Delhi HC Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Arvind Kejriwal Over Excise Policy Case: Justice Sharma Recuses

Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on May 14, 2026, initiated criminal contempt proceedings against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders for alleged defamatory statements, edited videos, and vilifying social media posts directed at the judge in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. After initiating the contempt proceedings, Justice Sharma recused herself from further hearing the excise policy case and transferred it to another bench. The proceedings have been initiated against Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra, and Durgesh Pathak.

What Is Criminal Contempt of Court Under Indian Law

Criminal contempt is defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the publication of any matter or the doing of any act that scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower, the authority of any court, or prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice. Unlike civil contempt (which involves disobedience of court orders), criminal contempt addresses conduct that undermines the dignity and authority of the judiciary itself. The punishment for criminal contempt can extend to simple imprisonment for a term of up to six months, a fine of up to Rs 2,000, or both. The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006, introduced truth as a valid defence in contempt proceedings, though this defence has been invoked only rarely in practice.

Background: The Delhi Excise Policy Case and Recusal Dispute

The Delhi Excise Policy case is a high-profile corruption investigation involving allegations of irregularities in the formulation and implementation of Delhi's 2021-22 excise policy. Kejriwal and Sisodia are among the accused in the case, which is being investigated by both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate. The contempt proceedings arose from the recusal dispute. Kejriwal and AAP leaders had sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the excise policy case. When the recusal request was not immediately accepted, the judge noted that a campaign of defamatory letters, edited videos, and social media posts was directed against her. The court observed that the material circulated by the proposed contemnors was not merely directed against an individual judge but was a coordinated attempt to malign the institution of the judiciary.

Justice Sharma's Recusal and Case Transfer

After initiating criminal contempt proceedings, Justice Sharma recused herself from further hearing the excise policy case. The judge clarified that the decision was based on judicial discipline rather than an acceptance of the recusal demands. The excise policy case has been transferred to a different bench of the Delhi High Court. The contempt proceedings, however, will continue separately. This distinction is important: the recusal relates only to the excise policy matter, while the contempt proceedings are an independent cause of action based on the alleged vilification campaign. The contempt case will be heard on its own merits, and the excise policy case will proceed before a new bench without any connection to the contempt matter.

Legal Implications of Criminal Contempt for Political Leaders

Criminal contempt proceedings against political leaders raise questions about the balance between free speech, political criticism of the judiciary, and the protection of judicial authority. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which includes contempt of court as a permissible ground for restriction. The Supreme Court has held that fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment is not contempt, but personal attacks on judges that are intended to undermine public confidence in the judiciary can constitute criminal contempt. In the present case, the key issue will be whether the statements, videos, and social media posts attributed to the AAP leaders cross the line from permissible political criticism to scandalising the court. The truth defence under the 2006 Amendment may also be relevant if the contemnors choose to invoke it.

Key Takeaways

Criminal contempt proceedings have been initiated against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for alleged vilification of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the Delhi excise policy case. Justice Sharma has recused herself from the excise policy case, which will be heard by a different bench. The contempt case will proceed independently. The proceedings raise important questions about the boundary between political criticism and criminal contempt, the protection of judicial authority, and the applicability of the truth defence under the 2006 Amendment.