Delhi High Court:A contempt petition was filed in response to repeated and scandalous actions by the respondent, who, over a span of time, filed numerous baseless complaints, nearly 30 to 40, against various judicial officers, police officers, and judges of the court containing derogatory and offensive language that disrespected the dignity of the judiciary, attempting to malign the image and authority of judicial officers. A division bench of Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma, JJ., held that the respondent’s conduct, which involved filing frivolous complaints and making scandalous statements against judicial officers, amounted to criminal contempt as it seriously undermined the authority of the court and impeded the administration of justice.
The Court sentenced the contemnor to simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 15 days.
The factual background is rooted in the misuse of hybrid hearings, which are intended to aid litigants and advocates but were misappropriated by the contemnor, who made inappropriate comments in the chat box. These remarks were directed at the judicial officers, and the nature of the comments scandalized the court and interfered with the administration of justice.
The case involved the respondent’s actions that were perceived as not only an affront to the dignity of the court but also an attempt to lower its authority. These actions prompted the filing of the petition, where the conduct of the contemnor was scrutinized under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A critical factor in the filing of this petition was the failure of the contemnor to express remorse or apology for his actions, and the ongoing nature of his misconduct, which included filing frivolous complaints against judicial officers and making baseless allegations.
In the submissions, the respondent’s counsel raised arguments about the lack of jurisdiction in the case, submitting the limits of contempt powers and the relationship between contempt and offenses under the Indian Penal Code. However, the Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with contempt cases remained intact despite the existence of parallel provisions in the Penal Code. The Court reaffirmed that contempt in the judicial context is a separate and broader offense compared to the criminal offenses outlined in the IPC.
The Court noted that the deplorable and derogatory language used by the Contemnor are clearly contemptuous against the Judicial Officers, Judges and Court. The same cannot be condoned or ignored and neither can the conduct of the Contemnor go unpunished. Contemnor has deliberately kept several Courts occupied in his frivolous and baseless allegations, where he has only attempted to settle scores with his wife and his wife’s family.
The Court observed the severity of the contemnor’s conduct, including the use of foul and abusive language toward a lady judicial officer, appearing before the court in a drunken state, and attempting to undermine the judicial process. The respondent’s actions were unequivocally deemed to fall within the definition of criminal contempt, as they were not only offensive but also interfered with the administration of justice.
The Court remarked that “All the allegations made by the Contemnor have been dealt with in a judicious manner by various Magistrates and the Session/District Judges as also by Judges of this Court. The said consideration could not have been made subject of such frivolous and baseless complaints. In addition, in the written submissions which the Contemnor has filed in response to the show cause which was issued by this Court, the manner in which the Contemnor refers to the Single Judge of this Court and the various allegations which are made are completely unacceptable and are gross.”
Thus, the Court held that the Contemnor is guilty of criminal contempt and would be liable to be punished in accordance with law. The Court further, in view of the contemptuous conduct of the Contemnor, sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 15 days.
[Court on its motion v. Sanjeev Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7654, decided on 06-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar – Contemnor / Respondent in Person. Mr. Varun Goswami, Amicus Curiae Mr. Hritik Chaudhary, Mr. Sahil Agarwal and Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Aman Usman, APP. Inspector Surender, SI Dharm Singh. PS Hauz Khas.
