New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind KejriwalFormer Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and other AAP leaders in a criminal contempt case related to alleged “derogatory” and defamatory social media posts targeting a judge.The high court also gave four weeks’ time to AAP leaders to file their reply in the case. The next hearing has been fixed for August 4.The contempt proceedings stem from the ongoing Delhi excise policy case, in which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has challenged the trial court’s order discharging Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others.The contempt case relates to allegations that certain social media posts and online campaigns attempted to defame the judiciary and undermine the authority of the court after Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma refused to recuse herself from hearing the case.

Contempt proceedings transferred to another bench

Justice Sharma had earlier observed that “highly scandalous, extremely contemptuous and defamatory material” was being circulated against him and the court. He said that he has decided to initiate contempt proceedings against some of the respondents and other alleged contemnors.However, the judge clarified that she is not recusing herself from the excise policy case but has transferred the main case to another bench on grounds of “judicial propriety and discipline” after initiating contempt proceedings.The contempt case has now been assigned to a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while Justice Manoj Jain is expected to hear the CBI’s review petition challenging the discharge order.

Excise Policy Case Background

The controversy began when a lower court on February 27 discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the alleged liquor policy irregularities case, ruling that the prosecution’s case was “completely discredited”.Justice Sharma had also rejected Kejriwal’s plea to recuse himself from the case, saying the application did not meet the legal threshold to establish reasonable apprehension of bias.Several AAP leaders had boycotted the proceedings before Justice Sharma after he refused to withdraw from the case.In his order to initiate contempt proceedings, Justice Sharma reportedly said that although fair criticism of judicial orders is permitted, “there is a difference between fair criticism and running a campaign to portray a judge as biased.”