Mainstream WeeklyIt is a curious situation that a lawyer named Vaibhav Singh has appealed to the Delhi High Court to put a ban on publicising court proceedings in Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma court where she is trying a case against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and 21 others, including some prominent AAP leaders like Sanjay Singh, who were discharged by the trial court, finding no credible evidence presented by the investigating officer of the CBI.
Kejriwal has argued his own case in Justice Sharma’s court, pleading with her to recuse herself because he apprehended he may not get a fair trial on account of a conflict of interest in her case and presented instances of her proximity to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) whose lawyers’ body the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP) she had attended repeatedly on at least four different occasions. He also cited past instances in which she had denied bails to many of them when they had appealed for being let out on bail. Kejriwal also mentioned in the open court how the Solicitor General had started favouring her son and daughter by empanelling both of them as government counsels in Delhi High Court on the same date in September and similarly on the same date in the Supreme Court in November, 2025.
In 2024 the same Vaibhav Singh who has now sought, through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a SIT probe into a "conspiracy to gain public sympathy and malign the image of this noble institution" against Kejriwal for publicising his arguments in this case in the open court of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, seeking her recusal on account of conflict of interest. This Vaibhav Singh had also filed a similar PIL in Delhi High Court in 2024 against former Delhi Chief minister’s wife Sunita Kejriwal, seeking the removal of videos featuring Kejriwal in court, accusing Sunita and others of unauthorisedly recording and circulating such videos.
While the ABAP lawyers’ forum site of the RSS, the alma mater of the ruling BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, does not disclose whether this Vaibhav Singh is also a member of the ABAP, he certainly appears to be a professional PIL litigant with clear political motive focussed on sabotaging and scuttling the established norms of open court proceedings specifically in respect of Kejriwal’s trial in Delhi High Court. Incidentally, the Supreme Court has passed adverse comments and even warned such professional PIL litigants, deliberately vitiating fair trial, of action.
In March this year, days after the trial court discharged Kejriwal and 22 others, the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) appealed against the trial court’s discharge of Kejriwal, Sisodia and all other accused in the liquor policy case, which dragged on for years not just maligning the AAP leaders and party as corrupt, but also defeating the AAP party in the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections.
The trial court in fact questioned the intent and integrity of the investigating officer and sought action against him for deliberately dragging on the trial without any concrete evidence. This matter went to Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, who has in the past dealt with the AAP cases and denied bail to successive AAP leaders
So this Vaibhav Singh’s obvious attempt is to draw a veil on the open court trial only in Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma’s court. Why? But doesn’t that amount to seeking an in camera trial in this case? But then this is an open court trial, in which neither of the affected parties, neither Justice Sharma, nor Kejriwal nor any other of the 22 accused in this case have sought In Camera proceedings.
Section 366 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), states that in-camera proceedings are mandatory for sexual offences (rape, sexual assault, and POCSO cases) to protect the victim’s privacy. These trials are held in private