A division bench of the Delhi High Court Tuesday issued notice to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal and six other party leaders in a suo motu criminal contempt case initiated by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma last week.

In her 68-page order passed on May 14, Justice Sharma accused former Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal, former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, former AAP MLAs Durgesh Pathak and Vinay Mishra, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, president of the AAP’s Delhi unit Saurabh Bharawaj, and Devesh Vishwakarma, who is said to be involved in the AAP’s social media operations, for allegedly being in contempt of the court for publishing “contemptuous material” against her and the judiciary on social media.

On Tuesday, Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, issuing notice to the seven AAP leaders, also directed the registry to preserve the record of social media posts and other electronic publication records by the alleged contemnors, and to place them on the court’s record.

The bench also said it will be appointing an amicus curiae in the case to assist the court.

The court granted the seven four weeks to file their responses to the allegations levelled against them.

The alleged contemptuous posts were made after Justice Sharma refused to recuse from hearing the pleas filed by the CBI and ED in the excise policy case.

The court will hear the matter next on August 4.

While transferring the CBI and ED cases out of her court, Justice Sharma had clarified that the transfer “should not be understood as this court transferring the matter merely because demands for recusal were made, which were rejected by a detailed order…”

The CBI’s revision plea challenging the discharge of the 23 accused in the case by a trial court in February is pending before the HC. The ED has sought the expungement of alleged adverse remarks made against the agency by the trial court.

Justice Sharma, in her order, accused the AAP leaders of running a “calculated campaign of vilification in the digital space directed not only against this judge but the entire institution of judiciary and its adjudicatory processes”, as well as against Justice Sharma as an individual, and her family members.

With the court observing that Kejriwal “wanted to sow seeds of distrust” by running a social media campaign against her, Justice Sharma further observed, “It was psychological coercion”.

In April, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak, had refused to be represented legally before Justice Sharma’s court, after she refused to recuse herself from hearing the CBI’s plea.

In a purported ‘satyagraha’ move, the three leaders objected to Justice Sharma’s alleged “public association with the RSS’s legal front Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad”, to which AAP claims, it is ideologically opposed to. They have also said that they apprehend bias if Justice Sharma hears the matter, given that her children are on the Union government’s advocates’ panels and are assigned cases by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Mehta is appearing for the CBI in the excise policy case.