Delhi HC judge recuses from hearing contempt PIL against Kejriwal

Delhi High Court judge Justice Tejas Karia on 22 April recused himself from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking contempt action against AAP (Aam Aadmi Party) leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others over alleged circulation of court hearing videos.

The matter was listed before a bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Karia, which directed that it be placed before another bench on 23 April.

“This matter will not be heard by this bench. List tomorrow before a bench of which one of us, Justice Tejas Karia, is not a member,” the court said.

PIL seeks contempt action, SIT probe

The PIL, filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh, alleges that clips of court proceedings related to Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the liquor policy case were recorded and circulated on social media.

Apart from Kejriwal and Sisodia, the petition names other AAP leaders, the Delhi High Court administration and social media platforms Meta, X and Google as parties.

The petitioner has sought initiation of contempt proceedings and formation of a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the alleged recording and dissemination of court proceedings dated 13 April.

The plea also seeks removal of the content from social media platforms.

Allegations and legal concerns

The petition contends that unauthorised recording and sharing of court proceedings is prohibited under High Court rules and can undermine the independence of the judiciary.

It alleges that certain political leaders “intentionally and deliberately” circulated the videos with the intent to malign the court’s image, a claim not independently verified.

The petitioner further alleged a “conspiracy” behind the recording and dissemination of the clips.

Recusal context and related developments

Justice Karia, prior to his elevation, had represented Meta in several cases, which is among the parties named in the PIL.

Earlier, on 15 April, the petitioner had filed a complaint with the High Court registrar general regarding the alleged unauthorised recording.

In a related development, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had on 21 April declined to recuse herself from hearing the liquor policy case, observing that litigants cannot seek recusal based on unfounded apprehensions of bias.

The PIL arises from proceedings linked to the Delhi excise policy case, which has seen multiple legal challenges and political exchanges.

Courts in India generally prohibit unauthorised recording or broadcasting of proceedings, except where specifically permitted, citing concerns over judicial independence and fair trial principles.