New Delhi: In a stunning twist in the closely followed liquor policy hearings, Delhi High Court judge Swarana Kanta Sharma framed contempt charges against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak and others Thursday, effectively recusing herself from hearing the CBI’s appeal against a Delhi court’s discharge order.
“They wanted to intimidate me…I refuse to be intimidated,” she said in a strongly-worded order against the AAP leaders who also included Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra and Saurabh Bharadwaj.
“This is not recusal, this is judicial discipline,” Justice Sharma said on her decision to transfer the case.
The popularity of a person cannot convert to constitutional immunity, the judge remarked, adding that “judges command respect because they adjudicate fearlessly”.
Accusing Kejriwal of psychological coercion, the order said criticism of judgments does not amount to contempt. “The robe that I wear is not so fragile that a few fragments of criticism would leave their mark on it.”
Justice Sharma said that many members of “his” (Kejriwal’s) party ran an “orchestrated campaign” against her, with allegations of political affiliation and ideological alignment.
Referring to Kejriwal’s letter and video posted on X on 27 April, the order said that on the face of it, they did not contain “bonafide expressions of dissatisfaction”, but rather, directly attributed political affiliation to the court.
The order referred to this as an attempt to create negative public perception. “Who gave Kejriwal the authority to speak for the people of this country?”
This latest development follows a highly publicised courtroom saga that has seen the Delhi HC judge and Kejriwal butt heads, with the former Delhi CM seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal, followed by the latter’s refusal, after which Kejriwal and others effectively boycotted the proceedings, alleging ideological bias and conflict of interest.
Justice Sharma’s much-awaited order was pronounced at 6.50 pm, delayed from the allotted time of 5 pm. She read out the order first in English and then Hindi, saying that the respondents had argued in Hindi too.
‘This is not an order written in anger’
The court then documented social media posts by Sisodia, Pathak, Singh, Mishra and Bharadwaj while framing criminal contempt charges against all of them. “This order is not an order written with anger…this court reiterated that it respects all litigants”.
The actions of the “contemnors” had themselves caused this order, by “scandalising the court” and “maligning the judge and her family members”, the court said. These actions, it added, amount to criminal contempt and an attempt to intimidate the independent exercise of judicial function. “This court is neither seeking sympathy nor demanding immunity from criticism,” Justice Sharma said.
Distinguishing between fair criticism and attacks on the judiciary, Justice Sharma said that “this court is fully capable of dealing with such a situation”. The order meanwhile emphasised her refusal to recuse, saying that the respondents were fully aware of their actions and were trying to create a situation whereby she was forced to do so.
Justice Sharma said there was a “clear danger” in not taking action against the “contemnors” (those found to be in contempt of court).
Stating that the respondents may allege bias again if she continues to hear the main proceedings after framing contempt charges, Justice Sharma recused herself saying—“law says I cannot hear the main case since I have drawn contempt proceedings”.
Stressing that the court’s previous order of refusal to recusal stands, Justice Sharma spoke of acting on a “subsequent issue arising”.
“I stand by my recusal order…personal price that you pay for constitutional courage“, she said in the order.
“The moment has arrived where this court must speak and has spoken,” Justice Sharma said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then spoke of his fear that unscrupulous litigants may take advantage of such a situation in the future, asking Justice Sharma to continue hearing the main matter. Questioning Kejriwal’s lack of appeal to the Supreme Court, Mehta said that there was a “calculated design to play the victim card”.
‘Truth has triumphed,’ says Kejriwal
Kejriwal reacted to the order in an X post late Thursday, saying, “Truth has triumphed. Gandhi ji’s Satyagraha has triumphed once again.”
सत्य की जीत हुई।
गांधी जी के सत्याग्रह की एक बार फिर जीत हुई।
— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) May 14, 2026
AAP’s Saurabh Bharadwaj also posted a video giving his response to the contempt charges.
My initial response to Contempt proceedings :
Heard that Hon’ble Justice Swarnakanta Sharma has initiated Contempt proceedings against Mr Arvind Kejriwal, Mr Manish Sisodia, Mr Sanjay Singh , (me) Saurabh Bharadwaj etc.
Hon’ble Justice Swarnakanta repeated 2 principles
1. She… pic.twitter.com/2b4Tluyabo
— Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) May 14, 2026
Saumya Sharma is a TPSJ alum, currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)