PUCL raises concerns over contempt action against Kejriwal, journalist Saurav Das

By A Representative  

The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has criticised the criminal contempt proceedings initiated against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, several Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, and investigative journalist Saurav Das, describing them as an attack on the right to raise legitimate concerns about judicial conduct and conflicts of interest.

In a statement, PUCL said the proceedings, linked to criticism of Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, threaten freedom of expression and undermine the democratic right to question the appearance of judicial impartiality. The civil liberties organisation called for the immediate withdrawal of the contempt cases and reiterated its demand for the repeal of the "scandalising the court" provision in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

According to PUCL, the controversy arose after the Rouse Avenue Court discharged AAP leaders in the Delhi excise policy case on February 26, 2026. The Central Bureau of Investigation subsequently challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, where Justice Sharma stayed the trial court's decision. PUCL said this sequence of events prompted concerns regarding judicial impartiality.

The organisation noted that investigative journalist Saurav Das had earlier published an article in Frontline magazine raising questions about what he described as a pattern in Justice Sharma's handling of cases. It also referred to Das's social media posts highlighting that Justice Sharma's son and daughter, both practising lawyers, had been empanelled by the Union government to appear before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. PUCL said these issues raised legitimate questions regarding the appearance of judicial independence.

The statement further referred to Justice Sharma's decision on May 14, 2026, to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and several other AAP leaders after Kejriwal sought her recusal from hearing the CBI's revision petition. PUCL said Kejriwal had cited concerns over conflict of interest and judicial impartiality in his recusal application.

PUCL also referred to a separate contempt petition filed by advocate Ashok Chaitanya against Kejriwal, other AAP leaders and journalist Saurav Das, following which a division bench of the Delhi High Court issued notices to Das and AAP leader Gopal Rai.

The organisation argued that concerns relating to possible conflicts of interest should be addressed through judicial recusal where appropriate, rather than through contempt proceedings. It cited the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, which emphasise that judges should avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Referring to past instances, PUCL noted that several judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts had voluntarily recused themselves from matters where there could be a perception of bias. It contrasted these examples with the present case, stating that the concerns raised should have been addressed through transparency instead of legal action.

PUCL expressed particular concern over the inclusion of journalist Saurav Das in the contempt proceedings, stating that investigative journalism plays a vital role in a democracy. It argued that publishing documented information concerning public institutions and judicial conduct falls within the ambit of legitimate public interest.

The organisation further contended that the offence of "scandalising the court" is a colonial-era concept that has been abolished in the United Kingdom but continues to exist in India through the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It argued that the provision has been used in several previous cases against lawyers, journalists, comedians and others who criticised the judiciary.

Citing Supreme Court judgments, including Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953) and observations made in the Prashant Bhushan contempt case, PUCL maintained that fair and reasonable criticism of judges in relation to their public functions does not amount to contempt and that the power to punish for contempt should be exercised sparingly.

Concluding its statement, PUCL demanded that all criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, AAP leaders, journalist Saurav Das and others arising from criticism of judicial conduct be withdrawn. It also renewed its call for the repeal of the "scandalising the court" provision from the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arguing that it restricts freedom of speech and suppresses legitimate public scrutiny of the judiciary.