Criminal Law – Quashing - Proclaimed Person – Section 82 CrPC – Mandatory Requirements – Non-Compliance – Petitioner left India on 03.03.2015 and was thereafter summoned to face trial in a complaint case under Sections 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC – Service could not be effected – Proclamation issued on 24.08.2016 specifying 01.10.2016 as the date of appearance, but actually effected only on 07.09.2016 – Mandatory 30-day period thus not completed – On 01.10.2016 matter adjourned to 02.11.2016 without issuing fresh proclamation – Impugned order dated 02.11.2016 declared petitioner a proclaimed person – Held: Provisions of Section 82 CrPC are mandatory and any non-compliance vitiates the entire proceedings – No fresh proclamation was issued upon adjournment as required by law – No judicial satisfaction recorded that the petitioner had absconded or was deliberately evading appearance – Order quashed [Paras 5–9].

Section 82 CrPC – Pre-Conditions for Proclamation – Judicial Satisfaction – Prior issuance of a warrant of arrest is sine qua non for issuance of proclamation – Court must record its satisfaction, on the basis of cogent and relevant material, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed – This is a foundational and jurisdictional requirement – Court cannot issue proclamation as a matter of course at the instance of the police – Proclamation must specify a date not less than 30 clear days from the date of its publication – Three modes of publication under Section 82(2)(i) — public reading, affixation at the accused's residence, and affixation at the courthouse — are conjunctive, not disjunctive, and all must be strictly complied with [Paras 5, 7–9].

Fresh Proclamation – Mandatory upon Adjournment – Settled legal position that when a matter is adjourned after issuance of a proclamation, the Court is required to issue a fresh proclamation intimating the adjourned date – Failure to issue a fresh proclamation upon adjournment vitiates the subsequent order declaring the accused a proclaimed person – Petitioner was living abroad; no steps taken by the trial court to effect service through the Embassy of the country of residence — further irregularity militating against the legality of the proclamation proceedings [Paras 5, 6].

Co-Accused – Acquittal – Relevant Circumstance – Co-accused were convicted by the JMIC, Phillaur vide judgment dated 15.11.2017 – However, on appeal, they were acquitted by the Sessions Court, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 04.09.2023 – Acquittal of co-accused is a relevant circumstance considered in the background of the present petition [Para 2.2].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC – Criminal proceedings founded upon an illegal and procedurally flawed proclamation cannot be permitted to continue – Exercise of inherent powers warranted to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice [Para 10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur, District Jalandhar, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, and all consequential proceedings, quashed qua the petitioner – Petitioner directed to apply for bail (anticipatory or regular, as deemed appropriate) within four weeks, failing which petition to be deemed dismissed – Nothing observed to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Mahadev Online Book App Scam – Retired IAS Officer – Section 482 BNSS – Applicant, a retired IAS officer, apprehended arrest in CBI Crime No. RC2212024E0024 dated 18.12.2024 registered for offences including criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, corruption and illegal betting under various statutory provisions in connection with the Mahadev Online Book App syndicate, which allegedly generated proceeds estimated at approximately Rs.450 crores per month – Anticipatory bail application filed pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court vide order dated 09.03.2026 in SLP (Crl.) No.19892 of 2025 – Held: Economic offences constitute a class apart requiring a different approach in the matter of bail; case involves deep-rooted conspiracy, corruption by public servants, organized money laundering through hawala channels and fake bank accounts; investigation at a crucial stage involving digital and financial evidence; custodial interrogation may be necessary – Anticipatory bail rejected [Paras 20–31].

Anticipatory Bail – Non-Arraignment in Earlier FIRs – Not Conclusive – Applicant contended he was not named in any earlier FIRs, prosecution complaints or charge-sheets filed by the ED or ACB/EOW and that his implication was belated and mala fide – Held: Non-arraignment in earlier proceedings does not ipso facto establish innocence or disentitle the investigating agency from further investigation when material subsequently surfaces – Allegations of political vendetta and "evergreening of arrest" are matters requiring evidence and cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the anticipatory bail stage – Record shows multiple agencies investigated different aspects over a considerable period; no finding recorded that investigation is wholly mala fide [Para 26].

Parity – Cannot Be Claimed Mechanically in Conspiracy Cases – Applicant sought anticipatory bail on parity with similarly situated accused Satish Chandra Verma who was granted anticipatory bail – Held: Parity cannot be claimed mechanically, particularly in criminal conspiracy and economic offence cases where the role of each accused may stand on a different footing – The prosecution asserted the applicant's role is under active investigation and cannot be equated with other accused persons [Para 27].

Anticipatory Bail – Parameters – Economic Offences – Custodial Interrogation – Settled principles: nature and gravity of accusations, severity of punishment, character and antecedents of the accused, possibility of tampering with evidence, possibility of influencing witnesses, and larger interests of the public and State are relevant considerations – In economic offences involving organized conspiracy and corruption, unconditional anticipatory bail may cause serious interference with investigation; custodial interrogation is qualitatively more relevant in unearthing all ramifications of the conspiracy – The discretionary relief under Section 482 BNSS cannot be granted as a matter of routine [Paras 21–30].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Applicant Anil Tuteja failed to make out a case warranting grant of anticipatory bail having regard to the nature and gravity of allegations, the magnitude of the alleged economic offence, the ongoing stage of investigation and the requirement of further probe into digital and financial evidence.

Delhi Rent Control Act – Applicability – Bar under Section 50 – Suit for Possession – Second Appeal – Appellant/landlord filed Civil Suit for possession of a shop against the Respondent/tenant on the ground that the Suit Property fell in an area not covered by the DRC Act – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the Suit as barred under Section 50 DRC Act – Held: Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 13, 18, 41].

Territorial Applicability – Schedule 1 to Section 1(2) DRC Act – Municipal Committee, Delhi-Shahdara – The Suit Property was urbanised vide Notification dated 08.12.1954 under Section 5(3) Punjab Municipal Act, making it part of the Municipal Committee, Delhi-Shahdara – The DRC Act came into force on 09.02.1959, and its Schedule 1(2) expressly included all areas within the Municipal Committee, Delhi-Shahdara as on 7th April, 1958 – Since the area was already notified and urbanised prior to enactment of the DRC Act, no subsequent separate Notification was required to extend the Act to the Suit Property – Held: DRC Act was applicable to the Suit Property from the date of its enactment itself [Paras 30, 31, 35, 40].

Proviso to Section 1(2) DRC Act – Interpretation – The proviso requiring a further Notification to extend the DRC Act operates only in respect of areas notified or included within MCD limits after the date of Notification of the Act, i.e., after 09.02.1959 – Where urbanisation predates the Act, the proviso has no application – Contention of the Appellant that a second Notification was required even for pre-Act urbanised areas held to be not tenable [Paras 32, 34, 35].

Conduct of Plaintiff – Approbation and Reprobation – The Appellant had earlier filed a Civil Suit (C.S. No. 389/2012) which was withdrawn when the plea of bar of Section 50 DRC Act was raised – Thereafter he filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act (No. E-72/2016), which got dismissed in default and the Restoration Application was also dismissed – The filing of a fresh Civil Suit after abandoning the DRC Act proceedings, without any change in circumstances, amounts to approbation and reprobation and further establishes the applicability of the DRC Act to the Suit Property – Held: Civil Suit not maintainable [Paras 36, 37, 38, 39].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments of learned Civil Judge dated 06.06.2023 and learned ADJ dated 28.03.2024 upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Disputed Property Title – Writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging alleged forcible dispossession by State authorities from land bearing Survey No. 770, Naugaon, District Dhar, admeasuring 0.493 hectare — petitioners claimed ownership based on revenue entries since 1927-28, municipal tax payments, and earlier SDO orders dated 22.07.2008 and 13.05.2019 terminating dispossession proceedings — Held: disputed questions of ownership and title cannot be adjudicated in summary writ proceedings; petitioners at liberty to file a civil suit before a competent civil court [Paras 19, 27, 28, 39].

Revenue Records – Mutation Entries – No Conferral of Title – Payment of municipal taxes and mutation of name in revenue or municipal records does not confer or extinguish title — SDO order dated 22.07.2008 neither explicitly declared petitioners as rightful owners nor did the precedent order in M.P. No. 180/1981 reflect the petitioners' names or the subject survey number — records instead indicate petitioners' ancestors functioned as hospital superintendents in a caretaker capacity — Held: mutation entries are for fiscal purposes only and confer no right, title or interest [Paras 20–26].

FIR – Quashment – Article 226 – Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC – FIR registered on complaint by Tahsildar alleging fraudulent alienation of Government property through forged documents — petitioner, functioning at best as an administrative superintendent, executed a registered lease deed in 2008 and agreement to sell in 2009 without any verified legal right — prima facie cognizable offences disclosed — Held: case does not fall within any of the parameters for quashing an FIR as laid down in Bhajan Lal; High Court should not stifle a legitimate criminal investigation at the threshold [Paras 29–37].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — petitioners granted liberty to file a properly constituted civil suit before a competent civil court to establish ownership, title, and right to sell or lease the property — no order as to costs [Paras 38–40].

Copyright Law – Interim Injunction – Suppression of Material Facts – Discretionary Relief – Plaintiff, producer of cinematograph film 'Tridev', claimed first ownership of copyright in the song 'Tirchi Topiwale' comprising literary work (lyrics by Anand Bakshi), musical work (composed by Kalyanji-Anandji) and sound recording — by assignment agreement dated 30.06.1988, plaintiff assigned limited rights to defendant No. 3 (Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.) confined to record-based exploitation, i.e., manufacture and sale of cassettes and gramophone records — defendants used original and remixed version titled 'Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)' in film 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' released on 19.03.2026 — plaintiff sought injunction restraining OTT release of the film to the extent it comprises the said song — Held: plaintiff disentitled from discretionary relief on account of suppression of material facts, prolonged inaction, and failure to satisfactorily explain non-disclosures in plaint, rejoinder and affidavits [Paras 14–30].

Assignment Agreement – Scope of Rights – Interpretation – Agreement dated 30.06.1988 defined "the said work" to include literary, dramatic, musical, record and cinematographic film copyrights in 'Tridev' — paras 2(i) and 2(xi) assigned all rights, titles and interests in literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the said work, including the right to make or authorize any versions and to perform, broadcast or transmit such versions — para 7 permitted adaptation and combination with any other work — para 12 applied assignment to all songs, dialogues and sequences irrespective of their presence in any version of the film — Held: prima facie, the agreement granted all rights in musical, literary and dramatic works in the said work to defendant No. 3, excluding only the cinematograph film itself — the agreement in present case not entirely pari materia with the agreement considered in Shemaroo Entertainment [Paras 33–33.7].

Interim Injunction – Triple Test – Clean Hands – A party seeking discretionary relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC must come to court with clean hands and disclose all material facts — plaintiff issued legal notice dated 26.04.2016 alleging infringement in film 'Azhar' but took no follow-up action after defendant No. 3's reply dated 02.05.2016 — songs from 'Tridev' were also used in 'K.G.F: Chapter 1' (2019) without any protest — plaintiff suppressed multiple suits filed between 2016 and 2020 and falsely claimed promoter had no connection with industry during that period — affidavits of promoter Mr. Rajiv Rai and Mr. Umesh Mehta contradicted the plaint — Held: failure to provide satisfactory explanation of non-disclosures tantamounts to suppression; suppressio veri suggestio falsi disentitles a party from discretionary relief [Paras 15–27].

OTT Injunction – Incongruity – Balance of Convenience – Plaintiff's inaction for seven to nine years since prior alleged infringements assured defendant No. 3 to exercise its rights and induced defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to invest hugely in producing 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' — restraining OTT release while theatrical exhibition continues would create an incongruous situation — any loss occasioned to plaintiff adequately compensable in monetary damages — Held: application for interim injunction not maintainable — defendant No. 3 directed to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs in court to be invested in interest-bearing FDR for the benefit of the successful party at trial [Paras 28–29, 42–46].

Decision: Application for interim injunction disposed of — defendant No. 3 directed to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs within four weeks with Registrar General of the Court — said deposit to be invested in interest-bearing FDR with auto-renewable clause — observations confined to adjudication of interim application only and not an expression on merits of the suit — suit listed before Joint Registrar on 13.07.2026 and before Court on 21.08.2026 [Paras 46–50].

Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Sections 148, 302, 307 and 149 IPC – Acquittal – Four appellants convicted by Trial Court for fatal assault on deceased Inder Singh at the basement of Uphaar Cinema on 13-14.08.1996 by an unlawful assembly armed with iron rods and wooden sticks – High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, finds the prosecution case riddled with infirmities including tainted TIP, contradictory eye-witness accounts, absence of independent witnesses, unexplained secret informant, and acquittal of persons described as central to the formation of the unlawful assembly – Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned orders of conviction dated 01.05.2003 and sentence dated 05.05.2003 set aside – Appellants acquitted [Paras 1, 2, 74, 75].

Test Identification Parade – Prior Exposure to Witnesses – Admissibility – Appellants Nasir Ahmed, Mohd. Nadir Khan and Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu were shown to PW-1/Vikram and PW-2/Gianender at the Police Post immediately upon their arrest – Their subsequent refusal to participate in the TIP cannot be accorded evidentiary value – Consequential dock identification by the eye-witnesses also rendered inadmissible – Held: The Trial Court committed a grave error in convicting these appellants solely on the basis of their refusal to participate in the TIP and in-court identification following prior exposure [Paras 63, 67, 68] – Adverse inference for non-participation in TIP cannot support identification when authenticity of TIP is itself under serious doubt [Para 66].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Acquittal of Key Accused – Benefit of Doubt – As per the prosecution's own case, it was accused Devinder who had instigated the quarrel and travelled to Lado Sarai to bring associates, while accused Harender Kumar @ Pandit drove the bus carrying the unlawful assembly; both were acquitted by the Trial Court – Their acquittal fatally breaks the chain of circumstances constituting the prosecution's case – Where prosecution's case against accused is so inextricably mixed up that grain cannot be separated from chaff, benefit of doubt must extend to all accused [Paras 35, 58, 53].

Eye-Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Unreliability – The three eye-witnesses PW-1/Vikram, PW-2/Gianender and PW-11/Jeet Ram @ Jeetu gave mutually contradictory accounts of who had quarrelled with the deceased in the cinema balcony – PW-6/Dayanand, the sole public witness to the first part of the incident, turned hostile and denied any quarrel inside the cinema hall – No description of the assailants was given by any witness in their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements – Assault took place in darkness of basement at midnight and no source of light was marked in the site plan – Eye-witnesses PW-1/Vikram and PW-2/Gianender admitted they could not identify who gave beatings and sustained only simple injuries [Paras 54, 55, 56, 57, 38].

Secret Informant – Arrest – Absence of DD Entry – The first arrest was made more than seven months after the incident, allegedly on secret information received by an officer of a police station different from the one which registered the FIR, with no DD entry or official record – Non-examination of the secret informant casts doubt on the prosecution's case – Remaining appellants were arrested solely on the basis of disclosure statements made by the appellant Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu [Paras 60, 61, 36].

TIP – Evidentiary Value – Not Substantive Evidence – Conviction Cannot Rest Solely on TIP – As far as appellant Jagjit Singh is concerned, he was not shown to witnesses prior to TIP, having surrendered in court on 20.05.1997 – He was identified by only one witness (PW-1/Vikram) in the TIP; PW-2/Gianender did not identify him – Conviction cannot be based solely on identification by one witness in TIP, in the absence of corroborating substantive evidence – TIP is not substantive evidence; its purpose is corroboration of sworn testimony [Paras 69, 70, 71, 72, 73].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC set aside – All four appellants acquitted – Personal bonds and sureties discharged – Copy of judgment to be communicated to concerned Jail Superintendent and Trial Court.

NDPS – Bail – Cultivation of Ganja – Definition of "Ganja" under Section 2(iii)(b) – Petitioner accused of illegally cultivating ganja plants on his agricultural land amidst jowar plantation, with 20 plants weighing 10 kg 500 grams seized during a raid – Petitioner in custody since 11.12.2025 – Contention that seized substance does not satisfy the definition of "ganja" under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, which defines ganja as the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops – Mahazar report revealed that the seized material comprised roots, stem, branches and leaves, all weighed together – Held: Substance recovered runs contrary to the statutory definition of ganja inasmuch as the weight includes roots, stems and branches, which are excluded from the definition – Petitioner makes out a prima facie case of innocence – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2–9].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed — Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 180/2025 — Subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties, regular appearance before Trial Court, non-tampering with prosecution witnesses, non-involvement in similar offences, and non-departure from jurisdiction of Trial Court without permission.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – CISF – Removal from Service – Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Four articles of charge proved against petitioner-constable including making unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations, misbehaviour with superior officers, involving local police bypassing chain of command, and habitual indiscipline despite prior penalties — all authorities concurrently upheld removal — Held: High Court does not act as appellate authority in disciplinary matters; interference warranted only where proceedings are vitiated by violation of natural justice, findings are perverse or based on no evidence, there is patent procedural illegality, or punishment is shockingly disproportionate — no such ground made out — writ petition dismissed [Paras 12, 31–32].

Natural Justice – Alleged Denial of Fair Opportunity – Ex Parte Inquiry – Petitioner claimed denial of fair opportunity and effective ex parte proceeding — Held: Petitioner was duly served with charge memorandum, filed reply and participated in inquiry; no specific instance of denial of request for leading evidence or cross-examination shown; petitioner did not cooperate with Sexual Harassment Complaint Committee leading to ex parte conclusion — petitioner cannot take advantage of own non-cooperation to allege violation of natural justice [Paras 13–17].

Sexual Harassment Complaint – Treatment as Misconduct – Petitioner contended disciplinary action was a consequence of raising sexual harassment complaints — Held: Complaint was duly enquired into by constituted Committee which found allegations unsubstantiated; disciplinary proceedings not directed at the act of making a complaint but at the findings that allegations were unsubstantiated and conduct amounted to misconduct; no material to demonstrate mala fides or legal unsustainability of the Committee's inquiry [Paras 22–25].

Habitual Misconduct – Past Conduct as Relevant Factor – Petitioner had been penalized on multiple prior occasions for indiscipline including a prior false complaint; continued misconduct despite opportunities to improve — Held: In uniformed forces, past conduct is a relevant factor in determining the nature and extent of penalty; consideration of previous record by disciplinary authority cannot be faulted [Paras 26–27].

Proportionality of Punishment – Members of Disciplined Force – High Standard of Conduct Required – Held: In a disciplined force, making unsubstantiated allegations against colleagues, misbehaving with superior officers, and bypassing chain of command have serious implications for discipline; having regard to the nature of charges proved and past conduct, the penalty of removal from service cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference [Paras 28–30].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed — Pending application closed.

Criminal Contempt — Social Media Campaign — Scandalising the Court — Judicial Independence — Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Respondents, aggrieved by orders passed by this Court in a criminal revision petition, initiated a coordinated and sustained public campaign through social media platforms, press conferences, edited videos and public letters, instead of availing legal remedies before the Supreme Court — The campaign was found to be a calculated attempt to vilify the presiding Judge, undermine judicial independence, and obstruct administration of justice — Recusal applications filed by respondents were rejected by a detailed judgment dated 20.04.2026 — Held: Acts of the proposed contemnors prima facie constitute criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Suo motu proceedings drawn — Matter directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate Bench [Paras 1-18, 116, 120, 139].

Contemptuous Conduct — R-18 Arvind Kejriwal — Declarations on Social Media — R-18 publicly published a letter on platform 'X' on 27.04.2026 attributing political bias to this Court and declaring he would neither appear personally nor through counsel in the matter — He stated that no ordinary citizen could believe that this Court could rule against the Solicitor General or the Union Government, and that the outcome appeared "foretold" — His public declaration framed as "Satyagraha" was found to be, in effect, a deliberate attempt to publicly portray the Court as incapable of independent adjudication — Held: Such statements scandalise the Court and lower its authority in the eyes of the public and appear to fall within the ambit of criminal contempt [Paras 40-56].

Contemptuous Conduct — R-8 Manish Sisodia and R-19 Durgesh Pathak — Both respondents published letters on social media platform 'X' endorsing R-18's position, declaring they had no hope of receiving justice from this Court and would not participate in proceedings either personally or through counsel — Held: Such statements and conduct tend to scandalise and lower the authority of this Court and constitute a serious and deliberate attempt to obstruct administration of justice, falling within Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act [Paras 57-60].

Contemptuous Conduct — Sanjay Singh (@SanjayAzadSln) and Devesh Vishwakarma (@devesh_aap) — Posts published on 'X' falsely alleged that the presiding Judge received promotions on attending RSS/BJP events and that no justice could be expected from her — A video of the Judge's lecture at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi (delivered on 19.05.2024 at a workshop on new criminal laws) was selectively cropped and circulated in a misleading manner, falsely portraying it as a speech at an RSS/BJP event — Fact-check reports by PTI, Bar & Bench and Alt News confirmed the video was decontextualised — Held: Such statements and edited video publications prima facie amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 61-77].

Contemptuous Conduct — Vinayy Mishra (@vinayymishraap) — Published posts on 'X' attributing political allegiance to this Court; insinuated that if this Court did not recuse, the case would effectively be heard at the "BJP headquarters" — Photographs of the Judge receiving a memento at an academic event were falsely projected as awards received at political party programmes — Held: Statements of such nature have the tendency to scandalise this Court, lower the authority of the judiciary, and interfere with administration of justice, falling within criminal contempt [Paras 78-83].

Contemptuous Conduct — Saurabh Bhardwaj — Press Conference on YouTube — AAP State President, Delhi, held a press conference on 10.03.2026 — one day after the case was first listed — and publicly questioned the relationship of the presiding Judge with the BJP without any factual basis, casting aspersions on her integrity and impartiality — Held: Such statements publicly portraying a sitting Judge as politically connected during the pendency of a criminal case tend to lower the authority of the Court and scandalise the institution, falling within the ambit of criminal contempt [Paras 84-89].

Law of Criminal Contempt — Fair Criticism vs. Scandalising the Court — Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — The Court reiterated the settled distinction between fair and bona fide criticism of judicial orders, which is permissible, and a calculated campaign to scandalize the Court and undermine public confidence in the judiciary, which constitutes criminal contempt — A defamatory statement against a Judge personally constitutes libel; when it is calculated to interfere with due administration of justice, it becomes contempt — Popularity or political influence cannot confer constitutional immunity from the law of contempt — Held: A lie spoken a thousand times does not become the truth; intimidation clothed as legitimate criticism does not become immune from the law of contempt [Paras 25-32].

Judicial Propriety — Transfer of Main Revision Petition — Not a Recusal — Having drawn suo motu contempt proceedings, this Court directed the main revision petition CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 to be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench — Clarified that this is not a recusal nor a yielding to the demands of the contemnors — The order rejecting recusal dated 20.04.2026 remains unchallenged and continues to hold the field — Transfer directed solely on grounds of judicial propriety and fairness to the accused so that the contemnors cannot project themselves as victims of bias [Paras 131-137].

Decision: Suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated — Registry directed to assign appropriate case title and number to the contempt proceedings and place them before the Chief Justice on 15.05.2026 for assignment to an appropriate Bench, for issuance of show-cause notices to the proposed contemnors as per Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025 — Main revision petition CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 also placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench.