The Delhi High Court’s Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Thursday initiated contempt of court proceedings against Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and several others for allegedly defaming and vilifying her on social media in connection with the liquor policy case, Bar and Bench reported.
Sharma, however, recused herself from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s revision petition against their discharge in the Delhi liquor policy case.
“It could be that if I keep hearing this case, Arvind Kejriwal and other people might think that I have a grudge against him,” the legal news portal quoted her as saying. “That’s why I’ve thought that this particular case will be heard by some other bench.”
The development comes after the former chief minister, Sisodia and another AAP leader, Durgesh Pathak, decided in April to boycott the proceedings before Sharma in the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the trial court order discharging them and several others in the case.
On April 20, Sharma rejected a petition filed by the AAP leaders demanding that she recuse herself from hearing the case. Their petition raised concerns about “perceived ideological proximity”, referring to her attending an event of an organisation linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
The RSS is the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.
Kejriwal also argued before Sharma that she had repeatedly passed orders in favour of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate in the liquor policy case.
On Thursday, the judge said that the present order on her recusal should not be understood as a transfer of the matter merely because such demands were made by Kejriwal and the others, Bar and Bench reported.
Noting that she had already rejected their demand for recusal, Sharma said that subsequent events such as the initiation of contempt proceedings had given rise to different issues. “Therefore, let it be a reminder that you pay a personal price for constitutional courage,” she was quoted as saying.
The judge said that Kejriwal had taken to social media against her instead of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, Sharma flagged a letter and a video that she said were circulated online by Kejriwal and the others, which announced their boycott of the proceedings after she had refused to recuse herself from hearing the case.
“Though inside court Mr Kejriwal said he respects the court, outside court he orchestrated a coordinated campaign against me,” Bar and Bench quoted the judge as saying.
Referring to the allegations made against her including the relationship between the court and a political party, Sharma added that those seeking her recusal could have moved the Supreme Court.
She added that several members of the AAP had also repeated the allegations.
Sharma also noted that Kejriwal had claimed that the public would not have the confidence that she would rule against the Union government or the BJP, according to the legal news portal.
“On the face of it, the statement is not bona fide,” Bar and Bench quoted Sharma as saying. “Kejriwal imputed political motives to this court.”
If such allegations are allowed to be publicly circulated, it would prejudice the institution of the judiciary and lead to anarchy, the judge said.
About the allegations that she had attended the RSS event, the judge said that the video shared by the AAP leaders of her allegedly speaking there had been edited.
Sharma claimed that she was actually speaking at a college event.
“These great individuals edited the video,” Bar and Bench quoted her as saying. “…This has created an impression that this court got her promotion under the influence of so-and-so. These people knew that they were editing the video.”
Sharma said that she had been trained to accept fair criticism but the material circulated against her exceeded that threshold.
“However, sometimes remaining silent is not judicial restraint,” the legal news portal quoted her as saying. “…The utterances by the contemnors did not merely express disagreement but they lead to only one conclusion that it was a campaign of vilification not against this sitting judge but entire judiciary.”
On April 27, Kejriwal had said that he would not appear before Sharma. A day later, Sisodia and Pathak also told Sharma that they would not appear before her in the liquor policy case.
In separate letters, Kejriwal and Sisodia had reiterated their concern about Sharma’s “public association” with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, which is a lawyers’ group linked to the RSS.
The two party leaders also noted that Sharma’s son and daughter have been empanelled as counsels by the Union government. Kejriwal highlighted that they are both allocated cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing before the High Court representing the CBI.
An empanelled counsel is a lawyer selected by a government body, public sector undertaking or organisation to represent their legal cases for a designated period.
The liquor policy case
The CBI had alleged irregularities in the Delhi government’s liquor excise policy, which has since been scrapped. Based on the CBI case, the ED also launched an investigation into allegations of money-laundering.
The policy came into effect in November 2021. It was withdrawn in July 2022 with Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Delhi lieutenant governor at the time, recommending an investigation into the alleged irregularities of the policy.
The two central agencies alleged that the AAP government at the time modified the liquor policy by increasing the commission for wholesalers from 5% to 12%. This allegedly facilitated the receipt of bribes from wholesalers who had a substantial market share and turnover.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak and 20 others accused by the CBI in the case. There was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the excise policy, the court had ruled.
The court had also criticised the central agency for implicating Kejriwal without any cogent material. It said that the chargesheet had several gaps not supported by any witnesses or statements.
However, the High Court on March 9 stayed the adverse observations made by the trial court about the CBI. The matter was heard by Sharma, who prima facie observed that the trial court’s findings were erroneous.
|
