No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt

“Repeated Allegations of ‘Case-Fixing’ and ‘Illicit Affairs’ Against Judges Cannot Be Shielded as Whistleblowing or Free Expression”,  In a scathing judgment Karnataka High Court convicted and sentenced a litigant, K. Dhananjay, to four months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000 for criminal contempt of court, holding that his repeated, scurrilous, and baseless allegations of “case-fixing”, “illicit relationships”, and corruption against sitting Judges and members of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) not only scandalised the court but constituted a deliberate and aggravated interference with the administration of justice.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil found that the accused, appearing as a party-in-person, had launched a persistent and calculated attack on the dignity and integrity of the judicial system. The Court held: “If conduct of this nature is not punished, sociopaths like the accused are likely to repeat such offences with impunity which would endanger the rule of law and the judicial system as a whole.”

The contempt proceedings (Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2018) were initiated at the instance of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, which accused Dhananjay, a former employee, of repeatedly making false and defamatory allegations against the institution’s management, the CAT, and the Judges of the High Court in various pleadings, affidavits, and representations.

The Advocate General for Karnataka granted consent for initiating criminal contempt under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which was later challenged but eventually withdrawn by the accused. Thereafter, notice was issued, and the matter proceeded on merits.

Allegations of “Case-Fixing Deal Crime” and “Illicit Affairs”

The charges arose from multiple statements made by the accused in court pleadings, affidavits to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India, and oral submissions. The accused alleged a “case-fixing-deal-crime” involving CAT members and High Court Judges, claimed involvement in illicit affairs with lawyers and court staff, and suggested a large-scale conspiracy to defeat his employment-related litigation. Among the many outrageous allegations were:

• Accusations of judicial orders being “fixed” through conspiracies involving administrative officers and a named female employee.

• Imputations of illicit relationships between sitting Judges and private parties.

• Allegations that Judges and lawyers had “criminally conspired” to destroy his career and suppress corruption in the Indian Institute of Astrophysics.

Despite the shocking tenor of these claims, the accused claimed he was a whistleblower acting in public interest, asserting that he was targeted for exposing a “Rs. 2,000 Crore scam” within his institution.

Legal Issues and the Court’s Observations

The central issue before the Court was whether the statements made by the accused fell within the definition of “criminal contempt” under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and whether the defence of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) or fair criticism could apply.

Rejecting these contentions, the Court held: “Freedom under Article 19(1)(a) does not extend to unfounded, malicious and scandalous attacks on Judges and judicial institutions. Fair criticism is permissible, but imputing motives, corruption and collusion without basis constitutes contempt.”

The Bench also noted that the accused never denied the statements attributed to him. On the contrary, he admitted authorship and reiterated them during trial and cross-examination.

 “The accused has not expressed any regret and continues his adamant stand. No mitigating factors have also been pleaded,” the Court recorded.

“Scurrilous, Baseless and Repetitive Attacks”: Charges Proven Beyond Doubt

The complainant’s witness, K. Shripathi, marked 18 documentary exhibits proving the allegations. The documents included affidavits, letters to constitutional authorities, and pleadings filled with scandalous language. The accused, on his part, filed over 46 documents, none of which refuted the charges, but rather expanded upon them.

Key findings included: Allegations in M.A. No. 410/2017 where the accused claimed judges were bribed through female employees.

• Accusations of “illicit affairs” between Judges and lawyers in OA Nos. 13/2016 and 929/2016.

• Persistent use of the phrase “case-fixing-deal-crime” in sworn documents submitted to the President of India and Supreme Court.

• In his deposition, the accused named Judges and senior Advocates, including the former Advocate General, as co-conspirators.

The Court concluded: “The evidence placed on record would clearly show that the charges stand proved. The very demeanor and tone of the accused is clearly contemptuous of the orders and authority of the Court and the judicial system as such.”

Contempt in the Face of the Court

Relying on Section 14 and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court characterised the acts as aggravated contempt committed in the face of the Court.

Justice Sivaraman observed: “Far from expressing any remorse, he has attempted to justify his actions and has proceeded to make scandalous and unfounded statements against the judicial institution as a whole.”

 “Deterrent Punishment Essential to Preserve Rule of Law”

In sentencing the contemnor, the Bench invoked the precedents of:

• Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association [(2005) 6 SCC 109] where the Supreme Court held that scandalising the court by imputing motives constitutes criminal contempt;

• In Re: Prashant Bhushan [(2021) 3 SCC 160] where it was reaffirmed that freedom of speech is not absolute when used to attack judges and courts;

• In Re: Vijay Kurle [(2021) 13 SCC 616] which emphasised that respect and confidence in the judiciary is a pillar of democracy, not to be eroded by malicious personal attacks.

Considering the gravity, persistence and public nature of the contempt, and the absence of remorse, the Court sentenced the accused to:

“Simple imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contemnor shall be taken into custody forthwith.”

The Registrar was directed to issue the conviction warrant, and a free copy of the order was directed to be provided to the contemnor immediately.

The Karnataka High Court’s judgment sends a strong message that contemptuous conduct in the guise of whistleblowing or public interest cannot shield malicious attacks on the judiciary. The rule of law, as the Court underscored, depends on public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of courts—a foundation that cannot be allowed to be undermined through reckless and defamatory allegations.

This is a rare but powerful instance of the Court invoking its contempt jurisdiction to preserve institutional dignity, ensuring that free speech remains a right, not a weapon of vilification.

Date of Decision: 11 December 2025