NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Thursday initiated criminal contempt proceedings against AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal and other party leaders over alleged defamatory posts targeting her in relation to the excise policy case.
The contempt proceedings also name AAP leaders Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra and Saurabh Bhardwaj.
Justice Sharma said their conduct fell within the definition of criminal contempt of court. “This court came to learn that letters, videos and social media campaigns were widely circulated. It was a coordinated campaign. While the issue inside the court was dealt with, a parallel narrative outside was being constructed through digital campaign and insinuation directed at this court,” she said.
While initiating the contempt proceedings, Justice Sharma said that “when the institution is put on trial, it becomes the duty of the judge to ensure that the court is not governed by such allegations.”
The judge took exception to several social media posts by the proposed contemnors that attributed "political allegiance" to her and allegedly targeted her by posting a misleading "edited" video of a speech given by her at an educational institution in Varanasi.
“Videos were circulated which were edited. They chose to intimidate me. While narratives were being manufactured against this court. 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,” she said.
“My silence should not be taken as my weakness. My children were wholly disconnected with this case and yet they were targeted. Kejriwal tried to sow seeds of distrust against the judiciary,” Justice Sharma added.
She said that though Kejriwal had said inside the court that he respected it, “outside court he orchestrated a coordinated campaign against me”.
The judge, meanwhile, said that since she had initiated contempt proceedings, she was sending the excise case to the High Court Chief Justice so that the matter could be listed before another judge.
The judge clarified that she was not recusing herself from the matter because there was any merit in the allegations raised by the respondents.
“This case could be heard by any judge, but the contempt proceedings could be only heard by me. I have decided that action be taken against such people who run such a campaign against the judiciary. This court has already rejected the demand for recusal. However, subsequent events give rise to different issues. Therefore, let it be a reminder that you pay a personal price for constitutional courage,” the judge said.
Justice Sharma said that though the robe worn by a judge demands calmness, “sometimes remaining silent is not judicial restrain.”
“The moment has arrived today. The utterances by the contemnors did not merely express disagreement but they lead to only one conclusion that it was a campaign of vilification not against this sitting judge but the entire judiciary. Some of the contemnors were armed by political power,” she said.
The judge further said that she did not expect political retaliation.
“This institution is not political. The survival of the judiciary depends not on its power but public confidence. Any attempt to destroy that confidence through a coordinated campaign constitutes the gravest instance of contempt…,” she said.
“A lie spoken thousand times does not become truth. The law of contempt does not protect an individual judge but the institution. Constitutional duty of the court is to ensure the rule of law does not collapse by choosing convenience,” she added.
The judge said that the letter boycotting proceedings was circulated.
“If you defame the court, the court has the weapons to use them. I have no expectation of applause from you. This court will keep issuing such orders whenever people try to sabotage the system,” Justice Sharma said.
The court was hearing CBI's petition challenging the trial court's order discharging former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case.
The court had earlier decided to appoint senior lawyers as amici curiae to represent the unrepresented respondents, i.e, AAP leaders Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.
During the hearing, Justice Sharma said some senior counsel have "graciously accepted" the court's recommendation but in the meantime, she came across the contemptuous material.
Kejriwal and MLAs have boycotted the hearing before Justice Sharma after the judge refused to recuse herself on their applications alleging conflict of interest and apprehension of bias.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, as it ruled that the case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications seeking her recusal in the case on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak wrote a letter to her, stating they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow "Mahatma Gandhi's path of Satyagraha".
On April 5, the court noted that none appeared for the AAP leaders in the proceedings and closed their right to file their replies. It, however, stated that it would pass an order appointing three senior lawyers to represent them.
Kejriwal, Sisodia and other respondents claimed that the judge's children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appears for the CBI in the excise case.
On April 20, Justice Sharma junked the recusal plea, saying that judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant's unfounded apprehension of bias. Pathak, Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai had also sought her recusal.
