An unprecedented face-off between Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and Kejriwal began after a trial court discharged him and others in the excise policy case

The Delhi high court on Tuesday issued notice to former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party leaders in a criminal contempt case that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma initiated against them over alleged defamatory social media posts targeting her.

A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja directed Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bharadwaj, and Vinay Mishra to file their responses in four weeks and fixed August 4 as the next date of hearing.

The court said it would appoint an amicus curiae in the matter and directed the registry to preserve copies of the social media posts and other relevant records and place them before the bench. “In the judgment, the single judge has placed reliance on social media posts and other electronic and publication records. The registry is directed to preserve copies of the same and place them before this court.”

An unprecedented face-off between Justice Sharma and Kejriwal began after a trial court discharged him and others in the excise policy case on February 27, prompting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to approach the high court.

The CBI’s appeal against the February 27 order is scheduled to be heard later in the day on Monday.

On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer and deferred Enforcement Directorate proceedings. Kejriwal sought to transfer the matter from her bench. Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya rejected this on March 13.

On April 5, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, which she dismissed on April 20. On April 27, Kejriwal informed Justice Sharma that he would boycott the proceedings. Sisodia and Pathak followed suit.

On May 5, the court appointed senior advocates as amici curiae to represent the three leaders, but the matter was deferred on three occasions. Justice Sharma, on April 14, initiated contempt proceedings and withdrew herself, saying that the law did not permit a judge who had initiated contempt proceedings in relation to a matter to continue hearing it. She clarified that her earlier April 20 order, refusing to recuse from the excise policy case, stands.