The Delhi High Court while sentencing a Lawyer to six months in jail for contempt over 'scandalous, unwarranted and baseless imputations' against High Court and District Court Judges observed that vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur opined that the judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when the criticism is 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.
Brief Facts of Case
The background of the present case is that the respondent Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate/contemnor filed a criminal appeal which was listed for hearing before a Single Judge. He made some alleged scandalous, unwarranted, and baseless imputations against sitting Judges of the High Court and District Judges. After taking note of the same, the Single Judge had put a query to the contemnor as to whether he would like to retract these paragraphs and challenge the findings of the learned trial Court in accordance with the law without making any personal, tainted, and malafide allegations against the learned Judges. However, the contemnor stated that he would not amend the appeal and that it needs to be adjudicated as it is. He further stated that these are not contemptuous, but statements of facts which can easily be seen, perused, and borne-out from the record.
The learned Single Judge found the averments as scandalous and aimed at lowering the dignity and majesty of the Court also added that the same were made malafidely to interfere with the administration of justice and amounting to contempt.
It thus issued a notice of contempt against the contemnor/respondent and the matter was directed to be posted before the Division Bench handling criminal contempt subject to the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
"The allegations made in the petition are intrinsically contemptuous in nature and fall within the definition of “Criminal Contempt” of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 under Section 2(c)(i).” There is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but also the several Judges of this Court. This vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief. An unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing an unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court", the court observedd in its order.
The Court was of the view that for a healthy democracy, there must be an impartial judiciary, however, it cannot be impaired by vindictive criticism.
"The Judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when the criticism is 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. The above quoted representations and such allegations are biased and intended to scandalize this Court. 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 are unjust statements", the court added.
Contention of Parties
The contemnor/respondent has challenged the contempt petition on its maintainability arguing that the contempt notice issued by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable as the reference for contempt is defective, if there were some contemptuous remarks, the matter should have been referred along with the Crl.A.107/2022 before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and after perusing the contents of the contemptuous remarks mentioned in the said appeal, it is the prerogative of Hon’ble the Chief Justice to either decide by himself or in consultation with other Hon’ble Judges of this Court whether to take cognizance of the reference for contempt or not which has not been done in the present case.
He further submitted that present contempt is not maintainable as per Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as there is no publication of the contemptuous material at all. So as to scandilise or lower the authority of the Court mentioned in aforesaid appeal, therefore, that cannot be treated as a publication of the material, hence, the present contempt petition is not maintainable.
He further submitted that as per Section 5 of the Act, fair criticism of judicial act is not contempt and in the criminal appeal mentioned above, the contemnor/respondent has only narrated the background to manifest what happened actually during the trial which was an abuse of process of law.
He further argued that the cognizance of the criminal contempt in other States as per Section 15 can be taken only after the concurrence of opinion taken from learned Advocate General but in Delhi, the same can be done after the written consent of learned Standing Counsel but the same has not happened in the present case, therefore, the present contempt petition is not maintainable.
He cited Bal Thackrey Vs. Harish Pimpalkhute & Ors, 2004 Latest Caselaw 678 SC, Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. D.K. Mittal & ANR, 2000 Latest Caselaw 76 SC,
High Court Observation
The Court at the outset noted that it is not disputed that a fair criticism of a judgment passed by any Court is permissible and a hierarchal structure of Indian Courts ensures the upholding of justice and the rule of law whereby an individual aggrieved by an order/judgment can challenge the same before the higher Court-subject thereby maintaining the dignity of the system.
The Court candidly affirmed the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims and Crime and Abuse of Power which was taken as a defense by the respondent and stated that the aggrieved victim enjoys complete liberty to challenge the victimization in any manner and to bring it to the notice of the concerned authorities.
The Court was of the view that being an Officer of the Court making such averments in the judicial pleading is more serious and in that background, It is incumbent upon the Courts of Justice to check such actions with a firm hand which otherwise will have pernicious consequences.
It found that the respondent/contemnor committed contempt of Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and accordingly, held him guilty.
"We had given an opportunity to the contemnor/respondent to seek an apology in respect of contemptuous allegations made by him in the criminal appeal, but the contemnor replied in negative and stated that he stands by whatever allegations he has made, either against the learned Judges of this Court or against the Judges of the District Court and the judiciary as such. He also stated that not only the said Judge but also many other Judges, who are favoring the accused persons openly. However, at present, he has no material thereto and shall disclose the same at an appropriate stage", the court noted.
The Court also went on to note that when it put a query to the contemnor that as to whether he would like to file an affidavit on a quantum of the sentence to which he replied in negative and stated that he has not committed the contempt and whatever he has stated is correct and he stands by that.
Consequently, it thereby sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 7 days.
Case Title: Court on its own Motion vs Virendra Singh Advocate
Case Details: CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2022
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shailender Kaur
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal and Mr. Ujwal Ghai, Advocates Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate
Advocates for Respondent: In Person
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
