Delhi High Court has issued notices to Aam Aadmi Party leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das on a plea seeking criminal contempt action over allegations that they joined a coordinated social media campaign targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma during proceedings linked to the Delhi excise policy case.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja sought their responses on Friday after considering a petition filed by lawyer Ashok Chaitanya. The plea alleges that posts and public comments circulated on X contained unfounded and scandalous imputations against Justice Sharma, including claims of bias, conflict of interest and impropriety tied to the professional engagements of her family members.
The court said Rai and Das were not parties to an earlier suo motu contempt matter and therefore required separate notice. The bench ordered that the new petition be listed with the pending contempt proceedings on August 4, while directing the court registry to preserve the social media material relied upon by the petitioner. The order also ensured that material from the fresh plea would be supplied to Arvind Kejriwal and Saurabh Bharadwaj, who were already named in connected proceedings.
Chaitanya’s petition had also sought contempt action against Kejriwal and Bharadwaj. The bench noted, however, that contempt proceedings involving them had already been initiated after Justice Sharma placed material before the court over posts and videos shared during the recusal proceedings in the excise policy matter. Notices had earlier been issued to Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Durgesh Pathak and other AAP leaders after the court found that the material required judicial scrutiny under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The legal dispute stems from proceedings before Justice Sharma in matters related to the excise policy case. Kejriwal and other accused had sought her recusal from hearing connected cases, raising objections that were rejected. Justice Sharma later transferred the case to another single judge while separately recording that material placed before her prima facie disclosed criminal contempt.
The petitioner has argued that the alleged campaign was not ordinary criticism of a judicial order but an organised attempt to scandalise the court and lower public confidence in the administration of justice. The plea says the continued availability of posts online, along with abusive comments generated below them, aggravated the harm caused to the institution.
AAP leaders have consistently maintained that their criticism was directed at fairness in judicial process and not at undermining the courts. The contempt proceedings, however, have shifted attention from the political dispute over the excise policy case to the boundaries of permissible public comment on judges and pending proceedings.
The case has revived debate over how courts should respond when political actors and online platforms amplify allegations against judges. Criminal contempt law allows courts to act against speech that scandalises or tends to scandalise the judiciary, prejudices judicial proceedings, or interferes with the administration of justice. Courts have also recognised that criticism of judgments is permissible when it is fair, reasoned and does not attribute improper motives to judges.
The Delhi excise policy case has remained one of the most politically charged legal battles involving AAP. It has drawn in senior party figures, enforcement agencies and multiple court proceedings over bail, summons, arrest, prosecution complaints and procedural objections. The latest contempt petitions add another layer by placing social media conduct and political messaging under judicial examination.
Justice Sharma’s role in the case became a focal point after she dealt with bail and related applications involving AAP leaders. The recusal applications and the social media reaction that followed triggered scrutiny from the court, especially after posts alleged bias and linked judicial conduct to family associations. The court’s decision to preserve digital material indicates that screenshots, URLs, posts and related online content may form part of the evidentiary record when the matter is heard.
