Premium

Liquor policy ‘scam’: Delhi HC issues notice to Kejriwal, Sisodia in criminal contempt case

The case was initiated by Delhi High Court’s Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma for publishing “contemptuous material” against her and the judiciary on social media.

3 min readMay 19, 2026 11:59 AM IST

The court will hear the matter next on August 4.

A division bench of the Delhi High Court Tuesday issued notice to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal and six other party leaders in a suo motu criminal contempt case initiated by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma last week.

In her 68-page order passed on May 14, Justice Sharma accused former Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, former AAP MLAs Durgesh Pathak and Vinay Mishra, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, president of the AAP’s Delhi unit Saurabh Bharawaj, and Devesh Vishwakarma, who is said to be involved in the AAP’s social media operations, for allegedly being in contempt of the court for publishing “contemptuous material” against her and the judiciary on social media.

Also read | Explained: Case against Kejriwal and Sisodia, now discharged in alleged Delhi liquor policy scam

On Tuesday, Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, issuing notice to the seven AAP leaders, also directed the registry to preserve the record of social media posts and other electronic publication records by the alleged contemnors, and to place them on the court’s record.

The bench also said it will be appointing an amicus curiae in the case to assist the court.

The court granted the seven four weeks to file their responses to the allegations levelled against them.

The alleged contemptuous posts were made after Justice Sharma refused to recuse from hearing the pleas filed by the CBI and ED in the excise policy case.

The court will hear the matter next on August 4.

While transferring the CBI and ED cases out of her court, Justice Sharma had clarified that the transfer “should not be understood as this court transferring the matter merely because demands for recusal were made, which were rejected by a detailed order…”

Story continues below this ad

The CBI’s revision plea challenging the discharge of the 23 accused in the case by a trial court in February is pending before the HC. The ED has sought the expungement of alleged adverse remarks made against the agency by the trial court.

Justice Sharma, in her order, accused the AAP leaders of running a “calculated campaign of vilification in the digital space directed not only against this judge but the entire institution of judiciary and its adjudicatory processes”, as well as against Justice Sharma as an individual, and her family members.

With the court observing that Kejriwal “wanted to sow seeds of distrust” by running a social media campaign against her, Justice Sharma further observed, “It was psychological coercion”.

In April, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak, had refused to be represented legally before Justice Sharma’s court, after she refused to recuse herself from hearing the CBI’s plea.

Story continues below this ad

In a purported ‘satyagraha’ move, the three leaders objected to Justice Sharma’s alleged “public association with the RSS’s legal front Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad”, to which AAP claims, it is ideologically opposed to. They have also said that they apprehend bias if Justice Sharma hears the matter, given that her children are on the Union government’s advocates’ panels and are assigned cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Mehta is appearing for the CBI in the excise policy case.

Sohini Ghosh

Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More

Loading Recommendations...

Jun 11: Latest News

Live Blog