Delhi High Court judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Thursday initiated criminal contempt proceedings against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Bhardwaj and others over their “vilifying” social media posts against her in relation to the excise policy case.

Justice Sharma said the former Delhi chief minister “orchestrated a calculated campaign” of vilification against her on social media instead of pursuing his legal remedies and clarified that the CBI’s petition against the discharge of all accused persons would now be taken up by another bench.

The judge took exception to several social media posts by the proposed contemnors that attributed “political allegiance” to her and allegedly targeted her by posting a misleading “edited” video of a speech given by her at an educational institution in Varanasi.

“Arvind Kejriwal sought to destroy my reputation instead of availing legal remedies after I refused to recuse, and a deliberate attempt to lower the court’s authority can’t be permitted in the guise of free speech,” Justice Sharma said.

She clarified that she was not recusing herself but was only transferring the case to another bench, as she had initiated the contempt proceedings.

Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, thanked Justice Sharma for upholding the institution’s dignity.

Following Delhi High Court’s dismissal of Kejriwal’s recusal application, he and his party colleagues — Sisodia and Pathak — decided to boycott the proceedings before Justice Sharma. Subsequently, they posted multiple posts on social media regarding their decisions.

Justice Sharma found that many posts that went viral on social media were defamatory. While delivering her order, she said she had expected that once the applications were decided, the issue would quiet down and Kejriwal would go to the Supreme Court challenging the decision, but he did not do so. Instead, the court found that they ran a campaign against her on social media.

“It was a coordinated campaign,” she said, stressing that “a parallel narrative outside the court was being constructed through digital campaign and insinuation”.