Justice Sharma Steps Aside From Excise Policy Case; Kejriwal Says ‘Truth Has Triumphed’

Justice Sharma stepped aside from the Delhi excise policy case, saying another bench would now hear the matter after contempt notices.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Recuses Herself From Delhi Excise Policy Case.

Source : ANI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

• High Court initiates contempt against Kejriwal and leaders.
• Remarks against Justice Sharma crossed lines of criticism.
• Justice Sharma recuses from excise policy case hearing.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday initiated criminal contempt proceedings against AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and several other party leaders over remarks made against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. Soon after issuing contempt notices, Justice Sharma stepped aside from hearing the main excise policy matter, saying another bench would now hear the case while she would continue to preside over the contempt proceedings. Reacting to the development, Kejriwal posted on social media that “truth has triumphed” and described it as a victory for the common man and Gandhi ji’s “Satyagraha”.

Judge Steps Aside

After issuing the contempt notices, Justice Sharma said she would no longer hear the excise policy matter since contempt proceedings had already been initiated by her bench.

She stated that the excise policy case could now be heard by any other bench, while the contempt matter would remain before her.

Justice Sharma also said remaining silent may have been personally comfortable, but would have amounted to failing in her constitutional duty.

“My silence may have been comfortable for me, but it would have meant not performing my duty,” she said.

The judge added that individual judges would come and go, but the institution of justice would remain. She also noted that continuing to hear the excise case herself could create a perception among the accused that there was personal bias or resentment.

Contempt Proceedings

The High Court initiated contempt action against Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj and Durgesh Pathak.

Justice Sharma said their conduct fell within the scope of criminal contempt. The judge clarified that courts were not seeking immunity from criticism and that judicial orders could be fairly questioned. However, she said the remarks made in the present case crossed the line between criticism and contempt.

“If you malign the court, the court has the weapon and it will use it,” Justice Sharma observed, adding that courts did not expect applause for their decisions.

The judge further remarked that fair criticism and contempt were separated by “a very thin line”.