Delhi Court Warns AAP Leaders, Seeks Response in Contempt Case

The Delhi High Court has issued notices to Arvind Kejriwal and several senior leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party in a criminal contempt case linked to alleged remarks against the judiciary. The matter was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who described the issue as serious and directed all accused leaders to submit their replies within four weeks. Among those named in the proceedings are Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and Saurabh Bhardwaj. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the dignity and impartiality of the judiciary while ensuring that all parties receive a fair opportunity to present their side. A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja also stated that an amicus curiae would be appointed to assist in the proceedings. The next hearing in the matter has been scheduled for August 4. During the hearing, the court noted that the contempt proceedings stemmed from an earlier order passed on May 14. The case is based on various social media posts, electronic records, and publicly circulated material allegedly targeting the court and the judge. The registry has been instructed to preserve all relevant online records and produce them before the court as evidence. Justice Sharma had earlier observed that certain statements made by political leaders in connection with the excise policy case appeared “highly derogatory, defamatory, and contemptuous.” The court specifically referred to comments allegedly made by Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bhardwaj, and Vinay Mishra as serious in nature. The proceedings were initiated suo motu after the judge took note of these public remarks. The controversy is also linked to earlier objections raised by Kejriwal and other AAP leaders regarding Justice Sharma hearing matters related to the excise policy case. The leaders had questioned the judge’s impartiality and announced they would not appoint lawyers to represent them in her court, describing their move as a “satyagraha.” They had also sought her recusal from the case, but the court rejected the request and criticized the allegations and suspicions raised against the judiciary.