Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has transferred the excise policy matter involving Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other Aam Aadmi Party leaders to another bench after initiating criminal contempt proceedings over allegedly defamatory and vilifying online content directed at the court.
Justice Sharma clarified that she was not withdrawing her earlier order rejecting the plea for her recusal. She said judicial propriety required that the main excise policy case be heard by a different judge once contempt proceedings had been initiated by her bench against some of the same parties. The matter will now be placed before another bench subject to orders of the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
The development marks a sharp procedural turn in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to a trial court order that discharged 23 accused in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy for 2021-22. Those discharged included former Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Sisodia, AAP leaders Durgesh Pathak and others, as well as business figures and officials named in the case.
Justice Sharma took note of social media posts and videos that, in her view, crossed the line from criticism of a judicial order into a campaign targeting the judge and the institution. The court observed that the material was not merely personal criticism but was capable of undermining public confidence in the adjudicatory process. The judge said courts could not remain silent when judicial proceedings were sought to be influenced through vilification in the digital space.
Kejriwal’s side had earlier sought transfer of the matter from Justice Sharma’s bench, arguing that there was a reasonable apprehension over impartiality. Justice Sharma had rejected that plea in April, holding that recusal could not be sought on the basis of conjecture, public perception or dissatisfaction with judicial observations. Her order had stressed that judges could not step aside merely because a litigant disagreed with previous rulings or because a campaign was mounted outside court.
The excise policy case has travelled through several stages since the policy was withdrawn amid allegations of irregularities in licensing, cartelisation and undue benefits to private players. The CBI alleged that policy changes were manipulated to favour selected liquor businesses and that proceeds were routed for political use. The Enforcement Directorate separately pursued a money-laundering probe linked to the same set of allegations.
A Rouse Avenue court, however, discharged all 23 accused in February, finding that the material placed by the CBI did not meet the threshold required for framing charges. The trial court criticised aspects of the investigation, questioned the evidentiary chain and directed departmental action against an investigating officer. The CBI then moved the High Court, challenging the discharge order and seeking restoration of the case.
Justice Sharma’s bench had issued notice on the CBI petition and stayed certain adverse directions and observations made by the trial court, including those concerning action against the investigating officer. That interim order became a major point of contention in the political debate around the case, with AAP leaders arguing that the discharge order vindicated their stand and the probe agencies maintaining that the trial court had erred.
The contempt action adds a separate judicial track to the litigation. Criminal contempt proceedings may examine whether the posts and videos amounted to scandalising the court or lowering the authority of the judiciary. The court has indicated that criticism of judgments is permissible, but attacks on judges through edited clips, imputations of motive or coordinated online campaigns may attract consequences under contempt law.
Kejriwal responded to the bench transfer by saying truth and moral power had prevailed, framing the development as a vindication of his position. AAP has consistently described the excise policy proceedings as politically motivated, while the probe agencies have maintained that the case concerns serious allegations over public policy, licensing and financial flows.
