Kejriwal posts 'Truth has triumphed' after Delhi HC judge recuses from excise case
Synopsis
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stepped back from the CBI's excise case revision plea — but refused to yield on contempt. Her pointed order, accusing Kejriwal of a 'calculated campaign of vilification,' and his immediate 'Truth has triumphed' post on X reveal how sharply the battle between AAP's top leadership and the Delhi High Court has escalated.
Key Takeaways
Arvind Kejriwal posted 'Truth has triumphed.
Gandhi's Satyagraha has once again triumphed' on X on 14 May after the judge's recusal.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recused herself from the CBI's revision plea challenging the discharge of AAP leaders in the Delhi excise policy case .
The judge will continue to hear criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia , and Durgesh Pathak .
Justice Sharma found that Kejriwal's conduct — including a letter declaring loss of faith in her court — fell under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act .
The court flagged manipulated videos, including one from a Varanasi university, as 'extremely vilifying' and confirmed as doctored by fact-checkers.
The excise policy case will now be heard by a different judge ; contempt proceedings remain with Justice Sharma.
Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday, 14 May posted a cryptic message on social media platform X — 'Truth has triumphed. Gandhi's Satyagraha has once again triumphed' — hours after Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recused herself from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) revision plea challenging the discharge of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Kejriwal and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, in the Delhi excise policy case.
What Justice Sharma Decided
While stepping back from the CBI's revision plea, Justice Sharma made clear she would continue to preside over the criminal contempt proceedings against the AAP leaders. Pronouncing her order, she declared: 'I refuse to be intimidated,' stating that the campaign directed against her was not merely personal but constituted an attack on the judiciary as an institution.
The excise policy case will now be listed before a different judge, while the contempt proceedings remain with Justice Sharma.
The Contempt Charge Explained
Justice Sharma observed that Kejriwal had orchestrated a calculated campaign of vilification in the digital space — one that went beyond criticism of her as an individual judge and amounted to undermining the institution of the judiciary itself. She noted that Kejriwal's letter, in which he declared he would remain unrepresented and had lost faith in her court, along with similar conduct by Sisodia and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak, fell within the ambit of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The judge emphasised that such conduct, if left unchecked, would send a dangerous signal that courts could be subjected to organised public pressure campaigns.
Manipulated Videos and Family Members Targeted
The court also took strong exception to edited videos circulated online, including one purportedly showing Justice Sharma delivering a lecture at a university in Varanasi. She described these videos as 'extremely vilifying, extremely contemptuous and defamatory', noting that even independent fact-checking organisations had confirmed the footage was manipulated. She further observed that family members had been drawn into the narrative, intensifying what she characterised as a campaign of humiliation.
Judiciary Will Not Bend, Court Asserts
Rejecting recusal pleas on grounds of alleged bias, Justice Sharma stressed that unfounded allegations not only tarnish individual judges but cast aspersions on the collective integrity of the judiciary. 'Justice in Bharat shall remain fearless,' she declared, asserting that silence in the face of such campaigns could be misconstrued as weakness. She made clear that while criticism of judicial decisions is permissible, campaigns designed to scandalise and delegitimise the institution will not be tolerated.
The case now heads to a fresh bench for the excise policy discharge challenge, even as the contempt cloud over AAP's top leadership deepens.
Point of View
While legally risky, appears calibrated to shift the political narrative from corruption charges to judicial overreach. Kejriwal's immediate 'Satyagraha' framing on X underscores that this is as much a communications battle as a legal one. The deeper question mainstream coverage is underplaying: whether organised social media pressure on judges — regardless of political affiliation — is becoming a replicable playbook, and whether the judiciary's contempt powers are an adequate or proportionate response.
NationPress
1 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse herself from the Delhi excise case?
Justice Sharma recused herself from the CBI's revision plea challenging the discharge of AAP leaders in the excise policy case, citing a sustained campaign of vilification directed at her in the digital space. She did not recuse herself from the criminal contempt proceedings against the same leaders, which will continue before her.
What did Arvind Kejriwal post on X after the recusal?
Kejriwal posted 'Truth has triumphed. Gandhi's Satyagraha has once again triumphed' on social media platform X shortly after the order was pronounced. The post was widely read as a veiled celebration of the judge's recusal from the excise case plea.
What are the criminal contempt charges against AAP leaders?
Justice Sharma found that Kejriwal's letter declaring he had lost faith in her court and would remain unrepresented, along with similar conduct by Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak, constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The court held this amounted to scandalising the judiciary, not merely criticising a judicial decision.
What happens next in the Delhi excise policy case?
The CBI's revision plea challenging the discharge of Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other AAP leaders will be listed before a different Delhi High Court judge. The criminal contempt proceedings, however, remain with Justice Sharma and will continue.
What was the court's finding on the videos circulated online?
Justice Sharma took strong exception to edited videos circulated on social media, including one showing her at a university in Varanasi, describing them as 'extremely vilifying, extremely contemptuous and defamatory.' She noted that independent fact-checking organisations had confirmed the videos were manipulated.
