Kejriwal case recusal: Justice Karia withdraws from PIL seeking contempt action

Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court on Wednesday (April 22) withdrew from presiding over a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought contempt proceedings against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others.

Also read: Why Delhi HC judge’s refusal to recuse in Kejriwal case may not be the last word

They were accused of uploading and disseminating clips of the court hearing on the former Delhi chief minister’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in a liquor-policy case.

Hearing now on April 23

The PIL submitted by Vaibhav Singh, an advocate, was scheduled for a hearing in front of a panel consisting of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Karia, who instructed that it be rescheduled for consideration by a different bench on Thursday (April 23).

“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 added.

The counsel for the petitioner requested that the matter be sent to another bench dealing with a similar issue.

Besides the AAP leaders, the other parties in the PIL include the high court administration and social media giants Meta Platforms, X and Google.

Justice Karia, a former partner at a leading law firm, represented Meta in several cases before getting elevated as a judge.

Vaibhav, in his PIL, submitted that unauthorised sharing of court recordings on social media can undermine the independence of the judiciary and is also prohibited under high court rules.

What plea said

Several leaders of the AAP and other opposition parties, including the Congress’s Digvijaya Singh, however, “intentionally and deliberately recorded and circulated” videos of Kejriwal's appearance before Justice Sharma on April 13 on social media with the intention to malign the image of the court in the eyes of the public, the plea claimed.

Alleging that Kejriwal and his party members hatched a “conspiracy” and “dirty strategy” to record the court proceedings, the PIL urged that a special investigation team be formed to probe the matter and contempt proceedings be initiated against “all respondents who uploaded, reposted, forwarded the recording of court proceedings dated 13.04.2026”.

Also read: 'Attack on institution': Jolt to Kejriwal as Delhi HC judge refuses to recuse

The PIL also prayed for the removal of the content from social media.

On April 15, Singh submitted a complaint to the registrar general of the high court regarding the purported unauthorised recording of court proceedings.

Kejriwal-Justice Sharma arguments

On Monday (April 20), Justice Sharma refused to recuse herself from hearing the liquor-policy case, saying a litigant cannot be allowed to judge a judge without any material, and judges cannot recuse themselves to satisfy a litigant's unfounded apprehension of bias.

Kejriwal claimed that Justice Sharma had a conflict of interest in the matter, as numerous cases had been assigned by the Centre to her two children, who are part of the panel of government counsel, over the past three to four years.

The court rejected the allegation of bias to say, “This Court wonders that if the test of “apprehension bias‟ relates to whether the children or spouses of judges are empanelled by the Central Government, the Judge should not hear such cases, then a large part of the judiciary, from the District Courts to the highest Court, would have to recuse from hearing such matters,” Live Law reported.

Also read: Raghav Chadha: From Kejriwal’s blue-eyed boy to sidelined aide

Justice Sharma stated that even if her relatives are included on government panels, the AAP’s national convenor is still obligated to demonstrate the closeness, relevance, and influence of such inclusion on the current case or on the court's decision-making authority.

Bar & Bench previously reported that the administration of the high court had communicated with the Delhi Police, requesting action against the unauthorised recording and dissemination of court proceedings on social media. This request encompassed the viral videos featuring Kejriwal's arguments before Justice Sharma.

(With agency inputs)