The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notices to journalist Saurav Das and Aam Aadmi Party leader Gopal Rai on a criminal contempt of court petition filed against them for allegedly running a coordinated campaign to target Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Bar and Bench reported.

However, the division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja did not issue notices to AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and party leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, who were the two other respondents in the matter, as they are already facing contempt proceedings that the High Court had initiated suo motu in the matter.

The matter initiated by the court and the petition against Das and Rai filed by a lawyer will be heard together.

The lawyer filed the petition after receiving consent from the Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjeev Bhandari of the Bharatiya Janata Party government in Delhi.

The petitioner argued that Das, Rai, Kejriwal and Bharadwaj initiated an allegedly concerted and orchestrated campaign on social media platform X by publishing and amplifying posts that made “serious, unfounded and scandalous allegations” against Sharma, Bar and Bench reported.

The posts alleged “a supposed conflict of interest, bias and impropriety, based on misleading assertions relating to the professional engagements” of the family members of the judge, the plea was quoted as having argued.

The allegedly coordinated nature of the posts, their timing while judicial proceedings were underway and the nature of the allegations demonstrate a calculated attempt to lower the authority of the court and interfere with the due course of justice, Bar and Bench quoted the petitioner as having argued.

On Friday, Das said that he stands by his reporting. “The report was based entirely on documentary material: RTI [Right to Information] data furnished by the Ministry of Law and Justice, the judge’s own judicial orders in criminal revision petitions, publicly available records and statements made by a sitting Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court himself,” he said.

The journalist said that “not a single fact reported by me has been rebutted either by the judge concerned or by the Central Bureau of Investigation”.

“Journalism that seeks to uncover these uncomfortable facts in the largest of public interests is part of the constitutional duty of the fourth pillar,” Das said. “Questions cannot be contempt.”

The contentions

On May 14, Sharma initiated contempt proceedings against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders for allegedly defaming and vilifying her. The judge had also recused herself from hearing the CBI’s revision petition against their discharge in the liquor policy case.

The developments came after Kejriwal and others in April boycotted the proceedings before Sharma in the petition filed by the CBI against the trial court order discharging them and several others in the case.

On April 20, Sharma rejected a petition filed by the AAP leaders demanding that she recuse herself from hearing the case. Their petition raised concerns about “perceived ideological proximity”, referring to her attending an event of an organisation linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

The RSS is the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Kejriwal also argued before Sharma that she had repeatedly passed orders in favour of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate in the liquor policy case.

Kejriwal and AAP leader Manish Sisodia had also noted that Sharma’s son and daughter have been empanelled as counsels by the Union government. The former Delhi chief minister highlighted that they are both allocated cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is appearing before the High Court representing the CBI.

An empanelled counsel is a lawyer selected by a government body, public sector undertaking or organisation to represent their legal cases for a designated period.

On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others accused by the CBI in the case. There was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the excise policy, the court had ruled.

The court had also criticised the central agency for implicating Kejriwal without any cogent material. It said that the chargesheet had several gaps not supported by any witnesses or statements.

However, the High Court on March 9 stayed the adverse observations made by the trial court about the CBI. The matter was heard by Sharma, who prima facie observed that the trial court’s findings were erroneous.

Edited by Sara Varghese.