New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has constituted a new Bench to hear the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge of AAP leaders, including former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and ex-Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, in the excise policy case, after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recused from the matter following initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Manoj Jain will now hear the CBI’s revision petition against the trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the alleged excise policy corruption case. The matter is scheduled to be taken up on Tuesday.
Separately, a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja has been constituted to hear the criminal contempt case against Kejriwal, Sisodia, AAP MP Sanjay Singh, and party leaders Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra and Durgesh Pathak. The contempt proceedings will also be heard on Tuesday.
The developments come days after Justice Sharma initiated criminal contempt proceedings, observing that a “coordinated social media campaign” had been carried out to scandalise the judiciary in connection with the excise policy case.
In a detailed order, the Delhi High Court held that the actions of the proposed contemnors were “calculated to scandalise the Court, lower the authority of the institution of justice, interfere with the administration of justice, and intimidate the independent exercise of judicial functions”.
It observed that while fair criticism of judicial orders is permissible, “there is a distinction between fair criticism and running a campaign to portray a judge as biased”.
“The Court cannot permit erosion of the constitutional system and the justice delivery system by tolerating organised assaults in the name of public discourse,” the order said, adding that such attempts, if unchecked, could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Justice Sharma also made it clear that the contempt proceedings were not driven by personal grievance, stating that she “neither seeks sympathy nor demands immunity from criticism” but is duty-bound to protect the institution.
The judge had clarified that transfer of the main excise policy case to another Bench was not a recusal at the asking of the accused persons, but a step necessitated by “judicial propriety and discipline” after initiation of contempt proceedings.
“The main revision petition can always be heard by any other Bench. However, the acts of the proposed contemnors, directed against this Court and the institution of the judiciary, could only have been noticed and addressed by this Court,” the order said.
It added that the transfer of the case should not be construed as succumbing to recusal demands, stating that the earlier order rejecting recusal “continues to hold the field”.
The contempt proceedings were initiated after the Delhi High Court took exception to alleged “defamatory and vilifying” material circulated against Justice Sharma on social media following her refusal to recuse from the matter.
According to the Delhi High Court, instead of challenging the recusal order before a higher forum, the accused persons sought to “carry the matter to social media” by publishing letters and videos questioning the judge’s impartiality, thereby attempting to create public distrust in the judiciary.
The trial court, in a judgment running into more than 1,100 paragraphs, had discharged all accused persons, holding that the now-scrapped excise policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative process and that the prosecution failed to establish an overarching conspiracy.
In its revision plea before the High Court, the CBI has alleged that the excise policy framed by the then AAP-led Delhi government was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks.
(IANS)
