ContemptCase – Delhi High Court Reviews Social Media Post Deletion Claims
ContemptCase – The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard submissions in a criminal contempt matter involving several senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, where it was informed that social media posts allegedly targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had been removed from online platforms. The court, however, asked the complainant to produce digital evidence to support the claim that the posts had indeed been deleted before considering the matter further.
Court Seeks Digital Proof of Deleted Posts
The case came up before a division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja. During the hearing, advocate Ashok Chaitanya, who has filed the contempt petition, submitted that former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, along with AAP leaders Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and Civil Justice Project (CJP) spokesperson Saurav Das, had deleted the social media content in question.
The bench directed the complainant to place electronic records and other digital material before the court to establish that the posts were removed. At the same time, the respondents were instructed to submit their replies within four weeks.
Accused Seek Complete Case Material
Lawyers representing Kejriwal and the other respondents informed the court that they had not yet received all documents and material forming the basis of the contempt proceedings. Taking note of the request, the bench instructed the court registry to provide the relevant records to the respondents without delay.
The court observed that replies should be filed after the material is supplied and fixed the next hearing for September 21.
Background of the Contempt Proceedings
The proceedings stem from a suo motu criminal contempt action initiated by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on May 14. The judge alleged that multiple social media posts made by several AAP leaders had attempted to undermine the dignity of the judiciary by targeting her in connection with proceedings linked to the Delhi excise policy case.
Those named in the proceedings include Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Durgesh Pathak and Saurabh Bharadwaj, among others. On May 19, the High Court issued notices to the respondents and granted them four weeks to file their responses. Senior advocate Rajdipa Behura was also appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court.
Judge Raised Concerns Over Online Campaign
In the order initiating contempt proceedings, Justice Sharma stated that instead of pursuing available legal remedies, an organised campaign had allegedly been carried out on social media against her. She also clarified that the Central Bureau of Investigation’s petition challenging the discharge of the accused in the excise policy case would be heard by another bench.
The judge further observed that selected clips from court proceedings were circulated widely online, creating what she described as a parallel narrative around the case. According to the order, remaining silent in such circumstances should not be viewed as judicial restraint when allegations are capable of affecting public confidence in the justice system.
Earlier Developments in the Excise Policy Case
On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 other accused in connection with the Delhi liquor policy matter. During subsequent proceedings, the accused expressed reservations about participating in hearings, citing concerns regarding bias and conflict of interest.
Separately, advocate Ashok Chaitanya also moved a contempt petition concerning the same issue, which is now being heard alongside the court’s own proceedings.
Other Significant Court Orders
In another matter, the Delhi High Court quashed two FIRs registered against AAP MLA Kuldeep Kumar for organising a Tiranga Yatra in 2021 during COVID-19 restrictions. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that three FIRs had arisen from the same event, and since the legislator had already faced conviction in one case, the remaining two FIRs could not continue.
Meanwhile, a special fast-track court sought responses from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on applications filed by three accused in the NEET paper leak case seeking permission to voluntarily undergo lie detector tests and brain mapping. The court also requested submissions regarding the maintainability of the applications, with the matter scheduled for hearing on August 6