A criminal contempt petitioner informed the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that journalist Saurav Das and Aam Aadmi Party leaders, including Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, removed social media posts criticizing Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The posts alleged a conflict of interest and formed the basis of the contempt case against them.
Advocate Ashok Chaitanya, who filed the contempt proceedings, told a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja that while the posts seemed deleted, he had preserved digital copies. “They appear to have removed the material I relied on, but I recorded it. That is available with me,” he said, asking to submit the electronic evidence. The court granted his request.
Chaitanya told Bar & Bench he was referring to Das, Kejriwal, and AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Gopal Rai. Yet the posts in question are still accessible online.
The case began after an April 9 post by Das on X, where he claimed Justice Sharma’s son and daughter had been empanelled by the Central government before the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. The allegations suggested a possible conflict, as Justice Sharma was overseeing the CBI’s challenge to the discharge of Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others in the excise policy case.
Kejriwal reacted to Das’s post with a quote tweet: “Is this true? V v explosive.” Bharadwaj and Rai shared the claims, questioning the judge’s impartiality. These posts remain live on the platform.
Court orders evidence shared with respondents
The High Court also heard a separate contempt case against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders, started after Justice Sharma noted their public statements and letters refusing to participate in the excise policy case.
Related: Court rejects bail for Hyderabad man
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, representing Kejriwal, said the material used to initiate contempt proceedings had not been provided to the respondents. Similar arguments came from counsel for Sisodia, Bharadwaj, Sanjay Singh, and Durgesh Pathak. The court instructed its registry to share the evidence and gave the respondents four weeks to reply. The next hearing is set for September 21.
The case began on May 14, when Justice Sharma observed Kejriwal and others had publicly refused to attend hearings, citing bias. She was presiding over the CBI’s appeal against their discharge in the excise policy case at the time. The proceedings later moved to the bench led by Justice Chawla.
Chaitanya’s petition, filed with the consent of the Delhi government’s Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal), Sanjeev Bhandari, accuses Kejriwal, Das, Bharadwaj, and Rai of running a coordinated campaign on X. It describes their posts as “serious, unfounded, and scandalous allegations” against Justice Sharma.
This situation highlights the boundary between political criticism and judicial contempt, especially when public figures comment on ongoing legal matters. The court must now determine if the posts crossed into criminal contempt, which requires proof of deliberate disrespect or attempts to undermine the judiciary.
The respondents have until mid-September to submit their replies.
Disputes over trademark valuation in insolvency cases often face similar scrutiny when public figures weigh in on judicial decisions.
