The High Court of Delhi has issued a criminal contempt of court notice to a man for filing a petition seeking death penalty for a judge of the High Court. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma & Justice Sanjeev Narula said that his plea contains “unsubstantiated & whimsical allegations” aimed at scandalising & lowering the authority of the court.
The High Court’s order came on August 31 while hearing a petition filed by Naresh Sharma, an alumnus of IIT, challenging a decision by a single-judge Bench of the High Court which had rejected his initial plea on July 20 this year. Mr. Sharma had alleged that hundreds of organisations & institutes of national importance such as IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, etc. are all criminally established organisations since they are societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He had claimed that there is a legal option for these organisations to disobey the government & even join forces against it.
In his appeal against the single-judge order, Mr. Sharma claimed that the judge “stole” his fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution & “lied” in the judgment that he was heard at length.
“The appellant states that he cannot say without proof that this judgment, which stole his fundamental right under Article 14 of Constitution of India, was written by the devil but he wonders if it could be written by anyone who is not verily the devil incarnate,” Mr. Sharma said in his appeal.
Taking a serious view of the averments made by Mr. Shamra, the two-judge Bench of the High Court said the appeal “contains unsubstantiated & whimsical allegations of criminal acts by the learned single judge seeking the punishment of death penalty & a comparison of the judge to the devil, which is distasteful & unacceptable”.
The Bench said these allegations are prima facie aimed at scandalising & lowering the authority of the court. “In our opinion, the statements have been advanced with the malafide intention to interfere with the administration of justice. This court cannot disregard vilification of this magnitude against a judge of this court,” it said.
“There is a fine line of distinction which separates critique from allegations fuelled by disdain & a hostile intent to scandalise the court. The pleadings in the present appeal amount to the latter category & must be taken cognisance of,” the Bench said while issuing a show-cause notice. The next date of hearing in the case is Sept 18.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Picture Source :
