Delhi HC Sentences Lawyer To Six Months Imprisonment For Making Scandalous & Baseless Allegations Against Judges
The Delhi High Court held an advocate guilty of contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act) for making baseless allegations against judges and sentenced him to six months imprisonment.
The Court emphasized the imperative duty of Courts to deal with such unfounded imputations against judges with a firm hand to prevent any potentially harmful consequences.
“It is manifest from the above that the contemnor/respondent has made contumacious allegations in the appeal making scandalous, unwarranted and baseless imputations against the learned Judges of this Court as well as District Courts who have been discharging their judicial function. Moreover, being an Officer of this Court making such averments in the judicial pleading are more serious in nature. It is incumbent upon the Courts of justice to check such actions with a firm hand which otherwise will have pernicious consequences”, the Bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed.
Advocate Kanhaiya Singhal appeared for the Petitioner.
The Respondent, an Advocate had approached the High Court by way of a criminal appeal, heard by a Single Judge, which led to a notice of contempt. The Judge, noting scandalous allegations by the Advocate, inquired about a retraction. The Advocate declined, insisting the statements were factual. The Single Judge deemed the allegations contemptuous, constituting a threat to justice. A contempt notice was issued, directing the matter to a Division Bench, subject to the Chief Justice's orders, with a scheduled hearing before the Roster Bench.
The Respondent contended that fair criticism of a judicial act, permissible under Section 5 of the Act, was not contempt. The Respondent argued that the criminal appeal only narrated the trial's background, highlighting an abuse of the legal process. He also contended that taking cognizance of criminal contempt in other States required the concurrence of the Advocate General, and in Delhi, the written consent of the Standing Counsel, neither of which occurred in this case. Therefore, he asserted the contempt petition's non-maintainability.
The Court examined the order, wherein the Single Judge had suo moto taken notice of the contempt and, subject to the direction of the Chief Justice, that the matter to be posted before the Roster Bench. Subsequently, the Bench, through an order issued the contempt notice. It was clarified that the contempt petition was not initiated by the mentioned counsels but rather taken suo moto by the Single Judge.
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the judgment specified procedures when the informant is not one of the persons named in Section 15 of the said Act. However, it was highlighted that this judgment did not apply to the contempt petition since the Single Judge had taken suo moto notice of the contemptuous material.
The Court, after careful consideration, noted that in its opinion, the Respondent had committed contempt of court under the Act. Consequently, the Court held the Respondent guilty.
The Court, however, granted the Respondent an opportunity to apologize for the contemptuous allegations made in the criminal appeal. However, the Court noted that the Respondent had declined and affirmed his stance, standing by the allegations against the Judges of this Court, Judges of the District Court, and the judiciary in general. After reviewing the material on record and the contemnor's submissions, the court concluded that the Respondent showed no repentance for his conduct and actions.
Accordingly, the Court sentenced the Respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, accompanied by a fine of Rs. 2,000.
Cause Title: Court On Its Own Motion v Virendra Singh Advocate (2024:DHC:174-DB)
