First Appellate Court Cannot Grant Relief Beyond Pleadings Or Determine Shares In A Non-Partition Suit: Jharkhand High Court Probate Cannot Be Granted Merely On Proof Of Signature If Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Testator’s Health & Will’s Execution Remain Unexplained: Gujarat High Court Litigant Seeking Case Transfer Under Section 24 CPC Must Approach Court With Clean Hands: Andhra Pradesh High Court Technical Qualification In Tenders Does Not Guarantee Selection; Presentation For Qualitative Assessment Is Permissible 'Play In The Joints': Delhi High Court Registration Of Sale Deed Acts As Constructive Notice; Section 53A TPA Is A Shield, Not A Sword To Assert Ownership: Gujarat High Court Is Dividend Distribution Tax A Tax On Company Or Shareholder? Bombay High Court Refers 'Cleavage Of Opinion' To Larger Bench May" In Service Regulations Is Directory; Delinquent Employee Has No Right To Insist On Common Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme Court Billing Errors In Hospitals Don't Amount To Cheating Or Breach Of Trust Without Proof Of Dishonest Intention: Supreme Court Quashed FIR IBC Appeal Filed Without Applying For Certified Copy Within Limitation Period Is 'Incurably Tainted': Supreme Court 35% Share Of Gross Receipts From AOP Is 'Revenue Sharing' Taxable As Business Income, Not Tax-Exempt 'Share Of Profit': Supreme Court Market Value Determination Under Section 26(1) Of 2013 LA Act Cannot Be Based On A Single Sale Deed Of Dissimilar Land: Supreme Court Professional Career Choice Of Qualified Woman Not Cruelty Or Desertion; Wife's Identity Not Subject To 'Spousal Veto': Supreme Court Dictation Given In Open Court Not Final Judgment; Only Signed Order Embodies Final Unalterable Opinion: Supreme Court Engineering Student's Notional Income Cannot Be Equated To Minimum Wages Of Unskilled Workers: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation High Court Cannot Stay Filing Of Charge-Sheet By Blindly Relying On Precedents Without Factual Analysis: Supreme Court State Must Impart Education In Mother Tongue; Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan Govt To Introduce Rajasthani Language In Schools Right To Receive Education In Mother Tongue Or Language Of Choice Is A Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(a): Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Holds Advocate Guilty of Criminal Contempt for Derogatory Allegations Against Judicial Officers

08 November 2024 11:46 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Vilification of Judiciary to Settle Personal Scores Cannot Go Unpunished,” Rules Delhi High Court. On November 6, 2024, the Delhi High Court convicted Sanjeev Kumar, an advocate, for criminal contempt in Court on Its Own Motion v. Sanjeev Kumar (CONT.CAS.(CRL) 5/2024). The conviction stemmed from Kumar’s repeated derogatory and scandalous allegations against judicial officers, aimed at discrediting the judicial process in personal litigation involving matrimonial disputes. Kumar's comments in court proceedings, filed complaints, and abusive chat messages during virtual hearings ultimately led to his four-month imprisonment and a fine.

Sanjeev Kumar initially filed complaints regarding alleged criminal incidents involving his wife’s family, which were dismissed by lower courts due to lack of evidence and her denials. Dissatisfied, Kumar accused judicial officers across multiple courts of bias and corruption, filing over 30 complaints against judges, police, and other public officials. His allegations included unverified claims and disrespectful language, which he continued to escalate despite warnings.

Derogatory Conduct During Proceedings: Kumar's statements included comments in virtual hearings and submissions calling judges biased and accusing them of deliberate misconduct, often framing his allegations in offensive terms. Notably, during one hearing, he accused a judge of negligence for allegedly ignoring his case due to caste prejudice.

Repeated Attempts to Disrupt Judicial Process: The Court highlighted Kumar's repeated misuse of legal provisions, such as filing baseless complaints under Section 156(3) of CrPC, to intimidate and discredit judicial officers. Such misuse, according to the court, detracted from judicial efficiency and eroded respect for the judiciary.

Violation of Professional Conduct: Justice Prathiba M. Singh emphasized that Kumar's behavior not only undermined judicial decorum but was also unacceptable for a practicing advocate, highlighting the expectation of professionalism from members of the legal fraternity.

The Court found Kumar’s actions constituted criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, stating:

“The contemptuous conduct... scornfully disregards the judiciary’s dignity, hindering the administration of justice”.

Considering his lack of remorse, the Court sentenced Kumar to four months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a further 15-day imprisonment for non-payment. Kumar’s request for suspension of his sentence to approach the Supreme Court was denied, given his continued vilification campaign against the judiciary.

This ruling reinforces judicial intolerance toward baseless allegations that aim to discredit judicial integrity and obstruct justice. The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to uphold the respect of courts and maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

Date of Decision: November 6, 2024
 

Latest Legal News