New Delhi, May 22 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notices to AAP leader Gopal Rai and a journalist on a plea seeking contempt proceedings against them over an alleged “orchestrated social media campaign” against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who recently withdrew from the Delhi excise case hearing.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja sought the stand of Rai and Saurav Das over lawyer Ashok Chaitanya’s petition, which also named former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and ex-AAP MLA Saurabh Bhardwaj as parties.
Observing that a suo motu contempt case has already been initiated against Kejriwal and others, the bench listed the case for further hearing on August 4.
“We have also issued notice to the respondents (in the pending suo motu case). Keeping in view the same, instead of multiplying the number of matters, this contempt case will be taken up along with that matter. However, as Rai and Das are not parties to the (suo motu) contempt case, let notice be served on them,” the bench ordered.
The court asked that a copy of the present petition be sent to Kejriwal and Bhardwaj.
The petition alleged that while Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Sharma in the excise policy case was pending, Rai and Das launched a social media campaign in a “brazen attempt to exert extra-judicial pressure on a sitting judge.” The plea alleged that they made “scurrilous and malicious allegations” against the judge, implying a conflict of interest and accused her of bias.
Justice Sharma had on May 14 initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other AAP leaders over their “vilifying” social media posts against her in relation to the excise policy case.
On May 19, the court issued notice to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others in the criminal contempt case.
In the suo motu contempt order, Justice Sharma asserted that the former Delhi chief minister “orchestrated a calculated campaign” of vilification against her on social media instead of pursuing his legal remedies.
The judge took exception to several social media posts, attributing “political allegiance” and “affiliation” to her and allegedly targeting her by posting a misleading “edited” video of a speech she gave at an educational institution in Varanasi.
She also noted the wide circulation of clips from the court proceedings, stating that the proposed contemnors were creating a “parallel narrative”, and that “remaining silent” was not judicial restraint but a “surrender before a powerful litigant.” On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, ruling that the case was unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
After Justice Sharma dismissed their applications seeking her recusal in the CBI’s petition against their discharge in the case on April 20, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak wrote a letter to Justice Sharma, saying that they would not appear before her personally or through a lawyer and would follow “Mahatma Gandhi’s path of Satyagraha”.
After Justice Sharma released the CBI’s petition from her court on May 14, the case is now before Justice Manoj Jain. PTI ADS KSI KSI
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.