Delhi High Court witnessed a procedural twist Wednesday as Justice Tejas Karia withdrew from a PIL accusing AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and allies of flouting court rules by recording and viralizing hearing clips. The petition, spearheaded by advocate Vaibhav Singh, claims a calculated plot to defame the judiciary through manipulated dissemination of April 13 proceedings before Justice Swarnkanta Sharma.
Listed before Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Karia, the matter was promptly reassigned to a different bench for Thursday hearing post-recusal. At the heart is Kejriwal’s rejected plea for Justice Sharma’s recusal in CBI’s challenge to the trial court’s acquittal of 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, in the Delhi liquor policy scam.
Singh’s PIL details how Kejriwal’s extended courtroom submissions on recusal were covertly taped and blasted across platforms by AAP stalwarts—Saurabh Bharadwaj, Sanjay Singh, Manish Sisodia—and echoed by Congress’s Digvijay Singh, whose ‘brave’ endorsement was amplified by Kejriwal. These shares, laden with misleading commentary, allegedly aimed to sway public opinion against the court.
Citing breaches of 2021 Video Conferencing Rules and 2025 Electronic Evidence guidelines, the petitioner stresses no recordings are permissible sans court nod. Complaints to registries and platforms yielded zilch, necessitating judicial intervention.
Background reveals Justice Sharma’s firm stance: on March 9, she halted trial court barbs at CBI, summoned respondents, and trashed Kejriwal’s bias claims as ‘conjectures without evidence,’ warning against using recusal to cherry-pick benches. Chief Justice Upadhyay upheld the roster assignment, dismissing transfer bids.
Earlier, a coalition of legal luminaries petitioned CJI Suryakant for proactive measures against Kejriwal’s judge impugning. With political rhetoric clashing against judicial decorum, Thursday’s hearing could set precedents on courtroom media ethics amid the explosive excise policy saga, spotlighting the fragile line between advocacy and contempt.
