Delhi HC issues contempt notice to AAP's Gopal Rai, journalist over excise case posts
Synopsis
The Delhi High Court's contempt net widened on Friday as AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das were served notices over alleged social media attacks on Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma — the judge who had already recused herself from the excise policy case after what she called a coordinated campaign to scandalise the judiciary. With Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Sanjay Singh already in the dock, the case is fast becoming one of the most consequential judicial-political confrontations in recent Delhi history.
Key Takeaways
Delhi High Court issued contempt notices to AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das on 22 May over alleged social media posts targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma .
The petition was filed by Ashok Chaitanya under Section 15(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Arvind Kejriwal and Saurabh Bharadwaj had already been issued notices in earlier suo motu proceedings; both matters will now be heard together on 4 August .
Senior Advocate Rajdipa Behura appointed as amicus curiae; Registry directed to preserve all social media material cited in the petition.
Justice Sharma recused herself from the excise case after her 14 May order; the matter has since been assigned to Justice Manoj Jain .
The trial court had discharged all accused in the excise policy case in a judgment of more than 1,100 paragraphs ; the CBI's revision plea is now before the High Court.
The Delhi High Court on Friday, 22 May issued notices to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Gopal Rai and investigative journalist Saurav Das in a criminal contempt petition, alleging that they circulated scandalous and contemptuous content on social media against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. The petition was filed by Ashok Chaitanya under Section 15(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution.
What the Petition Alleges
The petition alleged that following the trial court's discharge of Arvind Kejriwal and other accused in the excise policy corruption case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) moved a criminal revision petition before the Delhi High Court, which was listed before Justice Sharma. According to the petitioner, attempts were subsequently made to seek the transfer of the matter and the recusal of Justice Sharma.
The petition further alleged that while the recusal application was pending, the respondents carried out a 'concerted and orchestrated campaign' on social media platform X, publishing and amplifying posts containing 'serious, unfounded, and scandalous allegations' against the judge — including claims of bias, conflict of interest, and impropriety based on purported professional engagements of her family members.
Court's Key Directions
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja noted that the petition had also sought contempt proceedings against AAP national convenor and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and party leader Saurabh Bharadwaj. However, the bench observed that both had already been issued notices in the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated earlier by the court.
The bench directed that the two matters be heard together and listed them for the next hearing on 4 August. Rai and Das were directed to file their replies before that date. The court also ordered the Registry to preserve the social media material relied upon in the petition and appointed Senior Advocate Rajdipa Behura as amicus curiae to assist the court.
Background: The Suo Motu Proceedings
The broader contempt proceedings have their roots in an order passed by Justice Sharma on 14 May, in which she took exception to material allegedly circulated against the judiciary in a 'derogatory' manner. On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court had already issued notices to Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh, and AAP leaders Vinay Mishra and Durgesh Pathak, granting them four weeks to file replies.
In her detailed order, Justice Sharma had held that the actions of the proposed contemnors were 'calculated to scandalise the Court, lower the authority of the institution of justice, interfere with the administration of justice, and intimidate the independent exercise of judicial functions.' She had also observed that while criticism of judicial orders is permissible, there is 'a very thin line' between fair criticism and organised campaigns to portray a judge as biased.
Recusal and Reassignment
Justice Sharma subsequently recused herself from hearing the excise policy case to avoid any perception of bias, following which Justice Manoj Jain was assigned to hear the CBI's revision plea. The revision petition challenges the trial court's order discharging Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others — a judgment spanning more than 1,100 paragraphs — which held that the excise policy was the outcome of a consultative process and that the prosecution failed to establish any overarching conspiracy.
The CBI, in its revision petition, has alleged that the excise policy framed by the then AAP-led Delhi government was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks. With the next hearing set for 4 August, the widening contempt proceedings are set to test the boundaries between political speech and the administration of justice.
Point of View
Yet the contempt proceedings she set in motion continue under a different bench. The widening net to include a journalist alongside politicians signals that the court is drawing a firm line around social media commentary on pending matters. Whether that line holds under appellate scrutiny — given constitutional free-speech protections — will be the real test of these proceedings.
NationPress
6 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Delhi High Court issue contempt notices to Gopal Rai and Saurav Das?
The Delhi High Court issued criminal contempt notices to AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das on 22 May following a petition alleging they circulated scandalous and contemptuous social media content against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. The petition claims the posts were part of a coordinated campaign to portray the judge as biased.
What is the Delhi excise policy contempt case about?
The contempt proceedings stem from an order by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on 14 May, in which she held that a coordinated social media campaign was launched to scandalise the judiciary after she refused to recuse herself from hearing the CBI's revision petition in the excise policy case. The High Court subsequently initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against multiple AAP leaders.
Who else has been issued contempt notices in this case?
Earlier suo motu proceedings resulted in notices to former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh, and AAP leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, and Durgesh Pathak. All matters will now be heard together on 4 August.
Why did Justice Sharma recuse herself from the excise policy case?
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recused herself from the case to avoid any perception of bias, following the social media campaign alleging conflict of interest and impropriety involving her family members' professional engagements. The case was subsequently assigned to Justice Manoj Jain.
What is the current status of the excise policy case before the Delhi High Court?
The CBI's criminal revision petition — challenging the trial court's order that discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others — is now being heard by Justice Manoj Jain. The trial court had discharged all accused in a judgment of more than 1,100 paragraphs, finding that the prosecution failed to establish any overarching conspiracy.
