New Delhi: Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said on Thursday (May 14) she will no longer hear the Delhi excise policy case involving a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) plea against the discharge order passed in favour of former chief minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and others.However, the judge said her court will initiate contempt proceedings over remarks made against her and the court.“Any other court can hear the matter but only this court can draw contempt proceedings,” Justice Sharma reportedly said. “I refuse to be intimidated,” she said, as per the Indian Express. “This is judicial discipline. Shouldn’t mean that I have recused. I am going to continue the contempt proceedings because I have drawn it,” the judge said.Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders including Kejriwal, Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh, party leader Vinay Mishra and former health minister of Delhi Saurabh Bharadwaj are to face the contempt proceedings in Justice Sharma’s court, reports Bar and Bench.The judge also reportedly said that history might wonder how judges behaved when under duress, and that she stood by her recusal order.History ye puchh sakti hai ki jab bhi court ka testing time hota hai to kya judge dara ya jhhuka? I reiterate that i stand by my recusal order. Main uske ek bhi shabd ko na to badalti hu an badlungi: Justice Sharma.— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) May 14, 2026“Today I was to announce the names of the amicus that I was to appoint and I had made efforts and some senior counsel also very graciously even accepted. But in the meantime, it has come to my notice that extremely vilifying, extremely contemptuous, and defamatory material is being posted by some of the respondents against me and against this court, and I cannot stay silent. I have decided to draw contempt proceedings against some of the respondents and some other contemners,” Justice Sharma said, addressing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, LiveLaw reports.Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta reportedly urged the judge to continue hearing the matter. “My first request would be that this court continue hearing the matter. Everyone must know that if I seek a recusal and if I cannot satisfy the judge, my remedy is to go to a higher forum. These unscrupulous litigants have chosen not to go to Supreme Court because they know they cannot successfully challenge this order,” SG Mehta said, referring to the AAP leaders.“I can say with a matter of proud that no politician has ever stooped this low that the entire institution is tarnished,” Mehta added.“That is why I have decided to take (contempt) action,” Justice Sharma replied, says Bar and Bench.Earlier, the court planned to appoint three senior lawyers as amicus curiae because Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak refused to appear before her court.Justice Sharma had previously rejected requests to recuse from the case, saying accepting such allegations without proof would damage trust in the judiciary. “If I were to accept these (recusal) applications, it would set a troubling precedent,” she had said.As previously reported, a trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the excise policy case on February 27, following which the CBI challenged the order. That is the case being heard in the high court by Justice Sharma. Kejriwal, Sisodia and four others had subsequently filed applications for Justice Sharma’s recusal, arguing that her ideological bias gives rise to conflict of interest.Justice Sharma’s children are part of the Union government panel counsel.“If the wife of a politician can become a politician, if the children of a politician can become politicians. How can it be said that the children of a judge can’t enter the profession of law? This would mean taking away the fundamental rights of a family of judges,” Justice Sharma had said.Calling it a “catch-22 situation”, she further claimed that Kejriwal had created a “win-win situation” for himself by seeking her recusal in the case.Kejriwal wrote a letter to the judge after she refused to recuse, stating that he had “lost hope of getting justice” in her court and would follow a “satyagraha” approach by boycotting proceedings. Sisodia and Pathak had also written letters saying they would go unrepresented in the matter.