The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and other leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party in a criminal contempt case filed by Justice Suwarana Kanta Sharma over alleged defamatory social media posts targeting her.
In a separate development, another body has asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to issue fresh notices informing Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak, that the agency’s appeal against the lower court’s order removing the AAP convenor and 22 others in the Delhi excise policy case has been assigned to that body.
While a division bench of Justices Naveen Chawla and Ravinder Dudiga Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party leaders — Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra and Pathak — directed to file their replies within four weeks in the contempt matter, Justice Manoj Jain asked the CBI to inform Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak about allocating the excise policy issue to its bench.
Justice Jain issued this direction after pointing out that after the matter was referred to his bench, none of the three appeared before the court. He noted that the “ideal scenario” would be for all concerned parties to be present and listen to him.
Their absence is linked to the issue of contempt.
Even as two separate benches issued notices, a division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia is scheduled to hear a petition on Wednesday seeking disqualification of Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak from contesting the election on the grounds that their conduct of proceedings in the CBI’s appeal against the trial court’s dismissal order undermined the authority of the court.
The petition filed by Satish Kumar also seeks directions to the Election Commission of India to cancel the registration of AAP. It asserts that the leaders, who have sworn allegiance to the Constitution under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are constitutionally bound to respect the judiciary and uphold the majesty of constitutional institutions. The petition alleges that their conduct reflects a continuing disregard for the Court, warranting a declaration that they no longer maintain “true faith and loyalty” to the Constitution as required by law.
An unprecedented standoff between Justice Sharma and Kejriwal began on February 27, when a lower court discharged Kejriwal and others in a tax policy case, prompting India’s central bank to approach the Supreme Court. On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s directions for administrative action against a CBI officer and deferred Enforcement Directorate action.
Kejriwal then sought to move the matter from her bench, which was rejected by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13.
On April 5, Kejriwal, Sisodia and others asked for Justice Sharma’s disqualification, which she rejected on April 20. On April 27, Kejriwal informed the judge in a letter that he would boycott the proceedings. Subsequently, Sisodia and Pathak also wrote similar letters. On May 5, the court decided to appoint senior lawyers as amicus curiae to represent the three leaders, but the matter was postponed three times.
However, on April 14, Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings and withdrew from hearing the CBI appeal and the contempt case, stating that the law does not permit a judge who has initiated contempt proceedings over allegedly defamatory, contempt and defamatory material posted against the judge on social media – in relation to a matter, to continue hearing that same matter. But she made clear that the order she issued earlier on April 20 – refusing to withdraw from the tax policy issue – remains in place.
The judge held that after she refused to step down, Kejriwal adopted a course of “defamation” and “intimidation”. The judge observed that instead of challenging the order in the Supreme Court, Kejriwal chose to issue a letter boycotting the proceedings and released a video which, according to the court, leveled false allegations against her.
“In the judgement, the single judge relied on social media posts and other electronic records and publications. The record is directed to retain copies of the same and place them before this court,” a bench of Justices Chawla and Dodija said on Tuesday.
Single Judge Jain said he preferred that everyone be present and everyone be heard. “Let them know that the case has been referred to this court, and if they have anything to say, they can say it. Let them announce it first. Once everyone gets here, we will set a schedule here, and they should be here duly represented by counsel so that they can proceed with this matter.”
While the criminal contempt case will now be heard on August 4, the CBI’s appeal in the tax policy matter is scheduled to be heard on Monday.
