Delhi HC issues notice to Kejriwal, others in contempt case

THe new delhi heights margaret court on tues issued mark to former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party leaders in a criminal contempt case initiated by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma over alleged defamatory social media posts targeting her.In a separate development, another bench asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to issue fresh notices informing Kejriwal, Delhi’s former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak that the agency’s appeal against the trial court order discharging the AAP convenor and 22 others in the Delhi excise policy case had been assigned to that bench.While a division bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja directed Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party leaders — Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, Vinay Mishra and Pathak — to file their responses within four weeks in the contempt matter, Justice Manoj Jain asked CBI to inform Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak about the allocation of the excise policy case appeal to his bench.Justice Jain issued the direction after noting that, following the transfer of the matter to his bench, none of the three had appeared before the court. He observed that the “ideal scenario” would be for all concerned parties to be present and heard before him.Their absence is connected to the contempt matter.Even as two separate benches issued notices, a division bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia are schedule to hear a petition on Wednesday seeking disqualification of Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak from contesting elections alleging that their conduct in the proceedings in the CBI’s appeal against the trial court’s discharge order undermined court’s authority.The plea, filed by Satish Kumar, also seeks directions to the election commission of India to de-register AAP. It contends that the leaders, having sworn allegiance to the Constitution under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are constitutionally bound to respect the judiciary and uphold the majesty of constitutional institutions. The petition alleges that their conduct reflects a consistent disregard for the court, warranting a declaration that they no longer maintain “true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution as required under the law.An unprecedented face-off began between justice Sharma and Kejriwal on February 27, when a trial court discharged Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, prompting CBI to approach the high court. On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer and deferred Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings.Kejriwal then sought to transfer the matter from her bench, which was rejected by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13.On April 5, Kejriwal, Sisodia and others sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, which she dismissed on April 20. On April 27, Kejriwal informed the judge in a letter that he would boycott the proceedings. Following this, Sisodia and Pathak also wrote similar letters. On May 5, the court decided to appoint senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent the three leaders, but the matter was deferred on three occasions.However, on April 14, justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings and withdrew herself from hearing CBI’s appeal and the contempt case, stating that the law did not permit a judge who has initiated contempt proceedings over allegedly defamatory, contemptuous and vilifying material posted against the judge on social media – in relation to a matter to continue hearing that very matter. But she clarified that her earlier April 20 order – refusing to recuse from the excise policy case – stands.The judge held that after she refused to recuse, Kejriwal adopted a course of “vilification” and “intimidation.” The judge observed that instead of challenging the order before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal chose to issue a letter boycotting the proceedings and released a video in which, according to the court, he levelled false allegations against her.The bench of justices Chawla and Dudeja on Tuesday said: “In the judgment, the single judge has placed reliance on social media posts and other electronic and publication records. The registry is directed to preserve copies of the same and place them before this court.” And the single-judge bench of justice Jain said that ideally, he would prefer everyone to be there and that everybody be heard. “Let them be served that the case has been allocated to this court, and if they have anything to say, they can say. Let them be first served. Once everybody is here, we will draw a schedule for here, and they should be here duly represented by the counsel so that they can take this matter further.”While the criminal contempt case will now be taken up on August 4, CBI’s appeal in the excise policy matter is scheduled to be heard on Monday.