![\"PIL](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-130424799,imgsize-6764,width-400,height-225,resizemode-72\/gavel1jpg.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNew Delhi: <\/span>Delhi High Court<\/a> is likely to examine on Wednesday a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging unauthorised recording and circulation of court proceedings during the hearing of a recusal plea moved by former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal<\/a> in the excise policy case.The PIL, filed by advocate Vaibhav Singh<\/a>, has sought action against leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and members of other political parties for allegedly recording and disseminating audio and video clips of proceedings held on April 13 before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.<\/p>\n Watch<\/span><\/p>\n Delhi High Court Rejects Recusal Plea in Excise Policy Case; Judge Calls It \u201cCatch-22\u201d for Herself<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The petitioner has alleged that the recordings were made and circulated \u201cintentionally and deliberately and with the willful intention to malign the image of this court and to mislead the general public.\u201dAccording to the plea, Kejriwal appeared in person after being permitted by the court and argued his recusal application for about 45 to 50 minutes. Soon after the hearing, audio and video clips purportedly from the proceedings were widely circulated on social media platforms, it said.\u201cThe circumstances in which the audio\/video recording of the proceedings was done and shared, retweeted and posted by political leaders and the way it went viral smells deep conspiracy by Arvind Kejriwal and various leaders of Aam Aadmi Party to malign the image of this noble institution and to mislead the common people of this nation,\u201d the petition says.The petition further claimed that several political functionaries shared and amplified the content online, casting aspersions on Justice Sharma.Contending that the acts violated the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 and the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, the petitioner said the rules explicitly prohibit unauthorised recording or publication of court proceedings without the court\u2019s permission.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n