PIL In Delhi HC Seeks Contempt Action Against Kejriwal Over Justice Sharma Court Videos

PIL in Delhi HC seeks contempt action against Kejriwal over alleged court video leak. Recusal plea rejected; AAP questions judge’s impartiality, BJP backs ruling.

The PIL has been filed against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, seeking contempt of court action.

Source : X

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

• PIL filed seeking contempt of court against Kejriwal.
• Court rejected Kejriwal's plea for judge recusal.

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed against Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi High Court, seeking contempt of court proceedings. The petition alleges that during arguments on a recusal application before Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma, a recording of the court proceedings was deliberately published on social media in violation of the court’s video conferencing rules.

The plea has urged the court to order a detailed inquiry and take appropriate action. Advocate Vaibhav Singh filed the petition, seeking contempt action against Kejriwal, along with Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and others.

Court Rejects Recusal Plea

On Monday, Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma dismissed Kejriwal’s request seeking her recusal from the case. “I will not recuse myself from this matter,” she said in her order.

AAP Leaders Raise Questions On Impartiality

In a post on X, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh questioned the judge’s impartiality, alleging links between her family and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represents the CBI. He also claimed that the judge attends RSS events, raising concerns over fairness.

AAP leader Anurag Dhanda echoed similar concerns, saying there is public doubt over whether the case can be heard without bias and questioning why the recusal request was denied.

BJP Welcomes Court’s Decision

The Bharatiya Janata Party welcomed the ruling. Party MP Bansuri Swaraj said Kejriwal should remember that India’s judicial system operates under the Constitution and law, not individual convenience.