Healthy & Constructive Criticism Are Always Welcome, Judges Are Not Super Humans: P&H High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dropping a criminal contempt against a litigant, has remarked that healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcome and judgments of the Court are in the public domain and open to discussions and critical analysis.
A criminal contempt petition was listed after the Single Bench took suo moto notice with regard to the averments of the Contemnor/Respondent in a petition filed under Section 482 Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Division Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh observed, “The respondent appears to be a hapless citizen who is awaiting speedy justice at the portals of the District Court. The Courts ought to encourage the citizens to knock its doors to ventilate their grievances and seek justice which would be in consonance with its endeavour towards inclusive justice…We may hasten to add that healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcome. The judgments of the Court are in public domain and open to discussions and critical analysis. Judges are not super humans and do commit mistakes. Dialogue and debate are the hallmark of a democracy governed by rule of law. Suggestions towards improvement in the administration of justice should always be taken with gratitude.”
Advocate Tanu Bedi was Amicus Curiae while Advocates Tushar Tanwar and Sanjeev Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
The Respondent had stated in his petition that the Judicial Magistrate is not inclined to pass an order but is only inclined to give adjournments and the respondent is being harassed by the action of the Judicial Magistrate. The Single Bench had referred to the zimni orders passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate which indicated that the matter had been adjourned at the request of the counsel for the respondent and, therefore, it took suo motu notice for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
The Court held, “It is true that the respondent ought to have been more circumspect while approaching this Court and pleaded the factual matrix in consonance with the record. He ought not to have casually stated something which is not borne out from the record or is factually incorrect. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent is one among many citizens who have approached the Court seeking redressal of their grievances. The dockets of the Courts are clogged and often cases are not decided speedily or as speedily as expected by the litigant. The respondent appears to be a hapless citizen who is awaiting justice at the portals of the District Court and in these circumstances he appears to have transgressed by not setting out the correct factual backdrop. However, we do not find that the action of the respondent would amount to contempt of Court.”
The Court further said that the statement pertaining to a presiding officer in this case would not amount to criminal contempt as it was made in good faith and he was only seeking expeditious disposal of his case.
The Respondent had also furnished his unqualified and unconditional apology and stated that he undertakes that he will not use any contemptuous words/language in future and would abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court.
Accordingly, the Court dropped the criminal contempt proceedings.
Cause Title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Surjeet Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:082072-DB)
Appearances:
Amicus Curiae: Advocates Tanu Bedi, Pushp Jain and Akhil Dadwal
Contemnor/Respondent: Advocates Tushar Tanwar and Sanjeev Kumar.