The move follows a scathing observation by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who stated that the judiciary was being targeted by a "coordinated campaign" of vilification and defamation on digital platforms.
Justice Sharma, currently presiding over the high-profile Delhi excise policy case, asserted that the respondents were responsible for posting "extremely contemptuous" content online intended to intimidate the court.
Claims of Institutional Intimidation
In her remarks delivered on May 14, 2026, Justice Sharma highlighted that while legal arguments were being heard inside the courtroom, a parallel narrative was being pushed through social media. She revealed that the campaign extended beyond professional criticism, involving the use of edited videos to target her family members.
"It was to intimidate not only me but the institution of judiciary," Justice Sharma noted, adding that such actions by individuals "armed with political powers" constitute a grave threat to the independence of the court.
The Recusal Conflict and Boycott
The tension escalated after Arvind Kejriwal requested Justice Sharma to recuse herself from the liquor policy case, alleging judicial bias.
Following the court’s refusal to grant this request, the AAP leadership declared a boycott of the proceedings.
Kejriwal expressed his stance in a post on the social media platform X, stating that his hope for justice was "shattered" and that he would no longer participate in arguments before this specific bench, citing his "spirit of Satyagraha".
Protecting Public Confidence
Justice Sharma emphasized that the court’s primary duty is to ensure it is not governed or influenced by external allegations or political retaliation.
She stated that while judges are accustomed to fair dissent, a line was crossed that necessitated a break from judicial silence.
"The survival of judiciary depends not in its power but public confidence," the judge remarked, concluding that any deliberate attempt to erode that trust through organized campaigns is an act of the utmost contempt.
No comments: