'They Wanted To Intimidate Me': Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Arvind Kejriwal & Others In Liquor Policy Case

The Delhi High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal, senior party leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak in connection with remarks and social media posts linked to the excise policy case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notices against the three leaders, observing that unchecked public allegations against judges could undermine the judiciary and “lead to anarchy.” The court made the observations while hearing the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge order granted in favour of the AAP leaders in the excise policy matter.

The controversy escalated after Kejriwal wrote to the judge stating that he would not participate in proceedings before her court, claiming he had “lost hope of getting justice” and would instead follow the path of “Satyagraha” inspired by Mahatma Gandhi. Sisodia and Pathak later conveyed that they too would remain unrepresented before the court.

Earlier, Justice Sharma had declined requests seeking her recusal from the matter. Rejecting the plea, the judge said accepting such requests based on “unfounded accusations” would create a dangerous precedent and cast doubt on the integrity of the judiciary.

During the proceedings, Justice Sharma strongly criticised what she described as a “coordinated campaign” against the court. She stated that letters, edited videos and social media narratives were circulated to target and intimidate her. The judge said even her family members were dragged into the controversy as part of an alleged attempt to humiliate and pressure the court.

“My silence was being mistaken for weakness. It was not weakness,” the judge remarked, adding that the campaign amounted to “psychological coercion” and a “constitutional injury” aimed at destabilising the institution of judiciary.

Justice Sharma further observed that while Kejriwal expressed respect for the court during hearings, a parallel campaign questioning the court’s impartiality was allegedly orchestrated outside the courtroom. She noted that instead of challenging her refusal to recuse before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal chose to publicise his allegations through letters and videos circulated on social media.

The court warned that allowing such allegations to spread unchecked could seriously damage public faith in the judiciary and encourage litigants to openly target judges whenever dissatisfied with judicial orders.