the conflict, Justice Sharma recused herself from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) involving Kejriwal and senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia [3]. The case involved the sharing of court videos [3].
"This matter will not be heard by this bench," Justice Sharma said [3]. This recusal ensures that the excise policy case will be moved to a different bench to avoid further conflict of interest or allegations of bias [1].
“"I REFUSE TO BE INTIMIDATED."”
This development creates a significant legal hurdle for the AAP leadership, as contempt of court charges can lead to fines or imprisonment. By recusing herself from the excise policy case, Justice Sharma has prevented the current controversy from compromising the legal integrity of that specific trial, though it intensifies the adversarial relationship between the Delhi High Court and the city's executive branch.
