Justice Sharma To Initiate Contempt Action Over Defamatory Content

Justice Sharma To Initiate Contempt Action Over Defamatory Content

Why in News?

Recently, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma announced contempt proceedings over allegedly “defamatory” and “vilifying” online content linked to the Delhi excise policy case.

Understand Justice Sharma’s Contempt Action Over Defamatory Content

• Announcement: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court announced initiation of criminal contempt proceedings over allegedly “defamatory”, “vilifying” and “contemptuous” online material circulated during hearings linked to the Delhi excise policy case. 

• The Delhi High Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal, for orchestrating defamatory social media campaigns. 

• Background: The controversy originates from the 2021-22 Delhi Excise Policy, which was later scrapped after allegations of irregularities, cartelisation and financial favouritism. 

• The CBI and ED accused several political leaders and businessmen of corruption and money laundering. 

• In February 2026, a trial court discharged 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, after which the CBI challenged the discharge before the Delhi High Court. 

• Prior to the contempt, AAP leaders filed applications seeking Justice Sharma’s recusal from hearing the case, citing a perceived apprehension of bias. Justice Sharma dismissed these pleas, noting that a judge cannot be removed based on a litigant’s subjective preferences and rumors. 

• Following the rejection of their recusal motions, Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak formally announced they would boycott the proceedings. They refused to appear before the court either in person or through their legal counsel. 

• To ensure the trial proceeded fairly, Justice Sharma sought to appoint Senior Advocates as amicus curiae to represent the absent leaders. Several senior lawyers had reportedly graciously accepted these roles to assist the court. 

• Before the appointments could be announced officially, Justice Sharma discovered that certain respondents had circulated extremely defamatory, contemptuous, and vilifying online posts targeting her person, judgment, and family.

• She asserted that her silence had been wrongly perceived as a weakness by the accused. Consequently, the court initiated criminal contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against individuals who weaponized social media to orchestrate targeted attacks against a sitting judge.

• • • Justice Sharma emphasized that putting the judiciary and the institution on trial through orchestrated social media narratives will not be permitted. She noted that judges must ensure courts are not governed by unsubstantiated allegations and smear campaigns. 

• Following the initiation of the contempt case against the key political figures, Justice Sharma recused herself from hearing to maintain judicial propriety. The proceedings are to be transferred to a new bench. 

Contempt Of Court And Judicial Authority In India

• Contempt of Court refers to any act that obstructs judicial proceedings, lowers court authority or interferes with the administration of justice in India.
  • Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to punish individuals for contempt of court.
  • India recognises Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. Civil contempt involves wilful disobedience of court orders, while criminal contempt includes scandalising courts or obstructing justice.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines powers, procedures and punishments relating to contempt while balancing judicial authority with democratic freedoms.
  • Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt as publication or actions that scandalise courts, prejudice judicial proceedings or interfere with judicial administration.
  • Section 15 dictates that hearings must be conducted by a bench comprising a minimum of two judges to avoid individual bias. 
  • Section 20 mandates a one-year limitation period, meaning courts cannot initiate contempt proceedings after one year has elapsed from the date the alleged contempt was committed.
  • Courts may impose up to six months imprisonment, a ₹2,000 fine, or both. However, genuine apology can reduce punishment in certain cases.
• Contempt powers protect the independence, credibility and dignity of courts, ensuring citizens maintain trust in constitutional institutions and rule of law.
• Important cases include E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar and Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case which shaped contempt jurisprudence.
  • In Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953) the Supreme Court established that fair and reasonable criticism of a judge’s performance in good faith is not contempt. However, scurrilous attacks that lower public confidence are punishable.
  • In E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970) the Court ruled that painting judges as politically/class-biased and undermining the authority of the institution constitutes contempt.
  • In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020) the Court fined the lawyer for tweets criticizing the Chief Justice, sparking a debate on free speech and the boundaries of fair critique.
• Critics argue the “scandalising the court” provision is vague and may suppress fair criticism, media freedom and democratic accountability.
  • Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, but Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions including contempt of court to protect judicial integrity.
  • Countries like the United Kingdom have reduced use of scandalising contempt laws, while India still retains broader judicial contempt powers.