New Delhi

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Gopal Rai and a journalist on a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against them for allegedly running a coordinated campaign targeting justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

Lawyer Ashok Chaitanya, who filed the petition, also sought initiation of contempt proceedings against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leader Saurabh Bhardwaj. However, a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja said that justice Sharma had already initiated contempt action against them.

The court directed the lawyer to supply the petition to Kejriwal and Bhardwaj and attached the petition with the criminal contempt petition initiated by justice Sharma. The bench said it had already appointed senior advocate Rajdipa Behura in the contempt petition initiated by justice Sharma.

“On almost similar allegations and material, the single judge of this court, by judgment dated April 14, has already initiated contempt petition against respondent 1 (Kejriwal) and 2 (Bhardwaj) and we have issued notice to the respondents. Keeping in view the above, we are of the view that instead of multiplying this case be taken up with (suo moto criminal contempt petition) and since respondents 3 (Gopal Rai) and 4 (journalist) are not parties in the contempt case, let notice of this petition be served on them returnable on August 4, 2026. The contemnor numbers 1 and 2 shall also be supplied with the material that has been furnished. As we have already appointed an amicus in the contempt case, we need not multiply the same,” the court said in the order.

In his petition, Chaitanya asserted that while Kejriwal’s application seeking justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s recusal from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI’s) appeal against the trial court’s discharge order in the excise policy case was subjudice, a concerted and orchestrated campaign was initiated by them on X, publishing and amplifying content containing serious, unfounded and scandalous allegations.

“The said content was not only published by one Respondent but was actively endorsed, republished, and amplified by the other Respondents, all of whom are persons of significant public standing and influence. The coordinated nature of the posts, their timing during the pendency of judicial proceedings, and the nature of the allegations clearly demonstrate a calculated attempt to lower the authority of the Court and interfere with the due course of justice,” the petition stated.

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 the 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 May 14, justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings and withdrew herself from hearing the 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 – stood.

The judge held that after she refused to recuse herself from the case, 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.

On May 19, a division bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja issued notice in the contempt petition, while in a separate development, another bench asked the 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.