Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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