Govind Tekale
In New Delhi, a legal battle between a major political party and the judiciary has exposed tensions about who can criticize judges and whether doing so constitutes a crime. The dispute began in routine court proceedings but escalated into a contempt of court case that raises questions about power, accountability, and the boundaries of free expression in India.
The story starts with the Delhi Excise Policy case. The Central Bureau of Investigation is prosecuting Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi’s former Chief Minister, and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders for alleged irregularities in Delhi’s liquor licensing policy. In April 2026, Kejriwal and his co-accused sought to have Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma removed from the case. They argued her continued involvement created bias or appearance of bias. This is routine in legal proceedings—asking judges to recuse themselves when defendants believe impartiality is compromised.
Justice Sharma rejected the recusal application on April 20, 2026. In her order, she made a significant observation. She said that litigants cannot be allowed to weaken public trust in the judiciary by making such applications. She described the attempt to remove her as putting the judiciary itself on trial. The language was strong and reflected judicial frustration with what she saw as a coordinated campaign to undermine her authority.
Then came social media. Starting around April 27, posts appeared on platform X (formerly Twitter) attributed to Kejriwal and other AAP leaders. These posts expressed lack of confidence in the court and criticized Justice Sharma’s handling of the case. Some posts were pinned to profiles, increasing visibility. The posts generated angry commentary online, some of it abusive. In the judge’s view, this amounted to a coordinated social media campaign designed to lower the court’s authority and obstruct justice in pending proceedings.
On May 14, 2026, Justice Sharma initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings. Suo motu means the judge initiated proceedings on her own authority, not on a petition from someone else. On May 19, the Delhi High Court issued notices to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Durgesh Pathak, Vinay Mishra, and Saurabh Bharadwaj in those proceedings, as reported by The Hindu.
Separately, a lawyer named Ashok Chaitanya filed an additional criminal contempt petition against Kejriwal, Saurabh Bharadwaj, AAP leader Gopal Rai, and journalist Saurav Das, alleging they participated in a coordinated campaign targeting Justice Sharma. Both matters were heard together by the Division Bench, according to LiveLaw.
By August 4, 2026, the Delhi High Court Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja granted the respondents four weeks to file replies. The court directed that digital materials collected as the basis for the contempt reference be provided to all respondents so they could mount their defense. The next hearing was scheduled for September 21, 2026.
This case touches important questions in Indian democracy. On one hand, contempt of court laws exist for a reason. Courts need authority to function. Systematic undermining of judicial authority through coordinated campaigns can genuinely obstruct justice. If litigants can organize social media campaigns attacking judges to intimidate them or generate public pressure, the judicial system becomes compromised.
On the other hand, free speech and the right to criticize public officials—including judges—are fundamental democratic rights. Where is the line between legitimate criticism and contempt? Can a politician be prosecuted for expressing lack of confidence in a judge? Can a journalist reporting on the situation be charged with contempt? The case raises these questions without clear answers.
Justice Sharma recused herself from the underlying excise policy case and transferred the matter to Justice Manoj Jain. This removed the conflict of interest created by her initiating contempt proceedings against the same people whose case she was hearing. But the contempt case itself remains. The respondents must answer charges that their social media campaign constituted criminal contempt of court.
For the judicial system, the case tests whether courts can use contempt laws to respond to criticism. For democracy, it tests whether people can safely criticize powerful institutions. The September 21 hearing will move the case forward, but the deeper questions it raises will persist long after any verdict—against a global backdrop of rising threats against judges and the evolving role of grassroots political movements in India.
