Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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