Delhi High Court: In the present case, three contempt petitions had been preferred pursuant to directions of Division Bench-I vide order dated 31-08-2023 whereby show cause notice was issued against respondent as to why criminal contempt proceedings under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against him. The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Shalinder Kaur*, JJ., observed that respondent had used utter derogatory language for the Single Judge Bench to the extent of saying that the Single Judge was a ‘thief’ and he had full proof of the same. The Court opined that respondent had no repentance for his conduct and actions and thus, this Court held respondent guilty of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and consequently, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 2,000.
Respondent had preferred three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking a direction to the officials concerned for immediate criminal prosecution of Union of India, Delhi Police, Mumbai Police, Bengaluru Police, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Tata Companies including the especially Tata Sons Private Limited, Public Organizations, Government Ministries, Departments, Organizations, Appointment committee of cabinet consisting of Prime Minister and Home Minister of the country and private organizations in collusion with Tata, resulting in extreme crimes inflicted upon him and the people of India at large. The criminal writ petitions were disposed of by the Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 20-07-2023.
Thereafter, respondent preferred the LPAs challenging the judgment dated 20-07-2023 passed by the Single Bench of this Court and when the appeals came up for hearing on 31-08-2023 before the Division Bench-I, the Court noted the objectionable and shocking allegations against the Single Bench, Government officials as well as the Supreme Court. The Division Bench-I while taking note of aforesaid serious allegations raised by respondent, sought his explanation in the Court and observed that the Court could not disregard vilification of this magnitude against a judge of this Court and the Supreme Court and a fine line of distinction had to be drawn which separated critique from allegations fueled by disdain and a hostile intent to scandalize the Court. Accordingly, the Division Bench-I directed issuance of show cause notice against respondent.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
This Court noted that respondent in the complaint dated 29-08-2023 via email had specifically mentioned that the three petitions dealt with the aspects of mob attacks on this country, Delhi Police and him and it was for the legal system to judge if this was done to make the prosecution difficult. The Court observed that respondent, without any imputation, said that his complaint provided the instances, one, concerning thief Justice Sharma of this Court and secondly, concerning the error where among the highest institutions of judiciary, namely, Delhi High Court in the National Capital was involved in making the criminal situation more complicated by committing crime upon crime.
This Court noted that respondent had sought criminal action against the Single Judge by stating that Article 14 of the Constitution did not allow mixing unrelated things, and so the Single Bench should be criminally charged with. The Court further noted that respondent had also raised derogatory allegations against the Supreme Court and even emphasized punishment of death penalty. The Court, after perusing the Judgment dated 20-07-2023, the order dated 31-08-2023, the contents of the LPAs and two complaints made to the SHO via e-mail, opined that this Court was highly shocked to note the averments made by respondent.
This Court opined that “respondent who claimed to have been educated in engineering and science from one of the most reputed educational institutions of India i.e. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Bombay and in USA, so as a responsible citizen of the Country, was expected to set forth his grievances in a civilized manner, maintaining the dignity of the Court and judicial process of law. Even if it was taken that respondent due to outrage preferred the writ petitions, but despite issuance of Show Cause Notice, he without pleading guilty, filed a highly disrespectful reply thereto, which explicitly showed that he had no guilt to his actions. Rather, respondent had stated that he had no remorse for whatever he did, and he stood by the same”.
This Court observed that respondent had used utter derogatory language for the Single Judge to the extent of saying that the Single Judge was a ‘thief’ and he had full proof of the same. Thus, this Court held respondent guilty of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of seven days. This Court further directed that respondent was to be taken into custody by HC Vinod (Naib Court), who would hand over his custody to the Tihar Jail, Delhi.
[Court on its own Motion v. Naresh Sharma, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6961, decided on 31-10-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondent: Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Crl.); Rakesh Kumar, CGSC; Kunal Mittal, Arjit Sharma, Rishika, Sunil, Advocates