Delhi High Court lists Arvind Kejriwal, others’ contempt case for November 16 hearing
You don’t have any Active Subscription.
Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription
AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia addressing the media after getting relief from the lower court on the Liquor Policy Scam case in New Delhi. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Delhi High Court on Monday (September 20, 2026) listed for hearing on November 16 its criminal contempt case against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and others over "vilifying" social media posts against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Arun Bhardwaj granted time to Mr. Kejriwal and others to file their replies in the matter.
Mr. Kejriwal's senior counsel submitted that he was yet to receive the entire material forming the basis of the contempt case.
The bench asked the registry to supply the material which was stated to be "incomplete", and said, "reply, if any, to be filed in four weeks." The court also listed on November 16 a separate contempt petition by lawyer Ashok Chaitanya against Mr. Kejriwal and others, including AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das, for allegedly being part of an "orchestrated social media campaign" against Justice Sharma.
On May 19, the court had issued notice to Mr. Kejriwal and other politicians on the suo motu contempt case initiated against them by Justice Sharma and had granted them four weeks to file their response.
It had then appointed senior advocate Rajdipa Behura as amicus curiae.
Justice Sharma had on May 14 initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia, Mr. Singh and other AAP leaders, including Durgesh Pathak, Saurabh Bharadwaj and Vinay Mishra, over their "vilifying" social media posts against her in relation to the excise policy case.
The judge also initiated contempt proceedings against X user Devesh Vishwakarma. Subsequently, lawyer Ashok Chaitanya also filed a contempt petition.
In the contempt order, Justice Sharma had asserted that the former Delhi Chief Minister "orchestrated a calculated campaign of vilification" against her on social media instead of pursuing his legal remedies, and clarified that the CBI's petition against the discharge of all accused persons would now be taken up by another bench.
The judge took exception to several social media posts by the proposed contemnors that attributed "political allegiance" and "affiliation" to her and allegedly targeted her by posting a misleading "edited" video of a speech she gave at an educational institution in Varanasi.
She also noted the wide circulation of clips from the court proceedings in the case, stating that the proposed contemnors were creating a "parallel narrative", and "remaining silent" was not judicial restraint but a "surrender before a powerful litigant".
On February 27, the trial court discharged Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, as it ruled that the case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications seeking her recusal in the CBI's petition against their discharge in the case on April 20, Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and Mr. Pathak had written a letter to Justice Sharma, saying they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow "Mahatma Gandhi's path of Satyagraha".
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.
