[Contempt of Court] Delhi High Court sentences advocate to six months in jail for making scandalous, unwarranted and baseless imputations against Judges

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur, JJ.*, opined that the respondent had made contumacious allegations in the appeal and also, made scandalous, unwarranted and baseless imputations against the Judges of the present Court and District Courts who had been discharging judicial functions. Further, being an officer of the Court, and making such averments in the judicial proceedings were more serious in nature. It was incumbent upon the Courts of justice to check such actions with a firm hand which otherwise would have pernicious consequences. Therefore, the Court opined that the respondent had committed contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act’) and thus, found him guilty. Accordingly, the Court sentenced the respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, he should undergo simple imprisonment of seven days.

Background

In an instant case, the respondent filed a criminal appeal, which was listed for hearing before the Single Judge of the present Court on 14-07-2022, and vide Order dated 14-07-2022, the Single Judge noted some allegations made by the respondent towards the Judges of the present Court. After reading the allegations, the Single Judge had put a query to the respondent as to whether he would like to retract these paragraphs and challenge the findings of the Trial Court, without making any personal, tainted and mala fide allegations against the Judges.

However, the respondent stated that he would not amend the appeal and it was needed to be adjudicated as it was. He further stated that these were not contemptuous, but statements of facts which could easily be seen, perused and borne-out from the record.

Subsequently, the Single Judge, vide Order dated 14-07-2022, observed that a bare perusal of the averments, showed that they were scandalous and aimed at lowering the dignity and majesty of this Court. They had been made with mala fide intention to interfere with the administration of justice and thus, amounted to contempt. The Single Judge opined that the allegations made in the petition were intrinsically contemptuous in nature and fell within the definition of ‘Criminal Contempt’ of the Act. There was a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but also several Judges of the present Court and this vilification of Judges could affect the administration of justice as it became a form of public mischief. The Single Judge opined that the judiciary was not immune from criticism, but when the criticism was based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments to intentionally lower the dignity and respect of this Court, it must be taken cognizance of. To make allegations that a Judge deliberately wanted to twist issues in order to favour an accused or that they were personally interested in the matter acted illegally or impartially were unjust statements.

Thus, the Single Judge issued a notice of contempt against the respondent and the matter was directed to be posted before Division Bench handling criminal contempt.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court noted that the respondent had challenged the contempt petition on its maintainability and argued that the contempt notice issued by the Single Judge was not sustainable and if there were contemptuous remarks, the matter should have been referred to the Chief Justice and it was the prerogative of the Chief Justice to either decide by himself or in consultation with other Judges of this Court. The Court opined that all the documents were placed before the Chief Justice and thereafter, the contempt petition was listed before the Division Bench, however, on elevation of one of the Judge, the Acting Chief Justice posted the contempt petition before the present bench.

The Court referred to the criminal appeal where the contemptuous remarks were made and opined that the respondent had failed to mention why and in what manner the Judge had any interest towards the accused side or was bias towards the victim. The Court opined that the respondent had made contumacious allegations in the appeal and made scandalous, unwarranted and baseless imputations against the Judges of the present Court and District Courts who had been discharging judicial function. Further being an officer of the Court and making such averments in the judicial proceedings were more serious in nature. It was incumbent upon the Courts of justice to check such actions with a firm hand which otherwise would have pernicious consequences.

The Court relied on Ram Niranjan Roy v. State of Bihar, (2014) 12 SCC 11, and opined that the respondent had committed contempt of court under the Act and thus, found him guilty. The Court stated that on being provided with an opportunity to seek an apology in respect of contemptuous allegations, the respondent stated that he stood by the allegations that he made and further stated that not only the said Judge, but many other judges were also favouring the accused person. However, at present, he had no material and should disclose them at the appropriate stage. The Court further stated that when the respondent was asked as to whether he would like to file any affidavit on the quantum of the sentence, to which he replied that he had not committed any contempt and whatever he had stated was correct.

Accordingly, the Court sentenced the respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, he should undergo simple imprisonment of seven days. The Court further directed the respondent to be taken into the custody of SI Prem (Naib Court), who along with SHO, Police Station Tilak Marg should handover his custody to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi.

[Virendra Singh, In re, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 145, decided on 09-01-2024]

*Judgment authored by- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Kanhaiya Singhal and Ujwal Ghai, Advocates; Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate;