New Delhi – The Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat has issued formal letters holding former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and three other prominent AAP leaders in contempt of House over their failure to appear before the Privileges Committee. This contempt of House action marks a significant escalation in the ongoing Phansi Ghar controversy that has gripped Delhi politics.
Four Leaders Held in Contempt of House
The contempt of House charges extend to former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Speaker Ram Niwas Goel, and their former deputies Manish Sisodia and Rakhi Birla. The Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat issued these formal notices on Tuesday, documenting their non-appearance over summons related to the controversial Phansi Ghar matter.
This contempt of House determination followed extensive procedural deliberations by the Privileges Committee, which examined all relevant records and correspondence before reaching its conclusion.
Privileges Committee Recommendation
In the official communique regarding the contempt of House, the secretariat stated that the Privileges Committee has recommended appropriate action be taken by the House against the four individuals. The committee’s contempt of House finding came after it examined records, correspondence, and procedural provisions thoroughly.
The contempt of House charges reflect the seriousness with which the Assembly views non-compliance with its summons and the authority of its committees. Officials emphasized that adequate opportunities were provided to the accused individuals to appear before the panel.
No Court Stay on Proceedings
An official aware of the contempt of House proceedings explained that the committee’s conclusions were reached after noting there was no stay or direction from any court restraining the proceedings. The notices for this contempt of House matter were issued to the individuals concerned for appearance before the panel through proper channels.
This absence of judicial intervention cleared the path for the Assembly to proceed with the contempt of House action without legal obstacles, strengthening the committee’s position.
Also Read: Slum Development Projects: Delhi CM Launches Big Rs. 327 Crore Initiative
Background of Phansi Ghar Controversy
The contempt of House issue stems from a “Phansi Ghar” (gallows chamber) publicly showcased by the Aam Aadmi Party government as a historical execution chamber on the Assembly premises in 2022. The structure became a major political flashpoint that eventually led to these contempt charges.
The controversy escalated when current Speaker Vijender Singh presented maps and shared details earlier this year, claiming that the showcased structure was actually a lift chamber used for transporting tiffins and not an execution room as portrayed by the previous AAP government.
Repeated Non-Appearance Documented
The contempt report specifically recorded that the absence of all four individuals from committee sittings on November 13 and November 20, 2025, remained unexplained despite repeated communication. This documented pattern of non-compliance strengthened the case for contempt of House charges.
The Privileges Committee made multiple attempts to secure their appearance before determining that their continued absence constituted, demonstrating the Assembly’s patience before taking formal action.
House Adoption of Committee Report
The contempt development follows proceedings of the Delhi Legislative Assembly earlier this month when the House formally adopted the first report of the Committee of Privileges. A motion was moved agreeing with the report presented on January 6, 2026, giving official sanction to the contempt of House findings.
This adoption by the full House elevated the contempt matter from a committee-level issue to a formal Assembly decision, carrying greater weight and potential consequences.
Formal Communication to Accused
Officials confirmed that the letters issued on Tuesday formally communicate the committee’s contempt of House findings and the House’s adopted recommendations to the individuals concerned. These communications set the stage for further necessary action under Assembly rules regarding contempt violations.
The formal nature of this contempt of House communication underscores the gravity of the charges and the Assembly’s intention to pursue the matter through established procedures.
Political Implications of Contempt of House
The contempt charges against such high-profile political figures, including a former Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister, carry significant political implications. This contempt action demonstrates the current Assembly’s willingness to hold previous government leaders accountable for their actions and statements.
The Phansi Ghar controversy underlying these contempt of House charges has already been a source of heated political debate, with accusations of historical misrepresentation and political grandstanding.
Assembly Rules and Procedures
The contempt proceedings followed established Assembly rules and procedures, ensuring that due process was observed throughout. The Privileges Committee’s authority to investigate potential contempt of House matters is well-established in legislative practice.
These contempt House charges reflect the Assembly’s institutional prerogative to maintain its dignity and ensure compliance with its summons and orders from all individuals, regardless of their political stature or previous positions.
Next Steps in Contempt of House Matter
The formal issuance of contempt House letters initiates the next phase of proceedings under Assembly rules. The accused individuals now face potential sanctions or penalties as determined by the House based on the Privileges Committee’s recommendations regarding this contempt of House violation.
The specific actions that may be taken in this contempt House case will depend on Assembly rules and precedents, potentially including formal censure or other disciplinary measures deemed appropriate by the House.
Significance for Legislative Authority
This contempt House action reinforces the authority of legislative assemblies to ensure compliance with their procedures and summons. The case sets a precedent for how assemblies can address non-compliance by former office-holders, strengthening legislative institutional authority through enforcement of contempt of House provisions.
