Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~116
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 14.05.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 & CRL.M.A. 6853/2026, CRL.M.A.
13409/2026, CRL.M.A. 13411/2026, CRL.M.A. 13737/2026
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. S.V.
Raju and Mr. D.P. Singh, ASG with
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for
ED with Mr. Manu Mishra, Ms.
Garima Saxena, Mr. Annam
Venkatesh, Mr. Vivek Gurnani,
Panel Counsels, Mr. Pranjal
Tripathi, Mr. Imaan Khera, Mr.
Bhuvan Kapoor, Mr. Digvijay Dam,
Mr. Madhav Goel, Mr. Hitarth Raja
and Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocates
with Mr. J.S. Randhawa-DIG, Mr.
I.B. Pendhari-SP, Mr. Alok Shahi,
ASP and Mr. Naveen, Sub-
Inspector for CBI.
versus
KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Mr. Tushar
Agarwal, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr.
Abhishek Mahal and Ms. Rashi
Choudhary, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Pradeep Rana and Mr. Tushar
Rohmetra, Advocates for R-2
Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Harshit Anand and Ms.
Varisha Sharma, Advocates for R-3.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 1 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
Mr. Sumer Singh Boparai and Mr.
Surya Pratap Singh, Advocates for
R-4.
Mr. Nitesh Rana, Ms. Aditi Singh,
Ms. Zainab Khan, Mr. Suyash
Pandey, Ms. Aditi Singh and Mr.
Aditya Narayan, Advocates for R-5.
Mr. Shivendra Dwivedi and Ms.
Onmichon Ramrar, Advocates for
R-6 and R-10
Mr. Dhruv Gupta and Mr. Anubhav
Garg, Advocates for R-7.
Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Shashwat
Sarin, Mr. Shaurya Mittal and Ms.
Dhanya Visweswaran, Advocates
for R-9.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Talib
Mustafa, Mr. Vishvendra Tomar,
Ms. Shreya Singh, Mr. Ketan Kumar
Roy and Mr. Shubh Mathur,
Advocates for R-11
Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Mr. Dushyant
Chaudhary, Mr. Tushar Garg and
Mr. Vineet Singh, Advocates for R-
12 to 15.
Ms. Baani Khanna, Mr. Robin
Singh, Mr. Kapil Balwani and Ms.
Komal Thakkar, Advs. for R-16.
Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Ms.
Aruna Gupta and Mr. Sahil Sood,
Advocates for R-17
Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Ms. Stuti Gupta,
Mr. Dev Vrat Arya, Ms. Deeya
Mittal and Mr. Samraat Saxena,
Advocates for R-20.
Mr. Gagan Minocha and Ms.
Tusharika Mattoo, Advocates for R-
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 2 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
21.
Mr. Harsh Bora and Mr. Sahil Ghai,
Advocates for R-22.
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Madhur
Jain, Mr. Arpit Goel and Mr.
Deepak Jain, Advocates for R-23
Dr. Farrukh Khan, Mr. Aditya
Tyagi, Mr. Aryan Dev Pandey, Mr.
Rashi Khandelwal and Mr.
Amuldeep, Advocates for applicant
in CRL.M.A. 13409/2026
CORAM:
HON‟BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
Index to the Judgment
THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS: A PRELUDE ................................ 4
LAW ON CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT .............................. 13
CONTEMPTUOUS MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON SOCIAL MEDIA
& THE PROPOSED CONTEMNORS ............................................... 18
Contemptuous content published by R-18 Arvind Kejriwal ....................... 21
Contemptuous content published by R-8 Manish Sisodia & R-19
Durgesh Pathak ................................................................................................. 29
32
Contemptuous content published by ‘@SanjayAzadSln’ on ‘X’ .................
36
Contemptuous content published by ‘@devesh_aap’ on ‘X’ ......................
Contemptuous content published by ‘@vinayymishraap’ on ‘X’ ............... 42
Contemptuous content published by ‘Saurabh Bhardwaj’ on YouTube ... 46
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 49
Public Campaigns and Attempts to Achieve Outside the Courtroom
What Could Not Be Achieved Inside It ......................................................... 49
Circulation of Misleading and Edited Video Relating to Lecture delivered
by this Court at Kashi ....................................................................................... 50
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 3 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
Judicial Silence, Organised Vilification and Protection of the
51
Institution ...........................................................................................................
Concluding Reflections ..................................................................................... 57
The Campaign of ‘Satyagraha’ ......................................................................... 61
The Two Options Before This Court: Judicial Silence or Constitutional
Duty? ................................................................................................................... 63
Not Recusal, But Judicial Propriety and Fairness to Accused..................... 65
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. ( Oral )
THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS: A PRELUDE
1. A litigant did not like an order passed by this Court since his
prayer had been rejected. He, instead of taking the order to the higher
Court, took it to social media platforms and put the judge, the
judgment, and the judicial system on trial by a social media narrative
orchestrated by him.
2. In this background, when the institution of the judiciary and
this Court was put on trial, it became the duty of this Court, at that
moment, to stand up for itself and the institution. However, this Court
ensured while writing this order that the fear of being unjustifiably
defamed further and scandalized does not govern the pen of the
Court, and that, the pen, continues to remain governed solely by
the rule of law.
3. Ordinarily, a Court while deciding a case or any application
therein expects the controversy to remain within the discipline of
law, the dignity of pleadings, and the boundaries of judicial
adjudication. While this Court was hearing the applications seeking
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 4 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
recusal, and thereafter while dictating and pronouncing the order
thereon, this Court proceeded on the understanding that the issue
before it was confined to the correctness of earlier judicial orders
passed by it and the apprehensions of bias sought to be raised before
this Court. The Court had thus heard the submissions addressed
before it with the constitutional detachment expected of a Judge.
4. However, only after the pronouncement of the order did this
Court come to learn, to its utter shock and concern, that letters,
videos and a coordinated social media campaign concerning the
proceedings before this Court were being widely circulated in the
public domain. What initially appeared to be isolated acts of
comments being made on public platforms gradually revealed
themselves to be part of something far more disturbing.
5. It was only thereafter, upon the material being placed before
this Court, that the earlier trail of social media posts, circulated
content, public statements and videos also came to the notice of this
Court. The Court found that even during the pendency and hearing of
the recusal applications, certain respondents had already begun
disseminating material and narratives concerning the proceedings
before this Court, which continued and were further amplified even
after rejection of these recusal applications vide a detailed judicial
order. Thus, while the issue inside the courtroom was being dealt
with through the constitutional process of adjudication, a parallel
narrative outside the courtroom had simultaneously begun to be
constructed through selective dissemination, digital amplification and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 5 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
repeated insinuations directed against the Court and the Judge
presiding over the matter.
6. It became apparent that the judicial order passed by this Court
had displeased a politically influential accused. While the course
legally open to him was to challenge the order before the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court, instead of doing so, he carried the dispute to social
media platforms where truth became secondary and amplification and
intimidation through orchestrated narratives, devoid of truth, were
clothed as the democratic right to free speech. Portions of the videos
of this Court were distorted and selectively edited in a calculated
manner, not for the purpose of informing the public, but for
repeatedly spreading falsehoods and insinuations so as to undermine
the authority of the Court. It was not merely the order passed by the
Judge that became the target; it was the Judge herself.
7. The utterances by the proposed contemnors in the form of
videos and letters publicly released on social media platforms did not
merely express disagreement with the judicial order; rather, when
seen in their entirety, they lead to only one conclusion – that it was a
calculated campaign of vilification in the digital space, directed not
only against this Court as an individual sitting Judge, but also against
the entire institution of the judiciary and the adjudicatory process
itself. Some of the proposed contemnors were armed with political
influence and substantial public following, which gave them an
undue advantage, enabling them to manipulate public opinion by
releasing letters containing incomplete information and videos
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 6 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
selectively edited to suit their campaign. Thus, instead of choosing
the path of legal redressal of their grievances, they consciously chose
the path of intimidation by circulating videos and posting content on
social media platforms. While narratives were being manufactured to
scandalize the Court, the proposed contemnors crossed the line by
attempting to cast aspersions upon the independence and integrity of
the Court itself. Even the family members of this Court were dragged
into this manufactured narrative with a view to embarrass, defame,
scandalise, lower the authority of this Court and ensure calculated
humiliation through such false and motivated narratives.
8. This Court noted that the material which came to its notice in
the present contempt proceedings revealed that, though inside the
four walls of the courtroom, respondent no. 18 Arvind Kejriwal
professed respect for the Court, the Judge, and the judicial system,
outside the courtroom he orchestrated a calculated campaign of
vilification and intimidation. Instead of challenging the order of this
Court in accordance with law before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, he
sought to destroy the reputation of the Judge and the institution by
dragging a judicial order into the public domain even before availing
the legal remedies available to him under law.
9. When videos are circulated with theatrical aggression , facts
are distorted, and videos of the Judge are selectively edited to suit a
particular narrative, it reflects deliberate malice . The authority of the
Court was sought to be reduced to ridicule. More disturbingly, such
assault through words and gestures did not remain confined to the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 7 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
judicial office of the Judge, but was deliberately extended to
members of my family, who were wholly unconnected with the
judicial proceedings, and were dragged into insinuations and public
targeting.
10. Unmistakably, the message conveyed through the campaign
was that it wanted to sow seeds of distrust in the minds of the
general public against the judicial system and the judge. The message
sought to be conveyed was that if a Judge and its orders did not
conform to the expectations of a powerful individual or political
force, the Judge and her reputation would be publicly broken and
vilified. Such a message and campaign cannot be permitted to
acquire legitimacy or sanctity. If, in the name of judicial tolerance
and silence, such conduct is allowed to pass unchecked, and Judges
are threatened into silence or compelled to render orders to the liking
of politically powerful persons, justice itself may become a casualty.
11. Another dangerous aspect of the contemptuous acts in the
present case was the attempt to project that an order adverse to a
powerful individual may expose, not merely the Judge but even the
Judge‘s family, to manufactured false campaigns, and that Judges
should yield to such fear; failing which, the entire institution of the
judiciary would suffer the consequences. This Court did have the
option of choosing silence and restraint over its duty to protect
both itself and the institution. However, silence in such
circumstances would amount to surrender before those who
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 8 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
commit contempt to the extent of destroying the faith of the
people in the judiciary.
12. At the same time, while I asked myself whether the proposed
contemnors had merely caused a private injury or whether they were,
in fact, attacking a constitutional Court so as to deter it from
discharging its constitutional duty, I found the answer to be the latter.
It was not merely a personal or private attack, but a constitutional
injury aimed at destabilizing the institution itself. Such acts tend to
shake the confidence of common citizens who have historically held
the belief that justice in this country is fearless, impartial, free from
bias, and insulated from political pressure or power games . The
Court did not expect political retaliation, for a Court is not a
political entity, nor does a Judge discharge constitutional duties
with political considerations in mind.
13. The proposed contemnors, fully conscious of the power of
digital amplification of their false narrative, did not choose the path
of legal challenge, but instead adopted the route of intimidation and
vilification. But they have proceeded on a mistaken assumption that
intimidation in the form of public speeches, circulated videos,
collectively and individually undertaken by them as a political party
or through social media campaigns, can be clothed in the garb of
popular belief or public opinion.
14. A lie spoken a thousand times does not become the truth,
just as intimidation clothed as legitimate criticism does not
become immune from the law of contempt.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 9 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
15. The popularity of a person also cannot bestow
constitutional immunity. No individual, howsoever influential or
powerful, is above the majesty of justice .
16. Neither the Constitution nor the judges have ever considered
the Courts of law and the constitutional courts to be so weak as to
bow before pressure , manufactured public opinion, vilification
campaigns, or the political might of any individual. If judges are
compelled to weigh the pros and cons of rendering their decisions on
account of a person‘s political influence or the social media
campaign that may be orchestrated against them, the adjudicatory
process will begin to decay from that very moment.
17. The soul of the institution of the judiciary, on which its very
survival depends, is not the power of the chair but the trust reposed
by the common people in the judicial system. The institution survives
on public confidence in the system as well as in its judges. Any
attempt to destroy that confidence through calculated and
orchestrated scandalization constitutes one of the gravest forms of
contempt of Court as envisaged under law.
18. This Court is also conscious that the power to punish for
criminal contempt is an extraordinary power and ought not to be
exercised without utmost restraint or in a manner reflecting
hypersensitivity. But the law of contempt does not protect the
dignity of an individual judge alone, but the justice delivery system
itself.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 10 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
19. Every courtroom in this nation is respected not because of the
power it wields or the position it occupies, but because it functions
for ordinary citizens who firmly believe that Courts of law stand
above influence, wealth, and political power, and are incapable of
fearful adjudication. Judges command respect because they
adjudicate fearlessly.
20. The true nature of the personal attack in the present case was
not one of legal disagreement, but of psychological coercion
intended to ensure that a constitutional duty was not carried out, with
threats of destruction of personal reputation as the consequence. This
Court cannot send a signal across the judicial system that if a Judge
refuses to yield before a powerful litigant, such litigant may resort to
systematically eroding public confidence in the Judge and the
institution. India is governed by the rule of law, and no individual,
howsoever powerful, celebrated, or influential, possesses the
authority to terrorize judicial institutions into submission .
21. This Court must emphasize, with the calmness and restraint
expected of a constitutional institution, that criticism of judgments or
even of the law does not amount to contempt . However, there
exists a clear constitutional distinction between fair criticism of a
judicial decision and carrying out a campaign to scandalize the Court
and destroy public faith in the institution.
22. If acts such as those committed by the proposed contemnors
are normalized, the consequences for the justice delivery system
would be grave. Judges would then be compelled to decide matters
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 11 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
not solely in accordance with law, but also according to the
anticipated intensity of retaliation from a powerful litigant. Such
utterances and actions are impossible to ignore. This Court, therefore,
reflected deeply before drawing the present proceedings.
23. A Judge cannot have the choice of being fearless; it is a duty
cast upon it by the Constitution. A Judge cannot capitulate before
power, popularity, or even provocation. Courts of law do not seek
comfort or convenience when such contemptuous acts are hurled at
them and the institution itself is attacked. At such moments, the
constitutional duty of the Court is to ensure that the rule of law does
not collapse by choosing courage over convenience . This Court has,
therefore, decided that it shall not choose the path of convenience and
comfort.
24. At this stage, I also wish to note that the present proceedings
that I have been compelled to draw were not born in a day, nor have
they arisen out of any personal anguish. I, like all other judges, have
been trained to endure and accept fair criticism and dissent against
my orders. Even hostility, to an extent, has been accepted by many of
us on the Bench. The robe that I wear, as I had earlier observed in
the order of recusal, is not so fragile that a few fragments of
criticism would leave its mark on it, however, it does not permit
me to be fragile . The robe worn by a judge demands, amongst many
other things, calmness, patience, self-imposed silence, and above all,
fortitude. Yet, there are moments in the life of a constitutional Court
when remaining silent is not judicial restraint but may amount to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 12 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
surrender before a powerful litigant or an abdication of constitutional
duty. That moment has arrived today before this Court.
LAW ON CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT
25. Before proceeding to examine the individual contemptuous
statements, videos and social media posts which have come to the
notice of this Court, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the law
governing criminal contempt.
26. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [hereafter
‗ Contempt of Courts Act ‘] defines ‗criminal contempt‘ to mean
publication of any matter or the doing of any act whatsoever which:
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower
the authority of any Court; or
(ii) prejudices, interferes or tends to interfere with the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
27. Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, inter alia ,
empowers the High Court to initiate proceedings for criminal
contempt on its own motion.
28. The contours, scope and object of contempt jurisdiction have
been explained and settled by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court through a
catena of decisions. In Brahma Prakash Sharma & Ors. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh: (1953) 1 SCC 813 , the Hon‘ble Supreme Court
observed that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is not to protect
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 13 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
Judges personally from criticism or defamatory allegations as
individuals, but to preserve the authority of courts and maintain
public confidence in the administration of justice. It was further
observed that allegations attacking the integrity, ability or
impartiality of judges may amount to contempt where such
allegations are likely to create distrust in the minds of the public and
weaken faith in the judicial system. At the same time, it was clarified
that a distinction must always be maintained between mere
defamatory statements against a Judge and statements which
interfere, or are likely to interfere, with administration of justice.
However, the transition from mere libel of a judge in the individual
capacity to contempt of court was explained in following words:
― 14 . …The position therefore is that a defamatory attack on a
Judge may be a libel so far as the Judge is concerned and it
would be open to him to proceed against the libeller in a proper
action if he so chooses. If, however, the publication of the
disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the
due course of justice or proper administration of law by
such court, it can be punished summarily as contempt. One
is a wrong done to the Judge personally while the other is a
wrong done to the public. It will be an injury to the public if
it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the
people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the
Judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from
placing complete reliance upon the court's administration
of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the
mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial
duties. It is well established that it is not necessary to prove
affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with
the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory
statement; it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to
interfere with the proper administration of law.‖
(Emphasis added)
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 14 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
29. Similarly, in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (Smt) & Ors.:
(2007) 14 SCC 1 , the Hon‘ble Supreme Court reiterated that judges
and courts are open to fair and reasonable criticism. However, where
criticism crosses the limits of fairness and tends to lower the dignity
and authority of the Court or interfere with administration of justice,
the same has to be dealt with firmly. It was also emphasised that
though freedom of speech and expression is constitutionally
protected, it remains subject to reasonable restrictions, including the
law relating to contempt of court. Some observations in the said
decision are set out below:
― 13 . The vehemence of the language used is not alone the
measure of the power to punish for contempt of court. The
fires which it kindles must constitute an imminent, not merely
a likely, threat to the administration of justice. The stream of
administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity
of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the
State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore required to
be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's
environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly
and to the satisfaction of all concerned…
*
17 . The view was echoed by this Court in D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v.
Chief Justice of India. In the same volume of Halsbury's Laws
of England at Para 27 it is stated thus:
―27. Scandalising the court.—Any act done or writing
published which is calculated to bring a court or a judge
into contempt or to lower his authority, or to interfere
with the due course of justice or the lawful process of
the court, is a contempt of court.‖
*
23 . Krishna Iyer, J. in his separate judgment in S. Mulgaokar,
In re [(1978) 3 SCC 339: 1978 SCC (Cri) 402] while giving
broad guidelines in taking punitive action in the matter of
contempt of court has stated:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 15 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
―…if the Court considers the attack on the Judge or
Judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious
beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law
must, in the name of public interest and public justice,
strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of
the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.‖
30. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Prashant Bhushan (Contempt
Matter), In re: (2021) 1 SCC 745 , while dealing with suo motu
contempt proceedings arising out of tweets made by the contemnor
concerning the Chief Justice of India and the role of the Supreme
Court in the functioning of democracy, held the contemnor guilty of
criminal contempt. The tweets, inter alia , alleged that the Chief
Justice of India was riding a motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader
while the Supreme Court remained in ―lockdown mode‖ denying
citizens access to justice, and further alleged that the Supreme Court
and the last four Chief Justices had played a role in the destruction of
democracy in India. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court, while convicting
the contemnor, inter alia , observed as under:
― 76 . As held by this Court in earlier judgments, to which we
have referred herein above, the Indian judiciary is not only one
of pillars on which the Indian democracy stands but is the
central pillar. The Indian Constitutional democracy stands on
the bedrock of rule of law. The trust, faith and confidence of
the citizens of the country in the judicial system is sine qua non
for existence of rule of law. An attempt to shake the very
foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an
iron hand. The tweet has the effect of destabilising the very
foundation of this important pillar of the Indian democracy.
The tweet clearly tends to give an impression, that the Supreme
Court, which is a highest constitutional court in the country,
has in the last six years played a vital role in destruction of the
Indian democracy. There is no manner of doubt, that the tweet
tends to shake the public confidence in the institution of
judiciary. We do not want to go into the truthfulness or
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 16 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
otherwise of the first part of the tweet, inasmuch as we do not
want to convert this proceeding into a platform for political
debate. We are only concerned with the damage that is sought
to be done to the institution of administration of justice. In our
considered view, the said tweet undermines the dignity and
authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and
the CJI and directly affronts the majesty of law.
77 . Indian judiciary is considered by the citizens in the country
with the highest esteem. The judiciary is considered as a last
hope when a citizen fails to get justice anywhere. The Supreme
Court is the epitome of the Indian judiciary. An attack on the
Supreme Court does not only have the effect of tending an
ordinary litigant of losing the confidence in the Supreme Court
but also may tend to lose the confidence in the mind of other
judges in the country in its highest court. A possibility of the
other judges getting an impression that they may not stand
protected from malicious attacks, when the Supreme Court has
failed to protect itself from malicious insinuations, cannot be
ruled out. As such, in order to protect the larger public interest,
such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country
should be dealt with firmly. No doubt, that the Court is
required to be magnanimous, when criticism is made of the
judges or of the institution of administration of justice.
However, such magnanimity cannot be stretched to such an
extent, which may amount to weakness in dealing with a
malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack on the very foundation
of the institution of the judiciary and thereby damaging the
very foundation of the democracy.‖
31. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court, in Court On Its Own
Motion v. Shiv Narayan Sharma : 2026:DHC:3275-DB , had
occasion to examine YouTube videos containing scandalous
allegations against judicial officers. The videos in question had
publicly conveyed that litigants should not expect justice from certain
judicial officers and thus had openly attacked the integrity and
functioning of their courts. Rejecting the plea that such statements
were made bona fide or innocently, the Division Bench held that the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 17 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
conduct clearly amounted to scandalising the judiciary and lowering
the authority of courts in the eyes of the public and accordingly held
the contemnors guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act.
32. In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions and
settled principles governing criminal contempt, this Court shall now
proceed to examine how some of the respondents and other proposed
contemnors, named in the subsequent paragraphs of this order,
appear to have collectively carried out a sustained public and social
media campaign targeting this Court through repeated statements,
press conferences and edited videos, so as to scandalise and lower the
authority of this Court.
CONTEMPTUOUS MATERIAL PUBLISHED ON SOCIAL MEDIA
& THE PROPOSED CONTEMNORS
33. To recapitulate, it must be noted that the present criminal
revision petition was first listed before this Court on 09.03.2026,
when notice was issued in the case and some prima facie
observations were also recorded in the order. Two days thereafter,
some of the respondents had addressed letters to Hon‘ble the Chief
Justice of this Court, setting out their grievance with the order dated
09.03.2026 passed by this Court and requesting the Hon‘ble Chief
Justice to transfer the matter to some other Bench. This request was
however declined by the Hon‘ble Chief Justice, after noting that there
were no grounds to transfer the matter on the administrative side.
Thereafter, some of the respondents, including respondent no. 18,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 18 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
chose to file SLP challenging the order dated 09.03.2026 of this
Court as well as writ petition challenging the communication issued
by the Hon‘ble Chief Justice. These remedies however were not
pursued by them. Rather, applications seeking recusal of this Court
from hearing this case were filed by some of the respondents before
this Court.
34. This Court had then adjudicated the applications seeking
recusal after hearing all the grounds raised by the recusal applicants,
including respondent no. 18, who had appeared in person and argued
his matter at length. The applications came to be rejected vide a
judgment on 20.04.2026. The applications were thus not rejected
summarily, nor without granting full opportunity to the concerned
parties to address submissions. The said applications were decided by
a detailed judgment, which dealt not only with each of the grounds
raised seeking recusal of this Court, but also discussed the principles
governing recusal, as recognised in law.
35. It is also pertinent to note that as respondent no. 18 had argued
the recusal application in person, the video of him addressing
arguments before this Court had then been circulated widely in
public, on social media platforms. This Court also notes that
directions had subsequently been passed by the Division Bench of
this Court for taking down such content containing unauthorised
recording of the judicial proceedings. However, even thereafter, the
contemptuous campaign against this Court did not stop.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 19 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
36. This Court expected, as every Court of law in this country
would, that once the recusal applications stood decided, the issue
would attain quietus , subject to the remedies available in law to a
litigant. The recusal applicants had the option either to challenge the
said order before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court or to accept the same,
as every litigant is expected to do in accordance with the rule of law.
However, the course adopted by the respondent no. 18, and some
other respondents, thereafter was entirely different.
37. It came to the notice of this Court that not only some of the
recusal applicants, especially respondent no. 18, but several
members, spokespersons, and office bearers of their political party
also began publicly repeating the very same allegations and grounds
which had already been dealt with and rejected by this Court in the
judgment dated 20.04.2026.
38. The tone, tenor and manner of the statements made thereafter
were not those of fair criticism of a judicial order. The social media
campaigns were run to openly question the integrity, impartiality and
independence of this Court. Allegations were repeatedly made
regarding political affiliation, ideological alignment and improper
motives. Statements were circulated portraying this Court as
incapable of deciding matters fairly and independently. It also came
to the notice of this Court that one of the alleged contemnors had, in
the very beginning of this case before this Court itself, had gone to
the extent of publicly suggesting a relationship and understanding
between this Court and a political party, thereby attempting to create
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 20 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
suspicion in the minds of the public regarding the functioning of this
Court.
39. In this Court‘s view, legal battles are to be fought in courts of
law. As noted above, some of the respondents in fact availed their
rights, as per law, to file applications seeking this Court‘s recusal and
advance arguments thereon. However, after suffering an adverse
order and failing to obtain the relief sought by them, the dispute was
sought to be carried by some of them beyond the courtroom, into the
public domain through social media campaigns, public speeches,
press conferences, and circulation of videos.
Contemptuous content published by R-18 Arvind Kejriwal
40. It has specifically come to the notice of this Court that
respondent no. 18 Arvind Kejriwal had published a letter, addressed
to this Court, on social media platform ‗X‘, from his account bearing
handle ― @ArvindKejriwal ‖, with display name as ‗Arvind
Kejriwal‘. The said post was published at 10:00 AM on 27.04.2026
and reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 21 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
URL:
https://x.com/ArvindKejriwal/status/2048620655109911007?s=20
41. Similarly, another post was published at 10:01 AM on
27.04.2026, containing a video recorded by respondent no. 18
himself, informing the public at large of his decision not to appear
before this Court and reiterating several allegations against this
Court. The post in this regard is as under:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 22 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
URL:
https://x.com/ArvindKejriwal/status/2048620906130424292?s=20
42. In the aforesaid letter, respondent no. 18 has, inter alia , stated
that ‗ how can an ordinary citizen believe that this Court can rule
against the Solicitor General, the Bharatiya Janata Party or the
Union Government in matters of the present nature ‘. He further
states that the outcome in the present case appears ―strongly tilted in
one direction irrespective of merits‖; that participation in proceedings
before this Court would be ―futile‖; and that the outcome appears
―foretold‖. Respondent no. 18 thereafter declared that he would
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 23 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
neither personally appear before this Court nor participate through
counsel in further proceedings in the present matter.
43. On the face of it, these statements, in the opinion of this Court,
are not bona fide expressions of any apprehension of bias or
dissatisfaction with either the first order passed in the present case or
the judgment rejecting the prayer for recusal. By publicly stating that
this Court cannot fairly decide matters in which the Union
Government or BJP is a party or where the learned Solicitor General
appears, respondent no. 18 has directly attributed political influence
and lack of judicial independence to this Court and attempted to
lower the authority of this Court.
44. It is also significant that, while expressing his personal
apprehension, respondent no. 18 goes on to state that an ordinary
citizen of this country cannot believe that this Court can render
justice in such matters. This Court wonders as to how the
respondent no. 18 has assumed the authority to speak on behalf of the
citizens of this country, including countless litigants who appear
before constitutional courts every day, including before this Court,
with faith in the judicial process. Such a statement made by
respondent no. 18 is not confined to questioning any judicial order
passed by this Court, but is an attempt, clearly, to falsely create a
public perception that this Court is incapable of deciding matters
fairly and independently.
45. The statements of this nature amount to scandalising the Court
and lowering its authority in the eyes of the public. If such
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 24 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
allegations are permitted to be openly circulated merely because a
Judge may have delivered a lecture at some event, or because some
family member or relative of a Judge may at some point be
associated with any panel of a government, the same can be used
tomorrow against any Judge hearing any matter involving any
political party or government. Such a course would seriously
prejudice the independence of the judiciary and public confidence in
the administration of justice.
46. Further, the assertion that the result of proceedings before this
Court is ―foretold‖ irrespective of merits seems intended to convey to
the public at large that this Court does not decide matters according
to law and evidence, but according to other considerations.
Statements of this nature, made repeatedly on social media platforms,
are bound to shake the confidence of litigants and members of the
public in the fairness of judicial proceedings before this Court.
47. Equally serious is the public declaration by respondent no. 18
that he would not participate in proceedings before this Court in
relation to the present case, either personally or through counsel,
while invoking the concept of ― Satyagraha ‖. Courts function on the
foundational principle that parties who invoke the jurisdiction of
courts, or are subject to judicial proceedings, shall participate in the
process established by law and abide by judicial orders. In the
considered opinion of this Court, a litigant cannot, after suffering an
adverse judicial order, publicly declare that participation in
proceedings before the Court is ‗futile‘ and serves no purpose.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 25 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
48. This Court is also of the opinion that this is not a case where an
accused has remained unrepresented due to non-service, inability to
appear, or any other circumstance beyond control, requiring
proceedings to continue ex parte or with assistance of an amicus
curiae . This is a unique case where respondent no. 18 had earlier
appeared before this Court, advanced detailed submissions, argued
the recusal applications and a detailed judicial order thereon was
passed by this Court on 20.04.2026. The said order was open to
challenge before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, in accordance with
law.
49. However, instead of availing legal remedies known to law,
respondent no. 18 publicly declared that he would neither appear
before this Court in this case personally nor through counsel, and
projected such a course of action as a principled and justified
response.
50. Though an accused or any party may choose not to appear
before a Court for whatever reason, and the matters are often
proceeded ex-parte or by appointing amicus as noted above, the
public declaration of such non-participation, coupled with statements
that no citizen can expect justice from this Court, travels far beyond a
personal choice of abstaining from proceedings before the court. The
clear effect of such statements is to publicly portray proceedings
before this Court as unfair, at the same time, without challenging the
orders passed by this Court before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 26 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
which is the only course known in law and available to every litigant
as per the Constitution.
51. In the present case, respondent no. 18 has specifically stated
that he would not appear before this Court in matters where,
according to him, the Union Government, BJP, RSS or the learned
Solicitor General are connected with the proceedings, thereby openly
suggesting that this Court cannot independently or fairly adjudicate
such matters, whereas he states that he would appear before this
Court in other matters where the aforesaid ‗concerns‘ do not exist.
52. The above conduct of the respondent no. 18 Arvind Kejriwal,
viewed in the context of the contents of the letter and its wide public
circulation, also tends to convey to litigants and members of the
public that if a litigant perceives a Court to be unfavourable, such
litigant may publicly accuse the Court of bias, declare that justice
cannot be expected from the Court, and thereafter refuse to
participate in judicial proceedings by publishing letters and videos on
social media platforms, again re-iterating the very same allegations of
bias which stand adjudicated by the Court by way of a judicial order.
In this Court‟s opinion, this will lead to anarchy where accused
persons of petty as well as serious offences may take the same path,
thereby shaking the edifice of judicial system itself. If people stop
coming to Courts on such grounds and take the path adopted by
accused Arvind Kejriwal, the judicial system, which is one of the
pillars of democracy, will itself be shaken. Even if the accused, being
a political figure, by such statements sows the seeds of adopting such
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 27 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
conduct in the minds of litigants and accused persons facing heinous
or other offences, needless to say, it will throw the entire judicial
system into chaos and directly obstruct the administration of justice.
Since respondent no. 18 is a political figure having considerable
public reach and influence, such conduct is not merely an attempt to
stall administration of justice before one Court, but has the potential
of putting the entire judicial system of the country in danger.
53. This Court is also constrained to note that similar letters and
public positions were thereafter adopted by respondent no. 8-Manish
Sisodia and respondent no. 19-Durgesh Pathak, who publicly
expressed agreement with the actions of respondent no. 18 and
similarly declared that they would not appear before this Court in the
present proceedings. This clearly demonstrates the direct impact and
influence of the statements made by respondent no. 18 and how such
statements are capable of encouraging non-participation in the
judicial proceedings by other litigants, by publicly portraying the
Court as lacking fairness and independence and further maligning the
image of this Court.
54. If such actions are permitted to pass unchecked, any litigant
dissatisfied with judicial proceedings may then seek to avoid
participation in Court by publicly imputing motives to the Judge and
declaring before the public that proceedings before the Court are
meaningless or predetermined. It must be emphasised that a
Constitutional Court and the judicial proceedings cannot be permitted
to become subject to misleading social media campaigns where a
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 28 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
litigant first seeks recusal of the Court, and then do not challenge the
order rejecting such request of recusal as well as any other order
passed by the court in the case, by way of means available to any
party in law, and thereafter publicly call upon people to treat
proceedings before the Court as lacking judicial independence and
being unfair and with pre-decided outcomes.
55. The aforesaid statements and conduct therefore tends to
scandalise and lower the authority of this Court, as well as amounts
to a serious and deliberate attempt to obstruct administration of
justice by publicly portraying proceedings before this Court, and any
other judge who has visited programmes organized by Adhivakta
Parishad and whose family members are on Government panel as
biased, politically influenced and unworthy of participation.
56. Therefore, the aforesaid statements and conduct of the
respondent no. 18 Arvind Kejriwal appears to fall within the
ambit of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act .
Contemptuous content published by R-8 Manish Sisodia & R-19
Durgesh Pathak
57. As noted above, the respondent no. 8 Manish Sisodia and
respondent no. 19 Durgesh Pathak also published letters on social
media platforms, including ‗X‘, containing similar statements and
especially that they had no hope of getting justice from this Court,
and that they will not appear before this Court either personally or
through counsel. They also stated that they completely agree and
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 29 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
endorse the views expressed by respondent no. 18 Arvind Kejriwal in
his letter dated 27.04.2026. The details of the post published on
social media platform ‗X‘ from the account bearing the handle
― @msisodia ‖, with display name as ‗Manish Sisodia‘, is under:
URL:
https://x.com/msisodia/status/2048985521498853481?s=20
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 30 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
58. The details of the post published in this regard, on social media
platform ‗X‘ by Durgesh Pathak, from the account bearing the handle
― @ipathak25 ‖, with display name as ‗Durgesh Pathak‘, is under:
URL:
https://x.com/ipathak25/status/2049355715719131198?s=20
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 31 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
59. The aforesaid statements and conduct of respondent nos. 8 and
19 clearly tends to scandalise and lower the authority of this Court, as
well as amounts to a serious and deliberate attempt to obstruct
administration of justice by publicly portraying proceedings before
this Court as biased, politically influenced and unworthy of
participation.
60. Therefore, the aforesaid statements and conduct of the
respondent no. 8 Manish Sisodia and respondent no. 19 Durgesh
Pathak appears to fall within the ambit of criminal contempt as
defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act .
Contemptuous content published by ‘@SanjayAzadSln’ on ‘X’
61. This Court further takes note of the fact that the aforenoted
letter and the video in that regard published online on social media
platforms by respondent no. 18 Arvind Kejriwal, refusing to appear
before this Court, was shared by several members of his political
party, as well as other social media users.
62. However, one such apparently contemptuous post which has
come to the notice of this Court has been published from the account
bearing the handle ― @SanjayAzadSln ‖ on the social media platform
‗X‘, with display name as ‗Sanjay Singh AAP‘. The said post is as
under:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 32 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
URL:
https://x.com/SanjayAzadSln/status/2048631493162152302?s=20
63. In this post, published on 27.04.2026 at 10:43 AM, while re-
sharing the video published by respondent no. 18 on ‗X‘, it has been
stated, in substance, that when a Judge attends RSS programmes and
says that promotions are received by her whenever such programmes
are attended, no justice can be expected from such a Judge. It has
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 33 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
further been stated that there is no point in advancing arguments
before this Court and that this Court would do whatever its ideology
desires.
64. Further, in another post, published on 29.04.2026 at 12:00 PM
from the account bearing the handle ― @SanjayAzadSln ‖ on platform
‗X‘, it has been stated that no justice can be expected from this Court;
and that a Judge who supports the ideology of RSS cannot render
justice in matters concerning leaders of a particular political party.
The said post is as under:
URL:
https://x.com/SanjayAzadSln/status/2049375752572092678?s=20
65. In the considered opinion of this Court, the statements noted
above is a clear attempt to publicly portray this Court as being
ideologically aligned with a particular organisation and incapable of
acting fairly and independently in matters involving political parties.
This Court is also of the view that statements, that ‗no justice can be
expected from this Court‘ and that arguments need not even be
addressed before this Court, seek to create an impression amongst
litigants and members of the public that proceedings before this
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 34 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
Court are predetermined and would not be decided in accordance
with law.
66. The repeated description of this Court – as a supporter of a
particular ideology and the assertion that this Court would act
according to such ideology – is also a clear and direct attack on the
impartiality and independence of this Court. In this Court‘s
considered opinion, such statements, when circulated publicly, have
the effect of lowering the authority of this Court. These statements
also appear to be intended to influence public perception regarding
proceedings pending before this Court in this case, and to create
distrust in the minds of litigants appearing before this Court, both in
present and future matters. Such statements therefore tend to
scandalise this Court and interfere with administration of justice.
67. This Court is further of the opinion that the repeated public
dissemination of statements alleging that this Court would act
according to a particular ideology and not according to law is not a
mere expression of political disagreement, but an attempt to
delegitimize the judicial process itself in the eyes of the public. If
such statements are to be considered a part of fair criticism, then
every litigant dissatisfied with judicial proceedings, and those who
are not even party to the proceedings pending before the Court,
would publicly attribute ideological motives to Judges who visit or
have visited such programmes, and call upon the public to distrust
such Courts and judges.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 35 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
68. Therefore, clearly, the aforesaid statements published by
Sanjay Singh appear to fall within the ambit of criminal
contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act .
Contemptuous content published by ‘@devesh_aap’ on ‘X’
69. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that a social
media campaign was carried out by certain members/supporters of
the political party of respondent no. 18 Arvind Kejriwal, wherein a
video of this Court, delivering a lecture at a University in Varanasi,
Uttar Pradesh, was edited and falsely projected as a speech delivered
at an event associated with a political party, coupled with false and
misleading claim that this Court had stated that it receives
promotions whenever it is invited to such events.
70. One such social media post which has come to the notice of
this Court has been published from the account bearing the handle
― @devesh_aap ‖ on the platform ‗X‘, with display name as ‗Devesh
Vishwakarma‘, and other details mentioned on the account as
‗President of Rohini District Aam Aadmi Party SM & IT Cell Delhi‘.
The said post alleges that whenever this Court attends ―RSS BJP
events‖, promotions are granted to it, as admitted by this Court in an
event, and thereafter insinuates that despite such alleged association,
this Court continues to hear proceedings concerning respondent no.
18 Arvind Kejriwal while acting under some undisclosed ―pressure‖.
The said post is accompanied by a video clipping of a speech being
delivered by this Court. The said post, published on 21.04.2026 at
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 36 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
2:00 pm, as on date, has more than 1 lakh views and about 3000 re-
posts. The details of the same are as under:
URL:
https://x.com/devesh_aap/status/2046506866348568742?s=46&t=w_scX
5KIdsxUo2dD56_R_Q
71. It is noteworthy that the video in question pertains to a lecture
delivered by this Court at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 37 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, during a one-day national
workshop on the newly enacted criminal laws held on 19.05.2024.
The video shared by the above user appears to have been selectively
cropped in such a manner that the banner and details of the event are
not visible. Further, only a clip of about 59 seconds has been
extracted from the original video of about 6 minutes and 50 seconds
which was posted at the Facebook account of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi
Vidyapeeth University, and thereafter the edited video has presented
in a misleading and decontextualized manner so as to falsely portray
to the public at large that the lecture was delivered at an event
associated with RSS/BJP, which was not the case.
72. This Court further notes that during the course of the said
lecture, some references were made by this Court to Lord Shiva,
popularly revered in Varanasi/Kashi as “Baba Vishwanath” or
“Baba Bholenath”, as also to the cultural and spiritual
significance of the city of Kashi/Varanasi. Prima facie , it is clear
that these references have been deliberately distorted and projected in
the aforesaid social media post as references to a political party or an
organisation, so as to falsely create an impression of this Court‘s
political affiliation and political proximity in the minds of te people.
Moreover, the tenor of the post seeks to convey to the general public
and litigants appearing before this Court – that this Court had
publicly stated that promotions were received whenever events
organized by a particular political/ideological organization were
attended. However, a plain reading of the speech indicates that the
reference was to Lord Shiva / Mahadev and the spiritual significance
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 38 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
associated with the city of Kashi, and not to any political party or
political organization whatsoever.
73. In this regard, it has also come to the notice of this Court that
certain news agencies/platforms, including Bar & Bench, Press Trust
of India, India Today, Alt News, etc. have published fact-check
reports clarifying that the impugned video clip being circulated on
social media is a truncated and misleading extract of the original
lecture delivered by this Court. Some of these fact checks can be
found on the following URLs:
Press Trust of India https://www.ptinews.com/fact-detail/old-
video-of-delhi-hc-judges-speech-from-
kashi-vidyapeeth-workshop-shared-on-
social-media-with-false-claim/3595271
Bar & Bench https://www.barandbench.com/news/fact-
check-justice-swarana-kanta-sharma-did-
not-say-her-participation-in-rss-events-
leads-to-her-promotion
Alt News https://www.altnews.in/justice-swarana-
kanta-sharmas-speech-at-varanasi-varsity-
shared-out-of-context-falsely-linked-to-
rss/
74. Further in this regard, certain newspapers have also published
fact-check reports concerning the above-noted cropped video
published and circulated on social media platforms, clarifying that
the said video was not related to any political event or political
organisation. Rather, the event pertained to a one-day workshop on
the topic ―Relevance of New Criminal Law in Changing India,‖ held
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 39 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith. The news reports also clarify
that the reference made therein was to Lord Shiva, which has
subsequently been misrepresented and falsely linked to a political
organisation. Some of these newspaper reports are set out under:
75. Therefore, the selective clipping of the video and misleading
portrayal – of the lecture delivered by this Court and reference made
to Lord Shiva – is intended to create an impression in the minds of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 40 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
litigants, both present and prospective, that this Court is politically
aligned or politically influenced while discharging judicial functions.
In this Court‘s view, such statements have the tendency to undermine
the confidence of litigants and members of the public in the
impartiality and independence of this Court, especially when this
Court is dealing with criminal matters pertaining to sitting or former
MPs or MLAs, and suggesting that judicial proceedings are being
conducted by this Court under political influence. In other words,
such a statement, clearly, is intended to create a perception amongst
litigants and members of the public that proceedings before this
Court are not being adjudicated independently and in accordance
with law, with apparently an attempt to erode public confidence in
the impartiality and independence of the judiciary and to scandalise
the institution of the Court itself.
76. Prima facie , therefore, the aforesaid statement published by
Devesh Vishwakarma appears to fall within the ambit of criminal
contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, inasmuch as it tends to scandalise and lower the
authority of this Court.
77. It is also pertinent to note that even a similar false and
misleading claim , of this Court admitting getting promoted every
time it attends events of RSS, was made by Sanjay Singh of Aam
Aadmi Party, vide post published on 27.04.2026 at 10:43 AM on ‗X‘
( @SanjayAzadSln ), which has already been noted above in
preceding discussion and opined to be contemptuous.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 41 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
Contemptuous content published by ‘@vinayymishraap’ on ‘X’
78. Another similar post, which has come to the notice of this
Court has been published from the account bearing the handle
― @vinayymishraap ‖ on the social media platform ‗X‘, with display
name as ‗Vinayy Mishra‘ and and other details mentioned on the
account as ‗Ex MLA-Dwarka, Ex Vice Chairman-Delhi Jal Board‘.
In the post published on 20.04.2026 at 8:23 PM, Vinayy Mishra
states, in substance, that this Court repeatedly attends programmes of
a political organisation; that this Court also receives awards from the
hands of organisers of such organisation; and that when persons
belonging to an opposing political ideology raise objections, this
Court gives them lessons on ethics. The post further sarcastically
states that a Rajya Sabha seat for this Court is ―certain‖ and remarks
―what more could one expect‖, while asking viewers to identify the
face shown in the photograph accompanying the post. The post is as
under:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 42 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
URL:
https://x.com/vinayymishraap/status/2046240962897392083?s=20
79. As already noted in the preceding discussion, the videos and
photographs circulated along with the present post also pertain to the
lecture delivered by this Court at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi
Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. The photographs showing this Court being
presented with a memento, as is ordinarily done during academic
lectures, seminars and public events, have been projected in the post
as if this Court was receiving awards at programmes organised by a
political party or political organisation, which is clearly misleading,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 43 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
distorted and completely divorced from the actual context of the
event.
80. There is one another post on the same social platform ‗X‘
published by ― @vinayymishraap ‖ wherein he, after referring to
certain judges who allegedly joined political office after retirement,
states that if this Court does not recuse itself from proceedings
concerning Sh. Arvind Kejriwal, the question would arise ― whether
the case will be heard in a court of law or at the BJP headquarters .‖
It is also pertinent to note that the said post was published on
27.04.2026 at 10:21 pm, i.e. a week after this Court had rejected the
applications seeking recusal of this Court by way of a detailed
judicial order. The post is extracted hereunder:
URL:
https://x.com/vinayymishraap/status/2048807332789047678?s=46
&t=w_scX5KIdsxUo2dD56_R_Q
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 44 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
81. The above statement made by Vinayy Mishra, in effect
attributes political allegiance and lack of judicial independence to
this Court. The insinuation that proceedings before this Court may
effectively be conducted from the ‗ headquarters of a political party ‘,
if this Court does not recuse from the matter, cannot be termed as a
mere expression of disagreement with a judicial order or a recusal
request; but the same, in this Court‘s view, clearly tends to convey to
the public and litigants at large that this Court, despite being a
constitutional court, would function at the dictates of a political party
and that judicial proceedings before it would be governed by political
considerations rather than by the Constitution and rule of law. The
statement further tends to create an impression that this Court lacks
independence and impartiality and that outcomes of proceedings
before it may be politically influenced or predetermined.
82. Allegations of such nature have the tendency to scandalise this
Court and lower the authority of the judiciary in the eyes of the
public by portraying a sitting Judge of a High Court as functioning
from or under the influence of a political party or conducting
proceedings at or receiving orders from the headquarters of a political
party. This Court is further of the view that statements of this nature
are also capable of shaking the confidence of litigants and members
of the public in the fairness and neutrality of the judicial process and
thus, tend to interfere with administration of justice.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 45 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
83. Therefore, the aforesaid statement published by Vinayy
Mishra appears to fall within the ambit of criminal contempt as
defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
inasmuch as it tends to scandalise and lower the authority of this
Court.
Contemptuous content published by ‘Saurabh Bhardwaj’ on
YouTube
84. Another startling video has been brought to the notice of this
Court. This Court notes that a press conference was held on
10.03.2026 by Saurabh Bhardwaj , State President, Delhi of Aam
Aadmi Party, and was broadcasted on the official YouTube account
of ―Aam Aadmi Party‖ and also shared on its official account on ‗X‘.
It is pertinent to note this was held one day after the present matter
was first listed before this Court, i.e. on 09.03.2026. By this time,
none of the parties before the court had expressed any apprehension
of bias or filed any recusal application.
85. But during the course of the said press conference, which was
titled as ―BJP ka High Court ki Judge se kya rishta hai?‖, while
referring to proceedings arising out of the liquor policy case, Saurabh
Bhardwaj, at 5:23 minutes, publicly questioned the integrity and
impartiality of this Court by stating: ― Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
ka Bharatiya Janata Party se kya rishta hai... inn logon ko ye batana
chahiye. ‖ The details of the video are as under:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 46 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/live/qc2D6KB5Z8A?si=kguybXnuUJbXVb2p
86. The aforesaid statement appears to have been made only
because certain political leaders, belonging to another political party,
had publicly expressed their opinion that the accused persons in the
present case pertaining to alleged Delhi Excise scam would be
punished when the matter proceeds before the High Court.
87. In this Court‘s opinion, merely because a political leader
makes a statement in public, expressing confidence regarding the
possible outcome of a case pending before the Court, no inference
can be drawn that the Judge hearing the matter has any relationship,
connection or understanding with the political party to which such
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 47 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
speaker belongs. If such a line of reasoning is accepted, then every
public statement made by any political leader, litigant or supporter –
expressing hope or confidence regarding the outcome of a case in the
favour of the accused – would become a basis to publicly question
the integrity of the Judge hearing the matter, by questioning as to
how an accused is saying that he will, for instance, get discharged or
acquitted from the Court and what relation he has with the Judge.
88. This Court is also of the view that publicly asking what
―relationship‖ a sitting Judge of a High Court has with a political
party must be told to the public, without any factual basis, is in no
manner any fair criticism of a judicial proceeding. The natural effect
of such a statement is to create an impression in the minds of the
public that judicial proceedings before this Court are influenced by
political considerations and political proximity rather than by law and
the Constitution. Statements of this nature, made during the pendency
of proceedings in a case before the Court, and circulated widely
through social media and digital platforms, tend to lower the
authority of this Court and scandalise the institution by portraying a
sitting Judge as politically connected, while discharging judicial
functions, especially when this Court has been assigned the roster of
criminal cases pertaining to sitting and former MPs and MLAs. Such
statements are also likely to create distrust in the minds of litigants
regarding the fairness and impartiality of proceedings before this
Court.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 48 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
89. Therefore, the aforesaid statements made by Saurabh
Bhardwaj appear to fall within the ambit of criminal contempt as
defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act .
CONCLUSION
Public Campaigns and Attempts to Achieve Outside the
Courtroom What Could Not Be Achieved Inside It
90. This Court is conscious of the fact that respondent no. 18 and
some of the other proposed contemnors are not ordinary litigants
unfamiliar with legal processes. They are persons holding or having
held high public offices, are legally advised, and except respondent
no. 18 for the limited purpose of recusal application were throughout
represented by experienced counsels before this Court. As discussed
above, some of the respondents had filed applications seeking this
Court‘s recusal, which were heard at length and thereafter rejected by
this Court. The order rejecting the applications seeking recusal was a
detailed judicial order running into more than 100 pages and was
open to challenge before the appropriate forum in accordance with
law.
91. This Court had already made its position clear while
dismissing the recusal applications that judicial proceedings cannot
be directed by pressure, public perception campaigns or unfounded
allegations, and that this Court would not recuse itself merely
because such allegations were made.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 49 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
92. The legal remedies available against judicial orders were fully
known to these respondents. However, instead of pursuing such
remedies, the course adopted thereafter changed substantially.
Respondent no. 18 publicly announced through social media
platforms and public statements that he would not appear before this
Court in this case, which was followed by respondent no. 8 and 19 as
well. A common litigant ordinarily does not adopt such a course
by choosing a path unknown to law.
93. Further, as discussed above, even after the recusal applications
were rejected, the actions and utterances casting insinuations and
allegations, the allegations against this Court did not stop. On the
contrary, they were intensified through public letters, ― Satyagraha ‖,
press conferences, social media campaigns, edited videos and
repeated public statements questioning the integrity and impartiality
of this Court. Public declarations were thereafter made by some
respondents that they would not participate in proceedings before this
Court in relation to the present case.
Circulation of Misleading and Edited Video Relating to Lecture
delivered by this Court at Kashi
94. Particularly disturbing is the manner in which the video
relating to the lecture delivered by this Court at Mahatma Gandhi
Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, came to be circulated in a cropped,
edited and misleading manner. As already noted in preceding
discussion, the references in the speech were in the context of Lord
Shiva and the cultural and spiritual significance of Kashi/Varanasi.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 50 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
However, the same was publicly projected as if this Court had made
statements concerning RSS/BJP and political patronage. The said
narrative was thereafter repeatedly amplified by several social media
handles, YouTube channels, public speakers and political
functionaries. It appears that these allegations were not made casually
or in isolation, but were part of a sustained public campaign
questioning the credibility and impartiality of this Court.
95. This may be one of the rare instances where a cropped and
edited video of a sitting Judge was repeatedly circulated and
amplified by political functionaries, spokespersons, social media
accounts, and digital platforms in order to support allegations of
political affiliation, and certain news portals had to publish fact-
check reports in this regard, to show that the narrative being
circulated was false and misleading. However, despite such fact-
checking, the same allegations continue to be repeated and amplified.
96. Apparently , the entire exercise appeared aimed at achieving
indirectly, through public pressure and social media campaigns, what
could not be achieved directly through judicial proceedings and legal
arguments before the Court – that this particular matter pertaining to
discharge of respondents in the 2022 Delhi Excise Policy – be not
heard by this Court.
Judicial Silence, Organised Vilification and Protection of the
Institution
97. Historically, judges have been expected to possess courage,
restraint and the ability to withstand criticism and pressure. A Judge
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 51 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
is expected to maintain calmness and decide matters according to law
without being easily disturbed by public opinion. However, when a
litigant crosses the line between fair criticism and organised
vilification of the Judge presiding over a case, the issue does not
remain one of mere criticism.
98. Further, it will be too much to expect a Judge to be so thick-
skinned, thick-headed or insensitive as to remain completely
unaffected by sustained public humiliation, vilification and
attempts to bring down the dignity of the Court. Judges are
human beings and not gods. This Court has little doubt that such
sentiments would find resonance with many judges across
different levels of the judicial system .
99. But unfortunately, judges have very limited means to protect
themselves from such vilification. Judges do not hold press
conferences . By the nature of judicial office, judges are expected to
speak only through their judgments and orders. In today‘s world of
social media trials and organised online campaigns, it has become
extremely easy to generate public narratives against judges and
courts and to spread the same widely within a short span of time. It
has become much easier to poison the fountain of justice.
100. In the opinion of this Court, powerful litigants or political
personalities may, if they so choose, publicly vilify judges. However,
judges, by virtue of the discipline of their office, do not enter into
public controversy or answer allegations in media platforms. It is for
this reason that the law of contempt exists – not to protect the ego of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 52 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
a Judge, but to protect the institution of judiciary and public
confidence in administration of justice.
101. If a Judge commits an error in a judgment, or if a litigant is
aggrieved by an order, the law provides remedies by way of appeal or
challenge before a higher court. What law does not permit is
malicious campaigns, false narratives and character assassination of
judges through social media and public platforms.
102. This Court also does not labour under the misconception
that respect for judges can be compelled. Judicial orders may be
enforced by law, but respect for the judiciary ultimately flows from
public confidence in its independence and fairness of the judge and
judiciary. At the same time, complete silence in every situation,
merely in the name of preserving dignity of the Bench, may in some
cases weaken rather than strengthen public confidence in the
institution.
103. This Court also observes that freedom of speech is a cherished
constitutional right and remains fully protected by law. However,
freedom of speech is also not absolute. One cannot claim
constitutional protection for generating false public narratives against
a Court through organised social media campaigns. Free speech
cannot extend to paralysing or obstructing the administration of
justice.
104. This Court is also conscious that law cannot remain static and
constitutional courts are required to deal with new situations arising
from changing modes of communication and technology. Today,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 53 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
social media platforms have the capacity to instantly circulate
allegations, edited videos and targeted campaigns to lakhs of viewers
within a short span of time, and thus, create a narrative that the
contemnors so desire taking advantage of silence of the judge.
Therefore, allegations attacking the credibility of courts, when
amplified repeatedly through digital platforms, have the potential of
causing serious damage to public confidence in the justice delivery
system.
105. In the present case, the allegations were not confined to
criticism of a judicial order. Repeated attempts were made to create a
public narrative that this Court was biased against a particular
litigant, acting in favour of certain political interests and influenced
by non-legal considerations. Allegations of this nature, when publicly
circulated through press conferences, social media campaigns, edited
videos and speeches, have the effect of shaking the confidence which
litigants and ordinary citizens place in the fairness and impartiality of
the justice delivery system.
106. Disrespectful and malicious attacks upon the judiciary cannot
be accepted in the name of criticism. While some may criticise the
power of courts to initiate contempt proceedings, they often do
not suggest what a Judge is expected to do in circumstances
where organised attempts are made to publicly destroy
confidence in the Court while the Judge herself remains
institutionally silent .
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 54 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
107. This Court is conscious that initiation of criminal contempt
proceedings is a serious matter and cannot be resorted to lightly.
Such jurisdiction is required to be exercised with restraint, with a
calm mind and without personal anger or emotion. However, when
attacks upon a Judge are made in a manner which tends to undermine
public confidence in the institution of the judiciary and obstruct
administration of justice, and at the same time, scandalising the court
and attempting to lower its authority, the Court cannot remain a silent
spectator. This is so, since there is a clear danger in ignoring such
conduct. If actions of this nature are permitted to pass without notice,
it may send a message that courts can be subjected to organised
public pressure, vilification campaigns and false media narratives
with the object of influencing judicial proceedings.
108. It is pertinent to note that even though six respondents had
filed recusal applications before this Court, three of them, even after
their applications being dismissed, have continued to appear before
this Court and file their replies to the main petition. However, the
three recusal applicants chose not to appear before this Court.
109. While three respondents i.e. Arvind Kejriwal, Manish
Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak publicly declared that they were
prepared to suffer legal consequences for their non-participation in
the present case before this Court, the legal system nevertheless
continued to operate in the ordinary course, as it does in all other
cases. This Court had therefore proceeded in the manner required
under law. Since three respondents had chosen not to appear before
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 55 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
this Court despite being served and appeared earlier, this Court had
considered appointment of amici curiae , as is routinely done in cases
where accused persons choose not to defend themselves. Such
appointment was not intended as any special indulgence towards any
individual, but was only in furtherance of the sanctity of legal process
and the duty of courts to ensure that proceedings continue in
accordance with law. Though this Court also had the option of
adopting coercive measures, including issuance of bailable warrants
and initiation of consequential proceedings in relation to the bonds
furnished by the concerned respondents under Section 437A of
Cr.P.C., particularly since the respondents had bound themselves to
appear before the Court as and when required, yet this Court had
decided initially not to adopt such coercive measures.
110. However, it became apparent to this Court, after becoming
aware of what was being published on social media platforms, that
the present matter had travelled beyond mere abstention from
proceedings under the garb of ― Satyagraha ‖. Though the accused
remained absent inside this Court, he remained present at social
media platforms and continued to cast aspersions on this Court
and kept on maligning and scandalising this Court . And
thereafter, a public campaign was initiated against this Court through
repeated allegations, social media dissemination, press conferences,
edited videos and public statements. The proposed contemnors, in
this Court‘s view, crossed the limits of fair criticism and sought to
create a public narrative against this Court after having failed to
obtain the relief sought through legal proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 56 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
111. In a court of law, neither the Judge nor the litigant is supreme.
What remains supreme is the rule of law and the constitutional
framework within which courts function. Judicial proceedings cannot
be permitted to come to a standstill merely because one of the parties
chooses not to participate after suffering an adverse order.
112. Additionally, the saying ― Actions speak louder than words ‖
could not be more true than in the present case, since the
accused/respondent no. 18, on the one hand, repeatedly wrote in his
recusal application that he does not doubt the integrity of this Court,
perhaps to avoid inviting contempt proceedings, while, on the other
hand, at the same time indulging in acts which are utterly
contemptuous. This Court has no misconception that respect cannot
be enforced. However, this Court also has no misconception that
orders of a Court of law can be enforced and, therefore, an act of
contempt committed against a Court of law will invite consequences
which are enforceable as per law.
Concluding Reflections
113. A Judge, at times, is required to walk a lonely path in such
situations . Unlike others, a Court cannot enter the public domain
itself to defend itself through press conferences, or answer allegations
in the marketplace of public narratives even when personally
targeted. Undoubtedly , even for this Court, the self-imposed
silence of judicial discipline to not respond in the public domain
has been lonely. In the present case, the response to the proposed
contemnor by way of a dignified judicial order by the Court and on
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 57 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
the other hand, the loud and unfair criticism and scandalisation of the
Court by the proposed contemnors, revealed an asymmetrical
situation. This Court still remained firmly aware that such
campaigns would fade, however a reasoned, honest and courageous
order would become a precedent. The challenge in the present
situation, while the vilification campaign was being carried out,
was not surviving it, but ensuring and promising oneself that the
bitterness, at times felt, did not enter my judicial
mind.
114. This order is not an order written either with anger or ill will
against any litigant as this Court respects all litigants before it. The
order has followed the actions on part of the contemnors which have
selectively targeted this Court and in the process have also targeted
the judiciary as a whole and the administration of justice.
115. The Court cannot permit erosion of the constitutional system
and the justice delivery system by tolerating organized assaults in the
name of public discourse. This Court will not permit such erosion.
Yet, despite the above, this Court is not speaking through anger.
These observations are not being recorded out of wounded pride or to
seek vindication. This Court harbours no personal hostility towards
any of the contemnors. The loyalty and fidelity of this Court are
owed solely to the Constitution of India. Even in difficult times, its
foremost duty remains to preserve the dignity, independence, and
credibility of the institution which it has sworn to protect.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 58 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
116. Accordingly, upon consideration of the material on record, this
Court is satisfied that the acts of the proposed contemnors
constitute criminal contempt within the meaning of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971, as they were calculated to scandalize the
Court, lower the authority of the institution of justice, interfere
with the administration of justice, and intimidate the
independent exercise of judicial functions. This Court has,
therefore, taken its course with a calm mind, yet firmly and without
fear.
117. Before parting with this case, this Court reminds all concerned
that constitutional courts are, have remained and will remain the
comfortable refuge of every citizen to raise voice against
arbitrariness, access and bringing accused to face the consequences.
This Court is drawing these proceedings not to seek insulation from
criticism but because the material before it reveals an attempt by the
contemnors to harm the institution of judiciary itself.
118. This Court neither seeks sympathy nor demands immunity
from criticism. This Court does not require applause; it functions
upon the constitutional trust of the people on it and would
protect it when deliberate attempts are made to poison the
fountain of justice.
119. While the judges may come and go , the institution of justice
will be remembered by orders and actions of the judges who did not
permit the rule of law to kneel before intimidation and fear of
orchestrated, manufactured, public narrative and embarrassment.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 59 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
What must endure under all circumstances is the constitutional
promise that justice in Bharat has and shall remain fearless and will
guard its fort that is the Courts of law and the constitutional courts
with all its might.
120. This Court, therefore, holds that the acts of the contemnors
constitute a deliberate attempt to scandalize the Court, lower the
authority of the judicial institution, interfere with the administration
of justice, and instill fear within the judicial system that, in the event
a decision of the Court is not to their liking, they can strike at the
edifice of justice by maligning the Judge. If such conduct is
permitted, it would amount to striking at the very foundation of
judicial independence. Such scandalous allegations and calculated
attempts cannot be permitted to pass under the guise of democratic
criticism or free speech.
121. To conclude , this Court was not merely criticised on account
of its judicial actions by the proposed contemnors; rather, both in its
individual and official capacity, this Court was scandalized in a
manner intended to ensure that the wheels of justice cease to move
fearlessly and independently. However, under such pressure , this
Court shall not bend to personal targeting and holds that the rule of
law cannot be permitted to surrender before intimidation,
orchestrated vilification, or the weight of political or public
influence. The constitutional duty of a Court is not to seek comfort in
silence, but to preserve the dignity, independence, and fearless
functioning of the justice delivery system.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 60 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
122. The question that history may ask is whether the constitutional
institution, in its hour of testing, stood up for itself or surrendered to
intimidation disguised as public discourse. The answer, in the
opinion of this Court, should be in the affirmative. This order is not
being written to defend myself or out of any personal hurt, since this
Court does not forget that judges are only temporary custodians of
institutions. It is the institution which is greater than the individual
Judge who occupies the Bench. This Court is also conscious that
precedents laid down in such cases endure for a long time.
123. Let this order record , and the parties and the counsels be
witnesses that this Court was scandalized, threatened with personal
attacks, was maligned for public gaze yet this Court stood by the
constitution and the constitution stood with it.
The Campaign of ‘Satyagraha’
124. Before parting with the case, it must also be observed that,
interestingly, the action termed Satyagraha by the proposed
contemnors/ respondent no. 8, 18 and 19, was in connection with the
liquor policy case and against a sitting judge who was to hear this
case, however, even before a line of the order could be written or
even the first line of the arguments could be heard in the main case,
the action termed Satyagraha was posted all over social media only
with the intent to bring the order rejecting recusal in the public
domain and make it a centre of controversy. Needless to say, an
ordinary person goes to a higher Court to challenge it and not start a
Satyagraha , whatever it may mean in the present circumstances.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 61 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
Taking advantage of his position of social media reach, he used the
recusal rejection order to draw attention of the public towards the
judge and the Courts of law, the only issue being that the presiding
judge refused to allow his application of recusal. This Court shudders
to think as to what would happen to the entire judicial system, law
and order in the country and the rule of law, if all accused persons
start taking this path of targeting the judge to shift the focus from
them to the system itself. This Court cannot allow this attempt
which is cleverly clothed in the action called Satyagraha , through
social media posts intended to derail the entire judicial system
and sow seeds of such contemptuous path in the minds of the
public at large. Howsoever powerful or influential an accused be, he
should not be allowed to even assume for a moment that he can
demolish the Indian judicial system, its judges or procedures
established by law so easily as by a manufactured opinion, social
media narrative, verging on bullying and trying to browbeat a sitting
judge by dragging her family into the controversy and targeting the
judge instead of targeting her order before the court of law as by law
established.
125. The institution of judiciary and its judges in India are not so
weak as to be browbeaten by such actions as they know and are
trained that at times, constitutional courage has to pay a price as in
the present case by fighting the battle through a judicial order, when
the litigant contemnor has used its entire machinery of political party
and social media narrative with his might and resources. Satyagraha
means „ the satya ka agrah ‟, i.e. holding firmly to truth.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 62 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
126. In the present case, the course available to any person in
the country being aggrieved by a judicial order is to hold on to
his truth when he is sure of his truth and take it to a higher
Court. It does not mean to believe in one‟s truth, and to prove it
to the general public instead of the Court of law as he was
required to, under the law of this country. Instead the
contemnors tried to prove that there was something wrong with
the judge instead of the judgment. The litigant was well within
his right to challenge the judgment, however, he had no right to
challenge the judge by scandalizing her Court and terming her as
biased and politically inclined, which is the opposite of
Satyagraha . It is a strange situation where the accused to prove
himself truthful has gone all over the social media along with his
other party members etc. to prove that the judge was incapable of
doing justice. The Indian Judicial System cannot afford such
contemptuous and calculated moves to browbeat the judiciary.
The Two Options Before This Court: Judicial Silence or
Constitutional Duty?
127. This Court is also of the opinion that some of the proposed
contemnors were fully conscious that once such allegations and
campaigns are continuously directed against a sitting Judge
personally hearing the matter, a situation may eventually arise where
the Court would be required to consider initiation of contempt
proceedings in order to protect the dignity and authority of the
institution. In such circumstances, continuation of the main matter
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 63 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
before the same Court may itself become difficult from the
standpoint of judicial propriety.
128. Faced with such a situation, this Court was left with two
options . The first option was to continue remaining silent despite
repeated public attacks upon the integrity of this Court and the
institution of the judiciary, and continue hearing the case. The
second option was to take notice of the conduct complained of and
examine whether the same disclosed acts amount to criminal
contempt affecting administration of justice and public confidence in
the judiciary.
129. This Court had already rejected the applications seeking
recusal by a detailed judicial order and had made its position clear
that judicial proceedings cannot be directed by pressure tactics,
public campaigns or unfounded allegations. This Court had also
clarified that it had no personal interest in hearing the present matter
and had refused recusal only because unfounded allegations cannot
become a means to choose a forum or compel recusal of a Judge.
The said order continues to hold the field, having not been
challenged till date.
130. In unequivocal terms , this Court observes that once acts
appearing to constitute criminal contempt are committed directly
against this Court and allegations are publicly levelled regarding the
integrity and impartiality of the Court itself, the situation materially
changes. The duty of this Court is not confined only to deciding one
case. Equally important is the duty cast upon constitutional courts to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 64 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
preserve the dignity, independence and credibility of the institution of
the judiciary.
131. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the need to
take cognizance of the acts complained of is far greater than the
need for this Court to continue hearing the main matter. The
main revision petition can always be heard by any other Bench.
However, the acts of the proposed contemnors, directed against this
Court and the institution of judiciary, could only have been noticed
and addressed by this Court.
132. Once this Court has now taken cognizance of acts prima
facie constituting criminal contempt directed against this Court and
the institution of judiciary as well, this Court is of the view that
judicial propriety and discipline require that the proceedings in the
main revision petition ought not continue before this Court. This
Court is also of the opinion that if, despite initiation of contempt
proceedings in relation to acts directed against this Court, the main
proceedings were to continue before this Court, the contemnors may
later attempt to contend that this Court proceeded further while
holding personal grievance or bias against them.
Not Recusal, But Judicial Propriety and Fairness to Accused
133. In any case, the case is being listed before another Bench,
not because of any action or under pressure of contemptuous
behaviour of the contemnors but because this Court even under
such circumstances does not forget its duty to ensure that it is
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 65 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
fair to even the contemnor and firmly holds on to its order of
recusal .
134. Let the contemnors not be under any assumption that they
succeeded in obtaining a recusal as it is not a recusal but duty
after drawing contempt to list it before another Bench, so that
complete justice is done. It is not to please the accused but to ensure
fidelity to the constitution, it is not due to fear of further
humiliation and embarrassment or scandalization of the contemnors
but due to being bound to the oath of fair trial even to a contemnor .
Let there be no assumption in the minds of the contemnors that
they pressurised the Court into not hearing the case and even if
they want to project it so, this Court remains unaffected by such
actions.
135. Therefore, to reiterate, it is clarified that the present order
should not be understood as this Court transferring the matter
merely because demands for recusal or transfer were publicly
raised. This Court is not recusing from the matter at the asking
of the accused persons or because of the allegations levelled
against it. The order rejecting the prayer for recusal continues to
hold the field and this Court stands by the findings recorded
therein without the slightest alteration. However, since this Court
has now considered initiation of criminal contempt proceedings
arising out of the subsequent conduct of the concerned
respondents and others, and such proceedings may carry serious
legal consequences in accordance with law, this Court is of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 66 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
opinion that it would not be appropriate for the main matter
itself to continue before this Court .
136. This Court is cognizant of the fact that a further narrative of
having succeeded in getting the case transferred to another Bench
will be started by the contemnors in the background of, and
considering their past conduct, however, this Court categorically
reiterates that the direction to list it before another Bench has
nothing to do with the recusal order which stands as it is
unchallenged and this Court stands by each word of it.
137. The other dimension that the contemnors must remain aware
is that even if they have committed contempt against this Court, this
Court has not forgotten its duty, either while drawing the contempt,
or while directing the case to be listed before another Bench as the
judicial discipline and propriety demands that having drawn
contempt proceedings, the case should be heard by another Bench,
lest the contemnor accused(s) project themselves as victims of bias.
This Court would not grant that opportunity to the proposed
contemnors to draw this Court to that controversy.
138. This Court is also in the process of examining and collating
other contemptuous posts and material published on social media
platforms, including videos published on YouTube and other
platforms, which have been brought to its notice, and further
proceedings in this regard may also follow, as per law.
139. Be that as it may. As a sequitur to the above discussion , the
Registry is directed to give appropriate case title and case number to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 67 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17
the present suo motu criminal contempt proceedings, and place the
matter before Hon‘ble the Chief Justice, tomorrow i.e. 15.05.2026,
for assigning the matter to appropriate Bench for conducting further
proceedings, including issuance of show-cause to the proposed
contemnors as per Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules,
2025.
140. The main revision petition i.e. CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 be also
placed before Hon‘ble the Chief Justice, tomorrow i.e. 15.05.2026,
for assigning the matter to any other Bench.
141. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 14, 2026/ns
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 68 of 68
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:15.05.2026
01:03:17