Poison the Fountain of Justice”: Delhi HC Targets Kejriwal and AAP Leaders in Contempt Case

Delhi High Court has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bhardwaj, Durgesh Pathak, Devesh Vishwakarma and Vinayy Mishra for allegedly orchestrating and amplifying a social media campaign scandalising the judiciary and undermining the administration of Justice.

 

digital Warfare vs. Judicial Integrity: The Delhi HC Contempt Battle

The intersection of politics, digital influence, and the judiciary has reached a critical flashpoint. The Delhi High Court issued formal notices in a suo motu criminal contempt case against senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and Saurabh Bhardwaj.  

At the heart of the matter is a profound question: Where does political narrative end and the “poisoning of the fountain of justice” begin?  

The Genesis of the Confrontation

The contempt proceedings stem from a 68-page order by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was presiding over a CBI revision plea challenging the discharge of the AAP leadership in the high-profile Delhi excise policy case. After the judge rejected requests for her recusal from the matter, the situation rapidly escalated into the digital realm.  

Rather than solely following standard legal appeals, an allegedly coordinated and malicious social media campaign was deployed. The High Court observed that these actions crossed the line from standard public critique into:  

 Calculated Vilification: Online narratives deliberately attributing political bias and affiliation to a sitting judge.  

 Manipulated Media: The proliferation of misleadingly edited clips of the judge’s past academic speeches to alter context and public perception.  

 Psychological Coercion: An attempt to manufacture a parallel public trial to build pressure on the court and compromise institutional integrity.  

“Silence is Not Restraint, It is Surrender”

In a sharp defense of judicial independence, the Court firmly pushed back against what it termed online trolling tactics disguised as a “Satyagraha” boycott. Justice Sharma noted that for the judiciary to remain silent under a coordinated online onslaught would not be a sign of dignified restraint,

for more read the Judgment kindly click here :

CBI vs Kuldeep singh Sue Moto High court of Delhi Judgment

 

All rights Reserved