The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed social media platforms to take down videos of proceedings where Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal had sought that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma recuse herself from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to his discharge in the Delhi liquor policy case, Live Law reported.
Videos of Kejriwal arguing his case before the High Court on April 13 had been shared widely on social media. On April 15, the court directed the police to remove unauthorised videos of Kejriwal’s arguments.
On Thursday, a division bench of Justices V Kameshwar Rao and Manpreet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing a public interest litigation seeking contempt action against Kejriwal and journalist Ravish Kumar for “unauthorisedly” recording and sharing videos of the proceedings, Live Law reported.
The others mentioned in the petition are the Congress’ Digvijay Singh, and AAP leaders Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Sanjeev Jha, Purandeep Sawhney, Jarnail Singh, Mukesh Ahlawat and Vinay Mishra.
During the proceedings, the counsel for technology company Meta, which owns social media platforms Instagram and Facebook, told the court that they have complied with the direction, reported The Indian Express.
Google told the court that some of the YouTube videos flagged in the petition are not from the proceedings. The company was directed to take down any videos that contain such clips.
Similar directions were also issued to X.
The court also issued notice to Kejriwal, Kumar and others mentioned in the petition, Bar and Bench reported.
The matter was listed for further hearing on July 6.
The petitioner had accused Kejriwal and others of circulating clippings of the proceedings “intentionally and deliberately and with the wilful intention to malign the image” of the court.
He also alleged that only parts of the proceedings, which “serve a political agenda”, were shared online, Live Law reported.
The case
Kejriwal and others had sought Sharma’s recusal arguing that the apprehensions of bias on her part were “direct, grave and impossible to ignore”.
However, on Monday, Sharma rejected the plea seeking her recusal in the matter arguing that it “would not be prudence but abdication of duty”, adding that it “would be an act of surrender”.
She also said that the petition seeking her recusal amounted to putting “the institution of judiciary on trial”, adding that the “strength of judiciary lies in its strong resolve to decide the accusations”.
Sharma added that she would decide the main case “without being affected by the recusal application”.
The main CBI case has been listed for further hearing on April 29.
The CBI had alleged irregularities in the Delhi government’s liquor excise policy, which has since been scrapped. Based on the CBI case, the Enforcement Directorate also launched an investigation into allegations of money laundering.
The two central agencies alleged that the Aam Aadmi Party government at the time modified the liquor policy by increasing the commission for wholesalers from 5% to 12%. This allegedly facilitated the receipt of bribes from wholesalers who had a substantial market share and turnover.
On February 27, a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others, ruling that there “was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the excise policy”.
Just 0.2% of readers pay for news. The others don’t care if it dies. You can help make a difference. Support independent journalism – join Scroll now.
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!