Delhi HC issues contempt notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia over judiciary remarks
Synopsis
The Delhi High Court has escalated the judiciary-versus-AAP standoff by issuing criminal contempt notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and other party leaders — all stemming from a single-judge finding that a coordinated social media campaign was run to scandalise the court. With the excise policy corruption case also moving before a new bench, AAP now faces simultaneous legal battles on two fronts.
Key Takeaways
The Delhi High Court issued criminal contempt notices to Arvind Kejriwal , Manish Sisodia , Sanjay Singh , Saurabh Bharadwaj , Vinay Mishra , and Durgesh Pathak on 19 May .
Proceedings were triggered by a 14 May order by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma , who found a 'coordinated social media campaign' aimed at scandalising the judiciary.
All alleged contemnors have four weeks to file replies; next hearing is on 4 August .
The Division Bench will appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court, as no counsel appeared for any of the accused.
Justice Sharma subsequently recused from the main excise policy case; Justice Manoj Jain has been constituted to hear the CBI 's revision plea.
The trial court had earlier discharged all accused in the excise case in a judgment spanning more than 1,100 paragraphs .
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, 19 May issued criminal contempt notices to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, and several other party leaders over alleged attempts to scandalise the judiciary in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.
What the Court Ordered
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja recorded that the contempt proceedings were initiated on the basis of an earlier order dated 14 May, in which a single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had taken strong exception to material allegedly circulated against the judiciary in what was described as a 'derogatory' manner.
'The proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the order dated May 14. The single judge has placed reliance on the material from social media posts and other electronic and publication records. The Registry is directed to preserve copies of the same and place them before this Court,' the Division Bench observed.
Notices were also issued to AAP leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, and Durgesh Pathak. All alleged contemnors have been granted four weeks to file their replies. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 4 August.
Amicus Curiae to Be Appointed
No counsel appeared on behalf of any of the alleged contemnors during the hearing. The Justice Chawla-led Bench indicated it would appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court in adjudicating the criminal contempt proceedings — a step typically taken when the matter involves broader questions of institutional integrity.
Background: The Single-Judge Order That Triggered Proceedings
The contempt case traces back to Justice Sharma's finding that a 'coordinated social media campaign' was carried out to scandalise the judiciary after she declined to recuse herself from hearing the excise policy case. In a detailed order, she 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.'
The court drew a firm line between permissible criticism of judicial orders and organised campaigns aimed at portraying a judge as biased, noting that 'a very thin line' separates the two. 'The Court cannot permit erosion of the constitutional system and the justice delivery mechanism by tolerating such assaults in the name of public discourse,' the order stated.
Justice Sharma subsequently recused from the main excise policy case, stating the matter could be heard by another Bench to avoid any perception of bias. She clarified that initiating contempt proceedings was not driven by personal grievance but was aimed at safeguarding judicial integrity.
The Excise Policy Case: Where It Stands
Following Justice Sharma's recusal, a single-judge Bench of Justice Manoj Jain was constituted to hear the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)'s revision plea. The CBI has challenged a trial court order that discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others in the alleged corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy.
The trial court, in a judgment running into more than 1,100 paragraphs, had discharged all accused persons, holding that the excise policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative process and that the prosecution had failed to establish an overarching conspiracy. The CBI has alleged before the Delhi High Court that the policy was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks.
What Comes Next
With the contempt matter now before a Division Bench and the main excise case revision before Justice Manoj Jain, AAP faces a dual legal front. The next substantive hearing on the contempt proceedings is scheduled for 4 August, by which point all alleged contemnors must have filed their replies. The appointment of an amicus curiae signals the court intends to treat the matter with institutional seriousness, regardless of the political backdrop.
Point of View
Not a routine contempt case. What is striking is the sequencing: a judge finds herself targeted, initiates contempt proceedings, and then recuses from the very case that allegedly prompted the campaign. That sequence, however well-intentioned, hands AAP a political narrative about judicial overreach, even as the court builds a legal record against it. The appointment of an amicus curiae before any of the accused have even filed replies suggests the court is preparing for a prolonged, high-stakes adjudication. The real question is whether the contempt proceedings and the CBI's excise revision will reach conclusions before the next electoral cycle reshapes the political calculus entirely.
NationPress
8 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has the Delhi High Court issued contempt notices to Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders?
The Delhi High Court issued criminal contempt notices because a single-judge Bench found that a 'coordinated social media campaign' was allegedly run to scandalise the judiciary after the judge declined to recuse from the excise policy case. The Division Bench has now taken up the proceedings and asked all alleged contemnors to file replies within four weeks.
What is the Delhi excise policy case about?
The Delhi excise policy case involves CBI allegations that the excise policy framed by the then AAP-led Delhi government was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks. The trial court had discharged all accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an overarching conspiracy — a finding the CBI has challenged before the Delhi High Court.
What happens next in the contempt proceedings?
All alleged contemnors — including Kejriwal, Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, and Durgesh Pathak — have four weeks to file their replies. The matter is listed for further hearing on 4 August. The court has also indicated it will appoint an amicus curiae to assist in adjudicating the criminal contempt case.
Why did Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse from the excise policy case?
Justice Sharma recused from the main excise policy case after initiating contempt proceedings, stating that the matter could be heard by another Bench to avoid any perception of bias. She clarified her decision to initiate contempt was aimed at protecting judicial integrity, not driven by personal grievance.
Who is now hearing the CBI's excise policy revision plea?
Following Justice Sharma's recusal, a single-judge Bench of Justice Manoj Jain has been constituted to hear the CBI's revision plea challenging the trial court order that discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others in the excise policy corruption case.
