Arvind Kejriwal Recusal Hearing Video: Delhi High Court Orders Takedown, Flags ‘Serious Breach’ Of Court Rules

The direction was issued by Registrar General Arun Bhardwaj, who held that the recording and circulation of court proceedings amounted to a clear violation of the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025.

These rules expressly prohibit any form of recording or publication of proceedings conducted through virtual or hybrid modes. The order applies to all individuals and entities responsible for uploading or sharing such content online, including on platforms like X.

The issue arose after videos of Kejriwal’s appearances on April 6 and April 13, where he argued his recusal plea in person before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, went viral across social media. Notably, the bench on April 13, reserved the order in the plea. 

In a detailed 39 page affidavit, the CBI had strongly contested the allegations made by the petitioners, who had claimed a likelihood of bias on the part of the judge due to her alleged ideological association with the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. The plea had pointed out that Justice Sharma had attended events organised by the body. Rejecting this contention, the agency had argued that mere participation in legal seminars cannot be construed as evidence of ideological bias, especially when such events are not political in nature.

The High Court, Registrar noted that such unauthorised dissemination undermines the regulatory framework governing virtual hearings and risks distorting the judicial process.

The action followed a complaint filed by Advocate Vaibhav Singh, who sought strict measures against those responsible for recording and circulating the clips. In his complaint, Singh alleged that the widespread sharing of the videos, including by political figures, indicated a “deep conspiracy” to malign the judiciary and mislead the public. He further contended that such acts could amount to an attempt to exert pressure on the presiding judge and erode institutional credibility.

“That several leader of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) including members of various other opposition parties have intentionally and deliberately and with the wilful intention to malign the image of this Hon'ble Court and to manipulate / misguide and also to make negative image of this institutions nationally and globally and also in eyes of general public living in India and outside India the court proceedings had done the video and audio recording of the court proceedings and circulated on various social media platforms,” the complaint reads.

"That Mr. Kejriwal permission to argue his recusal application on 13.04.2026 was part of some conspiracy to gain public sentiments and malign the image of this noble institution." the complaint added.

This arises from ongoing proceedings arising from the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to a trial court order that had discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others in the excise policy case. The trial court had found no prima facie case against the accused, a conclusion that the agency has contested as being fundamentally flawed and ignoring key evidence.

In earlier proceedings, Justice Sharma had stayed directions issued by the trial court for departmental action against a CBI officer, observing that the remarks appeared “prima facie foundationally misconceived.” The Court had also deferred related proceedings involving the Enforcement Directorate pending adjudication of the appeal.

Subsequently, Kejriwal wrote to the Chief Justice seeking transfer of the case, a request that was declined. This was followed by recusal applications filed by Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other accused persons.  In his letter seeking transfer of the case, Kejriwal had argued that the March 9 order did not disclose reasons explaining the “perversity” that justified an ex parte stay on the discharge order. He had contended that interim interference with a discharge order is an extraordinary measure that should be exercised only in rare circumstances.

Kejriwal had also objected to the High Court’s direction to defer proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act despite the Enforcement Directorate not being a party to the proceedings. According to the letter, the grant of such “wide and consequential relief” at a preliminary stage, without hearing the discharged accused, strengthened the apprehension that the revision petition might not be approached with the necessary judicial detachment. Kejriwal had further argued that in revision petitions of this nature, courts typically grant four to five weeks for filing responses. However, the pace at which the matter proceeded in the present case, he claimed, created an apprehension of predisposition.

The AAP leader had also pointed out that Justice Sharma had previously dealt with matters arising from the same excise policy controversy and had expressed detailed prima facie views on similar issues. He had added that several of those earlier decisions were later set aside by the Supreme Court, which according to him strengthened his apprehension about the fairness of the proceedings.