PIL Filed in Delhi HC Seeking FIR Against CM Arvind Kejriwal’s Wife for Posting Court Videos
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Sunita Kejriwal, the wife of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The petition, filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh, alleges that Sunita Kejriwal posted video clips of court hearings on social media, which is in violation of court rules.
The PIL also names several social media accounts that posted audio and video recordings of Arvind Kejriwal addressing the Rouse Avenue Court regarding the Delhi excise policy case. Singh has requested a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the incident.
Arvind Kejriwal was produced before the Rouse Avenue Court on March 28 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi liquor policy case. During his appearance, Kejriwal accused the ED of running an extortion racket for the BJP. Following the hearing, multiple social media handles, including those linked to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and other opposition parties, posted recordings of the proceedings online.
Singh's plea highlights that the "High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2021" prohibits recording court proceedings. He argues that the dissemination of these videos aims to tarnish the judiciary's image and mislead the public by suggesting judicial bias towards the government.
In particular, Sunita Kejriwal is accused of reposting an audio recording from a Twitter account named Akshay. The posts in question were shared with the hashtag #MoneyTrailExposedByKejriwal, which Singh alleges is part of a deliberate effort to malign the judiciary and gain public sympathy.
Singh's petition suggests that the release of these recordings was a premeditated conspiracy by Arvind Kejriwal and AAP members. He points out that Kejriwal's personal court appearance on March 28, 2024, was unusual and seemed orchestrated to exploit public sentiment.
The Delhi High Court is expected to examine the merits of the PIL and decide on the further course of action regarding the allegations and the request for an SIT investigation.
