Synopsis

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition. Certain respondents (including arvind kejriwal, manish sisodia, durgesh pathak) filed recusal applications which were rejected by a detailed order. Instead of challenging the order before the supreme court, they launched a coordinated social media campaign – publishing letters, videos and posts alleging political bias, questioning the judge’s integrity, and declaring they would not appear before the court. an edited video of a lecture delivered by the judge was circulated to falsely claim she had admitted receiving promotions for attending rss events. the court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings, held that the acts prima facie scandalised the court and lowered its authority, and directed that the main matter be listed before another bench while contempt proceedings continue.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma (Single Judge)

Date of Decision: 14th May 2026

Citation: CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 (2026:DHC:4293)

Core Law: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 2(c) (criminal contempt), 15 (suo motu power); Constitution of India – Article 215 (High Court’s power to punish contempt), Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions on free speech).

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Crl.rev.p. 134/2026 & connected applications

Central bureau of investigation (petitioner) vs. Kuldeep singh & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble dr. justice swarana kanta sharma

Date: 14th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Contempt of courts act, 1971 – section 2(c) (definition of criminal contempt: scandalising court, lowering authority, interfering with administration of justice), section 15 (suo motu power of high court)

• Constitution of india, 1950 – article 215 (high court’s power to punish contempt), article 19(2) (free speech subject to reasonable restrictions including contempt)

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.