Delhi High Court Orders Removal of Arvind Kejriwal’s Video: Why the Controversial Recordings Must Be Taken Down

The Delhi High Court has instructed police to remove viral videos of Arvind Kejriwal’s argument with Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma. Here’s why the court intervened.

The Delhi High Court has taken a strict stance on the viral videos featuring Arvind Kejriwal. The videos show Kejriwal arguing with Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma during a court proceeding. The court has instructed the Delhi Police to remove these videos from all social media platforms.

The Court’s Directive

The High Court made it clear that recording and broadcasting court proceedings violates rules. The court’s online hearing guidelines prohibit such recordings and their publication. An official confirmed that action is being taken against those who uploaded the videos.

Kejriwal’s Court Appearance and the Viral Video

On April 13, Arvind Kejriwal appeared in Delhi High Court for a hearing related to the excise policy case. He spent nearly an hour arguing for the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from the case. After the hearing, the video of Kejriwal’s argument quickly went viral on social media.

What Happened in the Case?

The case involves Delhi’s 2021-22 excise policy, with the CBI filing an FIR in 2022. The CBI alleges that the policy promoted monopolies and cartels in the liquor trade, benefiting certain AAP leaders. However, on February 27, a trial court acquitted Kejriwal and 22 others, closing the case.

The CBI challenged the trial court’s decision in the Delhi High Court, where Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma is overseeing the case. Kejriwal and other accused sought the judge’s recusal, claiming her past rulings appeared biased. The CBI rejected these claims, stating that participation in a seminar didn’t indicate ideological bias.

Why the Court Took Action

The Delhi High Court’s action on the viral video highlights its firm stance on maintaining judicial decorum. The court is committed to upholding the integrity of legal proceedings. The intervention sends a clear message about safeguarding the judicial process from public interference.