PIL in Delhi HC seeks action against Kejriwal, AAP leaders over recording, circulation of court proceedings

New Delhi, April 21 A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, alleging unauthorised recording and circulation of court proceedings during the hearing of a recusal plea moved by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case.

The plea, filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh, has sought action against leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party and members of other political parties for allegedly recording and disseminating audio and video clips of the court proceedings conducted on April 13 before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

The petitioner, a lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, alleged that the recordings were made and circulated "intentionally and deliberately and with the willful intention to malign the image of this Court and to mislead the general public".

According to the plea, Kejriwal, who appeared in person after being permitted by the Delhi High Court, said his recusal application for around 45–50 minutes, following which the recordings of the proceedings were widely circulated across social media platforms.

“The circumstances in which the audio/video recording of the Court Proceedings was done and shared, retweeted and posted by various political leaders and the way it went viral smells deep conspiracy by Arvind Kejriwal and various leaders of Aam Aadmi Party to malign the image of this noble institution and to mislead the common people of this nation," the petition said.

It also alleged that several political leaders amplified the content online with comments supporting Kejriwal and casting aspersions on Justice Sharma.

The plea specifically referred to posts by Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, who termed Kejriwal's arguments as "very courageous" and suggested recusal, a social media post that was reposted by Kejriwal.

The petition also referred to posts by Aam Aadmi Party leaders, including Saurabh Bharadwaj, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and others, alleging that the court proceedings were shared with "misleading remarks" to influence public perception.

Contending that such acts violate the "High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021" and the "Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025", the petitioner said, quoting the rules: "Unless expressly permitted by the Court, no person... shall record or publish the proceedings... There shall be no unauthorised recording of the proceedings by any person or entity."

The petitioner also claimed that complaints were sent to the Delhi High Court registry and social media platforms seeking removal of the content, but "no effective measures have been taken till now", necessitating the filing of the PIL.

The development comes amid ongoing proceedings in the Delhi High Court on a criminal revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has challenged a trial court order discharging all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.

On March 9, a single-judge bench of Justice Sharma had issued notice to the accused on the CBI's plea and stayed certain directions passed by the trial court, including adverse remarks against the probe agency.

Subsequently, Justice Sharma had rejected Kejriwal's plea seeking her recusal, holding that allegations of bias were based on "mere apprehension or personal perception" and not supported by cogent material.

"Recusal cannot be used as a tool to forum shop or to create a perception that justice can be influenced," the judge had said, cautioning that "a courtroom cannot be a theatre of perception".

Rejecting the allegations of bias as "conjectures and insinuations", Justice Sharma said that the application "arrived with aspersions and doubts cast on my integrity" but without any substantive material.

The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had also declined, on the administrative side, a request by Kejriwal to transfer the matter from Justice Sharma's bench, saying that the case had been assigned as per the roster and there was no reason for reassignment.

In his representation, Kejriwal had expressed apprehension that the matter may not receive a hearing marked by impartiality if it remained before the same bench.

Earlier, a group of senior advocates, academicians, former police officials and members of the Bar had written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, expressing concern over allegations made by Kejriwal against a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and seeking initiation of suo motu proceedings.

"It is a settled principle that a litigant cannot choose the Bench or the Judge before whom their case is to be heard," the representation said, cautioning that imputing motives to judges without substantiated basis "strikes at the very foundation of judicial propriety".

The signatories warned that permitting such conduct to go unchecked could erode public confidence in the justice delivery system and urged the CJI, as the "custodian and guardian of the judicial system", to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor