The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed its registry to supply, in digital form, the material underpinning the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings 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 other party leaders. The court adjourned the matter to 21 September for the next round of arguments.

The proceedings relate to alleged attempts to scandalise the judiciary in connection with the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case.

Key Developments in Court

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja passed the direction after senior counsel appearing for Kejriwal and the other AAP leaders submitted that the relevant documents had not yet been furnished to them. The bench also granted the proposed contemnors four weeks to file their replies in the criminal contempt proceedings.

The court recorded that Kejriwal, Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, and Saurabh Bharadwaj had been served with contempt notices and had entered appearance before the court.

One Leader Yet to Be Served

Amicus curiae and senior advocate Rajdipa Behura informed the bench that AAP leader Devesh Vishwakarma had not yet been served with notice. The Justice Chawla-led bench directed that a fresh notice be issued to Vishwakarma through the concerned Station House Officer (SHO). It further directed that if Vishwakarma is unavailable at the given address, the SHO must ascertain his current residential address and ensure delivery of the notice along with the relied-upon material.

Background: How the Contempt Case Began

The criminal contempt proceedings originated from an order passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who took exception to what she described as an alleged coordinated social media campaign targeting the judiciary. The campaign allegedly followed her refusal to recuse herself from hearing the excise policy case.

Justice Sharma had observed 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.'

Acting on her 14 May order, the Division Bench of Justices Chawla and Dudeja had subsequently issued contempt notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and others. The registry had also been directed to preserve the relevant social media posts and other electronic and publication records.

What Happened After Justice Sharma's Recusal

Justice Sharma later recused herself from the main excise policy case. Following her recusal, the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) revision petition — challenging a trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others in the alleged corruption case linked to the excise policy — was reassigned to Justice Manoj Jain.

The contempt proceedings and the underlying excise policy case now run on separate tracks, with the next hearing in the contempt matter scheduled for 21 September.