In his letter to Justice Sharma, Kejriwal had expressed that he will go unrepresented in the CBI's excise policy case.Excise Policy Case Hearing Live Updates: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court on Thursday initiated criminal contempt action against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra, Saurabh Bharadwaj, and Devesh Vishwakarma in the excise policy case. The judge also said that she will not be hearing CBI’s revision plea against the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case.
“Arvind Kejriwal orchestrated a calculated campaign of vilification,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said while pronouncing the order in criminal contempt proceedings.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the calculated campaign of vilification in the digital space was directed not merely against her as an individual sitting judge but against the entire institution of the judiciary and adjudicatory process itself.
“The unfortunate statements and conduct of Arvind Kejriwal, Respondent number 18, appear to fall within the ambit of criminal contempt as defined in Section 2 C of the Contempt of Courts Act,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma added, “On similar grounds, Shri Manish Sisodia and Respondent number 19, Durgesh Pathak, also wrote some letters and posted some content which is also on the same lines found to be contemptuous, and it is observed that they also fall within the ambit of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2C of the Contempt of Court Acts.”
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma asserted that if actions of such nature were permitted to pass without notice, it may send a message that courts can be subjected to organised public pressure.
The court noted that while the issue inside the courtroom was being dealt with through the constitutional process of adjudication, a parallel narrative outside the courtroom had simultaneously begun to be constructed through selective dissemination and digital amplification against the court and the judge.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also took exception to certain ‘edited’ videos of her delivering a lecture at a university in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
“Particularly disturbing is the manner in which the video relating to the lecture delivered by this Court at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, came to be circulated in a cropped, edited and misleading manner”, the court observed.
It noted that it was one of the rare instances where a cropped and edited video of a sitting judge was repeatedly circulated and amplified by political functionaries, spokespersons, social media accounts, and digital platforms in order to support allegations of political affiliation.
“Extremely vilifying, extremely contemptuous, and defamatory material is being posted by some of the respondents against me and against this court,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said as she began the hearing of the excise policy case on Thursday. The judge said she will be initiating contempt proceedings against certain persons over the posts.
“Today I was to announce the names of the amicus that I was to appoint and I had made efforts and some senior counsel also very graciously even accepted. But in the meantime, it has come to my notice that extremely vilifying, extremely contemptuous, and defamatory material is being posted by some of the respondents against me and against this court, and I cannot stay silent. I have decided to draw contempt proceedings against some of the respondents and some other contemners,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Previous hearing: Earlier, the court had said that it will appoint three seniors (advocates) as amici curiae to represent AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak in the CBI’s plea against the discharge order passed in their favour in the excise policy case. This was after Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak had written to Justice Sharma, saying that they will go unrepresented in the excise case proceedings.
Boycott: Kejriwal had written a letter to Justice Sharma, saying that he will not participate in the proceedings pending before the judge. “I have lost hope of getting justice from Justice Swarana Kanta. Therefore, I have decided to follow the path of Satyagraha as shown by Mahatma Gandhi,” he said. After Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak also wrote to Justice Sharma informing that they too will go unrepresented before her court. Justice Sharma had earlier refused to recuse herself from hearing CBI’s plea.
In his letter to the court, Delhi ex-CM Arvind Kejriwal said he had lost faith in receiving justice from the bench and conveyed that he would neither appear in person nor be represented through counsel. (File image)
Recusal plea: While rejecting the recusal plea, Justice Sharma said, “If I were to accept these (recusal) applications, it would set a troubling precedent”. She also said that every unproven and unfounded accusation of bias or partiality is not merely put on an individual judge but also casts aspersions on the collective integrity of the institution of the judiciary itself. The judge said that the court will stand up for itself and for the institution when such standing is required, though it may appear difficult.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has initiated criminal contempt action against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra and Saurabh Bharadwaj in the excise policy case.
Pronouncement ends
ASG SV Raju also requests the judge to hear the main matter
Court: This is judicial discipline. Shouldn’t mean that I have recused. I am going to continue the contempt proceedings because I have drawn it.
Court to SG Mehta: I have written one more para. For a judge who is being targeted, it is a very lonely battle...People don’t support you. It’s a lonely battle for the judge and the family.
SG Mehta: I am thankful for maintaining the dignity of this institution.
Court: I could have heard this case but judicial propriety demands that I should not
SG Mehta: Some narrative building exercise which will go on let it go on. This institution is strong enough
SG Mehta: No politician stooped this low
SG Mehta requests the judge to continue hearing the main matter
Court: I will list this matter before chief justice so that case can be heard by another judge
Court: I won’t hear the main case but deal with contempt only....Kyuki in law jo judge contempt proceedings draw karta hain wo main case ko nahi sunta
Court says it will not hear the CBI's revision plea against the discharge order passed in excise policy case
Court: I stand by my recusal order, won’t change a single word
Court: This court had to speak not only for itself but for the institution. The moment has arrived when this court had to speak and has spoken. The question that history may ask is whether the constitutional institution in its hour of testing stood up for itself or surrendered to intimidation disguised as public discourse.
Court: When judicial silence is mistaken as weakness by those who are not familiar with constitutional discipline they presume that this silence is born out of fear and not of restraint...The question that history may ask is whether the constitutional institution, in its hour of testing, stood up for itself or surrendered to intimidation disguised as public discourse. The answer, in the opinion of this Court, should be in the affirmative.
Court: If actions of this nature are permitted to pass without notice, it may send a message that courts can be subjected to organised public pressure, vilification campaigns and false media narratives with the object of influencing judicial proceedings.
Court: Faced with such a situation, this Court was left with two options. The first option was to continue remaining silent despite repeated public attacks upon the integrity of this Court and the institution of the judiciary, and continue hearing the case. The second option was to take notice of the conduct complained of and examine whether the same disclosed acts amount to criminal contempt affecting administration of justice and public confidence in the judiciary.
Court: Under such pressure, this Court shall not bend to personal targeting and holds that the rule of law cannot be permitted to surrender before intimidation, orchestrated vilification, or the weight of political or public influence. The constitutional duty of a Court is not to seek comfort in silence, but to preserve the dignity, independence, and fearless functioning of the justice delivery system
Court: While the judges may come and go, the institution of justice will be remembered by orders and actions of the judges who did not permit the rule of law to kneel before intimidation and fear of orchestrated, manufactured, public narrative and embarrassment. What must endure under all circumstances is the constitutional promise that justice in Bharat has and shall remain fearless and will guard its fort that is the Courts of law and the constitutional courts with all its might.
Court: No wounded pride, or hurt but the court understands that it needs to protect the from the manufactured campaigns
Court: This Court reminds all concerned that constitutional courts are, have remained and will remain the comfortable refuge of every citizen to raise voice against arbitrariness, access and bringing accused to face the consequences. This Court is drawing these proceedings not to seek insulation from criticism but because the material before it reveals an attempt by the contemnors to harm the institution of judiciary itself. This Court neither seeks sympathy nor demands immunity from criticism. This Court does not require applause; it functions upon the constitutional trust of the people on it and would protect it when deliberate attempts are made to poison the fountain of justice.
Court: This Court, therefore, holds that the acts of the contemnors constitute a deliberate attempt to scandalize the Court, lower the authority of the judicial institution, interfere with the administration of justice, and instill fear within the judicial system that, in the event a decision of the Court is not to their liking, they can strike at the edifice of justice by maligning the Judge. If such conduct is permitted, it would amount to striking at the very foundation of judicial independence. Such scandalous allegations and calculated attempts cannot be permitted to pass under the guise of democratic criticism or free speech.
Court: This order is not an order written either with anger or ill will against any litigant as this Court respects all litigants before it. The order has followed the actions on part of the contemnors which have selectively targeted this Court and in the process have also targeted the judiciary as a whole and the administration of justice.
Court: By publicly asking what relationship a sitting judge of a high court has with a political party must be told to the public without any factual basis is no manner fair criticism of a judicial proceeding. I hold you to contempt.
Court now refers to the video posted by AAP state president Saurabh Bharadwaj
Court: Another startling video has been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court notes that a press conference was held on 10.03.2026 by Saurabh Bhardwaj, State President, Delhi of Aam Aadmi Party, and was broadcasted on the official YouTube account of Aam Aadmi Party... But during the course of the said press conference, which was titled as ―BJP ka High Court ki Judge se kya rishta hai?‖, while referring to proceedings arising out of the liquor policy case, Saurabh Bhardwaj, at, publicly questioned the integrity and impartiality of this Court by stating: ―Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ka Bharatiya Janata Party se kya rishta hai... inn logon ko ye batana chahiye...The aforesaid statement appears to have been made only because certain political leaders, belonging to another political party, had publicly expressed their opinion that the accused persons in the present case pertaining to alleged Delhi Excise scam would be punished when the matter proceeds before the High Court.
Court: Allegations of such nature has the tendency to scandalise therefore Vinay Mishra appears to fall within the ambit of criminal contempt
Court: Vinay Mishra also posted the same videos
Court: Even the said college also issued statements that the video was edited.
Court: Even fact check organisation published that the contemnors had edited and aired false videos against me
Court: It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that a social media campaign was carried out by certain members/supporters of the political party of respondent no. 18 Arvind Kejriwal, wherein a video of this Court, delivering a lecture at a University in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, was edited and falsely projected as a speech delivered at an event associated with a political party, coupled with false and misleading claim that this Court had stated that it receives promotions whenever it is invited to such events.
Court: The unfortunate statements and conduct of Arvind Kejriwal, Respondent number 18, appears to fall within the ambit of criminal contempt as defined in the Section 2 C of the Contempt of Courts Act...On similar grounds, Shri Manish Sisodia and Respondent number 19, Durgesh Pathak, also wrote some letters and posted some content which is also on the same lines found to be contemptuous, and it is observed that they also fall within the ambit of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2C of the Contempt of Court Acts.
Court: Kejriwal says this court cannot deliver justice. How can he make a statement on behalf of the citizens of this country
Court: These statements not bona fide expressions
Court: Kejriwal posted a video on 27.4.26 about not appearing in the court.
Court: He also posted a video. Another post was published containing a video of Kejriwal informing public about his decision and reiterating allegations against this court.
Court: Kejriwal published the letter on social media platform X from his account
Court: It questioned impartiality and integrity of this court
Court: Arvind Kejriwal and his party members didn’t do fair criticism but ran a campaign
Court says Kejriwal could have gone to the Supreme Court 'which he chose not to go instead he issued a letter.'
Court: Video of me speaking at a law college was edited.
Court: When videos are circulated with theatrical aggression, facts are distorted, and videos of the Judge are selectively edited to suit a particular narrative, it reflects deliberate malice. The authority of the Court was sought to be reduced to ridicule. More disturbingly, such assault through words and gestures did not remain confined to the judicial office of the Judge, but was deliberately extended to members of my family, who were wholly unconnected with the judicial proceedings, and were dragged into insinuations and public targeting.
Court: though inside the four walls of the courtroom, respondent no. 18 Arvind Kejriwal professed respect for the Court, the Judge, and the judicial system, outside the courtroom he orchestrated a calculated campaign of vilification and intimidation. Instead of challenging the order of this Court in accordance with law before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, he sought to destroy the reputation of the Judge and the institution by dragging a judicial order into the public domain even before availing the legal remedies available to him under law.
Court: My staying quiet was being considered as my surrender
Court: I am telling now in Hindi because the contemnors argued the case in Hindi. They have scandalised this court while they posted things in Hindi. They have posted videos against me in Hindi and therefore it is a duty on my part as a constitutional entity.
Court: At the same time, while I asked myself whether the proposed contemnors had merely caused a private injury or whether they were, in fact, attacking a constitutional Court so as to deter it from discharging its constitutional duty, I found the answer to be the latter. It was not merely a personal or private attack, but a constitutional injury aimed at destabilizing the institution itself. Such acts tend to shake the confidence of common citizens who have historically held the belief that justice in this country is fearless, impartial, free from bias, and insulated from political pressure or power games. The Court did not expect political retaliation, for a Court is not a political entity, nor does a Judge discharge constitutional duties with political considerations in mind.
Court: Even the family members of this Court were dragged into this manufactured narrative with a view to embarrass, defame, scandalise, lower the authority of this Court and ensure calculated humiliation through such false and motivated narratives.
Court: The utterances by the proposed contemnors in the form of videos and letters publicly released on social media platforms did not merely express disagreement with the judicial order; rather, when seen in their entirety, they lead to only one conclusion – that it was a calculated campaign of vilification in the digital space, directed not only against this Court as an individual sitting Judge, but also against the entire institution of the judiciary and the adjudicatory process itself. Some of the proposed contemnors were armed with political influence and substantial public following, which gave them an undue advantage, enabling them to manipulate public opinion by releasing letters containing incomplete information and videos selectively edited to suit their campaign. Thus, instead of choosing the path of legal redressal of their grievances, they consciously chose the path of intimidation by circulating videos and posting content on social media platforms.
Court: While the issue inside the courtroom was being dealt with through the constitutional process of adjudication, a parallel narrative outside the courtroom had simultaneously begun to be constructed through selective dissemination, digital amplification and repeated insinuations directed against the Court and the Judge presiding over the matter.... I, like all other judges, have been trained to endure and accept fair criticism and dissent against my orders. Even hostility, to an extent, has been accepted by many of us on the Bench. The robe that I wear, as I had earlier observed in the order of recusal, is not so fragile that a few fragments of criticism would leave its mark on it, however, it does not permit me to be fragile.
Court: However, only after the pronouncement of the order did this Court come to learn, to its utter shock and concern, that letters, videos and a coordinated social media campaign concerning the proceedings before this Court were being widely circulated in the public domain. What initially appeared to be isolated acts of comments being made on public platforms gradually revealed themselves to be part of something far more disturbing. It was only thereafter, upon the material being placed before this Court, that the earlier trail of social media posts, circulated content, public statements and videos also came to the notice of this Court. The Court found that even during the pendency and hearing of the recusal applications, certain respondents had already begun disseminating material and narratives concerning the proceedings before this Court, which continued and were further amplified even after rejection of these recusal applications vide a detailed judicial order.
Court: This order I am announcing in the criminal contempt proceedings. While this Court was hearing the applications seeking recusal, and thereafter while dictating and pronouncing the order thereon, this Court proceeded on the understanding that the issue before it was confined to the correctness of earlier judicial orders passed by it and the apprehensions of bias sought to be raised before this Court. This Court had heard the submissions addressed before it with the constitutional detachment expected of a Judge.
Justice Sharma presides
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to pass order at 6pm.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma will pass a detailed order on contempt proceedings at 5:30 pm today.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, at the outset of hearing today, said that she was to announce the names of the amicus curiae she intended to appoint and had made efforts in that regard, with some senior counsel graciously agreeing to assist the court. However, in the meantime, she said it had come to her notice that extremely vilifying, contemptuous and defamatory material was being posted by some of the respondents against her and the court. Stating that she could not remain silent on the issue, the judge said she had decided to initiate contempt proceedings against some of the respondents and certain other alleged contemners. She further said that her order was ready and would be announced around 5 pm.
Court: My order is ready. I will be announcing it around 5pm, and then only I will decide as to whether what I will do with this case.
Court: I have decided to draw contempt proceedings against some of the respondents and some other contemners.
Court: But in the meantime, it has come to my notice that extremely vilifying, extremely contemptuous, and defamatory material is being posted by some of the respondents against me and against this court, and I cannot stay silent.
Court: Today I was to announce the names of the amicus that I was to appoint and I had made efforts and some senior counsel also very graciously even accepted.
ASG SV Raju for ED appearing through VC
Judge presides
SG Tushar Mehta appearing on behalf of CBI is in the courtroom
The court is likely to appoint amici curiae to represent AAP leaders Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak who have decided to boycott the proceedings pending before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
