In a strongly worded order denouncing the misuse of legal pleadings to intimidate courts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a contempt notice to an advocate for making scandalous allegations against sitting High Court judges and a trial court judge. The Court held that her submissions amounted to a direct affront to judicial authority and an attempt to browbeat the adjudicatory process.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dealing with an application seeking preponement of a pending matter, noted that the petitioner, appearing in person, had threatened to implead the judges handling her matter before the Supreme Court, alleging deliberate delay and denial of justice under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Court quoted an extract from her petition to demonstrate the tenor of her allegations, which stated, “…preponing the main case from 31.10.2025 to any earliest date else, petitioner would be left with only option to implead Justice Sh. Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Sh. Harpreet Singh Brar and Sh. Baljinder Singh ASJ as party to file SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court… because deliberately and intentionally Justice has been denied…”
The Court held that the allegations constituted “an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority,” noting that “not only has she failed to indicate how she has been intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism. Thus, this Court is constrained to note that the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous.”
Emphasising that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and not a layperson, the Court observed that her conduct could not be ascribed to ignorance of the law or professional norms. It held that her pleadings were an unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the Courts and that they had the “potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system.”
Reinforcing the gravity of the petitioner’s conduct, the Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in M.Y. Shareef and Anr. vs. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur, which establishes that even advocates endorsing scandalous pleadings without due diligence may be held in contempt. The Court observed, “it should be widely made known that counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court without of reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of Court”
While allowing the application for preponement of the main case 'in the interest of justice,' the Court directed issuance of notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her.
The matter is now listed for further hearing on 29.08.2025.
Picture Source :
