Admire him or hold him in contempt, Arvind Kejriwal in maverick mode remains one of the most unusual figures in Indian politics. He first rose to prominence as an anti-corruption crusader alongside Anna Hazare, riding a wave of public anger against graft. From activist to politician, he went on to become Delhi’s chief minister for two successive terms.
Yet, the irony is hard to miss. The man who built his political reputation on fighting corruption eventually found himself facing allegations of the same crime alongside several of his closest associates.
On February 26, 2026, the Rouse Avenue Court discharged Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, noting that the accusations were not supported by sufficient material. The decision was challenged by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Delhi High Court.
What followed added a dramatic legal twist. In a written communication addressed to Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, who is hearing the matter as a single-judge bench, Kejriwal expressed what he called a “loss of institutional confidence” in the fairness of the adjudicatory process—effectively questioning the impartiality of the presiding judge. In doing so, he invoked the language of “satyagraha”, drawing a symbolic comparison with Mahatma Gandhi.
The letter has raised an obvious question: is this political theatre, a legal strategy, or a step that risks contempt of court?
LEGAL OPTIONS AND POSSIBLE FALLOUT
Kejriwal has added another layer to the drama by suggesting that he may seek appellate recourse before the Supreme Court. If that happens, several legal avenues could open—or close.
One possibility is the appointment of an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” usually a senior advocate asked to assist the bench with an impartial view of the issues involved. Such a move could help depersonalise the controversy while ensuring that the proceedings remain focused on legal principles.
However, another possibility looms large: contempt of court. Contempt can take two forms—civil and criminal. Civil contempt involves wilful disobedience of court orders, while criminal contempt arises when statements or actions scandalise the court or interfere with the administration of justice. In Kejriwal’s case, the concern would fall under criminal contempt if his statements are seen as undermining the authority of the judiciary.
THE EVOLUTION OF CONTEMPT LAW IN INDIA
The law governing contempt in India has deep historical roots. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, enacted during colonial rule, first codified the power of courts to punish acts of contempt. It was later replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, which expanded the authority of courts beyond the High Courts.
Today, contempt law is primarily governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, enacted by parliament following recommendations of the Sanyal Committee, chaired by HN Sanyal. The legislation clearly defines civil and criminal contempt and outlines the procedures and penalties involved.
Under the Act, civil contempt includes “wilful disobedience” of a court order, while criminal contempt encompasses actions that prejudice judicial proceedings or lower the authority of the court.
LIMITED DEFENCES
If contempt proceedings were initiated, Kejriwal’s defences would be limited. The Court would have to be convinced that his statements amounted to “fair criticism” of the judiciary rather than an attack on its integrity.
A 2006 amendment to the law introduced a limited public-interest defence, but it rarely succeeds unless the criticism is demonstrably factual and constructive.
Another provision allows courts to waive punishment if the accused offers an apology that the Court considers genuine. Given Kejriwal’s combative political style, such a move appears unlikely.
ECHOES OF GANDHI
Kejriwal’s reference to “satyagraha” carries historical symbolism. In 1920, Mahatma Gandhi and Mahadev Desai, as editor and publisher of Young India, faced contempt charges after publishing the “Satyagraha Pledge” opposing the Rowlatt Act.
When asked to apologise, Gandhi refused, stating that he would respectfully accept any punishment imposed by the court. That episode helped propel him into national prominence during the freedom struggle.
By invoking the same language, Kejriwal appears to be framing his dispute with the judiciary in moral and political terms rather than purely legal ones.
PRECEDENTS OF CONTEMPT
Modern Indian jurisprudence offers several examples of how courts have handled contempt allegations.
In 2020, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan was found guilty of criminal contempt after tweets criticising the Supreme Court and then Chief Justice SA Bobde. The Court imposed a symbolic fine of one rupee.
Another dramatic case involved Justice CS Karnan, a sitting High Court judge who publicly accused fellow judges of corruption and caste discrimination. The Supreme Court ultimately sentenced him to six months in prison for contempt—the first time a sitting High Court judge faced such punishment.
Other cases have involved activists, lawyers and public figures, including stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, highlighting the fine line between free speech and contempt of court.
A POLITICAL-JUDICIAL COLLISION
Unlike many of those cases, however, Kejriwal’s dispute involves an ongoing criminal matter and a direct challenge to a sitting judge. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma has already declined to recuse herself from hearing the excise case.
For now, the matter is likely to proceed before the Delhi High Court. Whether the Court appoints an amicus curiae or considers contempt proceedings remains to be seen.
What is clear is that the episode represents another chapter in the often uneasy relationship between India’s political class and its judiciary. If the Court ultimately finds Kejriwal’s statements contemptuous, the verdict could redefine the boundaries between political dissent and judicial authority.
—The writer is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal magazine
The post Kejriwal’s Judicial Gambit: Satyagraha or Contempt? appeared first on India Legal.