The contempt proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and several other Aam Aadmi Party leaders took a fresh turn on August 4, 2026, when the Delhi High Court granted them four weeks to file their formal replies. The case stems from a suo motu criminal contempt action initiated by the court over an alleged social media campaign targeting Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, and the matter has now been listed for its next hearing on September 21, 2026.
The proceedings trace back to a May 14, 2026 judgment in a case involving the CBI's challenge to the discharge of Kejriwal and others in the Delhi excise policy matter. Justice Sharma, who was hearing that challenge, had observed that certain online remarks, edited videos, and public statements attributed to Kejriwal and other AAP figures could amount to criminal contempt, and subsequently transferred the excise policy matter to a different bench given that the respondents in the contempt case were themselves connected to it. Notices were first issued on May 19 to Kejriwal, Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Durgesh Pathak, Vinay Mishra, and Saurabh Bharadwaj, with the court later also issuing notices to AAP leader Gopal Rai and journalist Saurav Das, and appointing Senior Advocate Rajdipa Behura as amicus curiae to assist the bench.
During the recent hearing, a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja recorded the appearance of the respondents. Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, representing Kejriwal, told the court that the respondents had not yet been given the material underlying the contempt reference, a grievance echoed by other respondents' counsel as well. The bench directed the court registry to share that material in digital form. Separately, the court noted that AAP leader Devesh Vishwakarma had not yet been served notice, and ordered fresh service through the relevant Station House Officer, including tracing his current address if needed.
With replies now due within four weeks and the next hearing scheduled for late September, the case remains at a preliminary stage, with the substantive contempt allegations yet to be formally argued or decided.
