Delhi High Court Issues Notice to Gopal Rai, Journalist Saurav Das in Justice Sharma Contempt Row

The Delhi High Court on Friday tagged a fresh criminal contempt petition against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Saurabh Bhardwaj with the contempt proceedings already pending against them over alleged social media posts targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed that it had already taken cognizance of the allegations, issued notices to the concerned parties, and appointed an amicus curiae in the matter.

The Court said there was no need to multiply contempt proceedings by entertaining parallel petitions on the same issue.

"we are of the opinion that instead of multiplying the number of matters against the respondents, this contempt case be also taken up along with contempt case instituted earlier." the Bench observed.

The petition had sought initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Bhardwaj, AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das, alleging that they were part of a coordinated social media campaign aimed at scandalising the Court and lowering the authority of Justice Sharma.

While declining to initiate separate proceedings against Kejriwal and Bhardwaj at this stage, the Bench issued notice to Rai and Das, who are not parties to the pending contempt proceedings. The notices were made returnable on August 4.

The Court further directed that Kejriwal and Bhardwaj be supplied with the materials filed along with the fresh petition.

Since an amicus curiae had already been appointed in the earlier contempt case, the Bench directed that the present petition also be supplied to the amicus for consideration.

On a request made by the petitioner for preservation of the material relied upon in the proceedings, the Court directed the Registry to preserve the social media posts and other online content forming part of the record.

The plea alleges that the posts accused Justice Sharma of bias and conflict of interest based on claims relating to the professional engagements of her family members. It argues that the allegations were “factually incorrect,” “misleading,” and designed to malign the integrity of the judge.

According to the petition, the posts were amplified by multiple respondents who hold considerable public influence, indicating what the petitioner describes as a “concerted and orchestrated campaign.”

The controversy traces its origins to Justice Sharma's detailed order dated May 14, wherein she took judicial notice of several social media posts, videos, public statements and online publications allegedly directed against her in connection with proceedings arising from the Delhi excise policy case.

In that order, the court observed that certain individuals appeared to have engaged in a sustained campaign through social media platforms, press conferences and public statements aimed at scandalising the Court, lowering its authority and interfering with the administration of justice.

Holding that a prima facie case of criminal contempt was made out, Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings against several individuals, including political leaders associated with the Aam Aadmi Party, and referred the matter for consideration by a Division Bench. 

The fresh petition, filed by Advocate Ashok Chaitanya, contends that additional social media content circulated by Kejriwal, Rai, Bhardwaj and journalist Saurav Das formed part of the same alleged campaign and warranted contempt action by the High Court.

With notices now issued to additional respondents and the Court directing preservation of the impugned material, the proceedings are expected to further examine whether the alleged online campaign crossed the line between permissible criticism of judicial functioning and criminal contempt of court.

What has happened so far in the Delhi Excise policy case:

Notably, Senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia had written to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, stating that he will not participate in further hearings in the matter, citing concerns over the “appearance of impartial justice” and invoking principles of conscience and Satyagraha.

Sisodia’s letter follows a similar communication by Arvind Kejriwal a day earlier. Referring to it, Sisodia stated, “I have carefully considered the substance of that letter… I find myself in respectful agreement with the stand taken by him, which is based on Mahatma Gandhi's teachings on Satyagraha.”

Manish Sisodia's recusal case involves a pending criminal revision petition before the Delhi High Court, where he had sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma citing apprehensions of bias.

In the same case, Arvind Kejriwal was permitted to argue the recusal plea in person and he had made detailed submissions before the Court.

The High Court, however, rejected the recusal plea, holding that the grounds raised did not justify withdrawal of the judge and cautioning against allegations that could undermine the institution’s integrity if not substantiated.

Following the hearing, videos of Kejriwal’s courtroom arguments surfaced and were widely circulated on social media, triggering a separate controversy over alleged unauthorised recording and dissemination of court proceedings.

The same is under consideration before the High Court. It is in this backdrop that after Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak have written to the Court expressing their decision to abstain from further participation in the matter.

Case Title: Ashok Chaitanya v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.

Bench: Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja

Hearing Date: May 22, 2026