Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: 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