Scurrilous Allegations Against Judges Not Protected by Free Speech: Allahabad High Court Holds Devendra Kumar Dixit Guilty of Criminal Contempt

Authority of the Court Must Be Respected at All Costs to Protect the Rule of Law —Allahabad High Court convicted the respondent for criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for making scandalous allegations of corruption against sitting Judges of the High Court. The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh, while holding the contemnor guilty, tempered the punishment by imposing only a fine of ₹2,000 considering his old age and that it was his first offence.

The case arose from a complaint dated 30.04.2016 sent by Devendra Kumar Dixit to the President of India, in which he alleged that Judges of the High Court, while deciding his writ petition (W.P. No. 7137(MB) of 2016), took money through a Senior Advocate to dismiss his petition. The complaint was forwarded to the High Court, and on 09.06.2016, the then Acting Chief Justice took cognizance and referred the matter for criminal contempt proceedings.

The Court observed, “The allegations levelled in the complaint dated 30.04.2016, prima facie scandalizes or tends to scandalize, lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court and amounts to interference in the administration of justice.”

The central issue was whether the statements made by the contemnor amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court rejected the contemnor’s preliminary objection that he required the covering letter issued by the Rashtrapati Bhavan to defend himself. The Court found this irrelevant, stating, “The forwarding letter/covering letter along with which the complaint was received has no concern with the contempt proceeding whatsoever.”

The contemnor’s admission regarding authorship and signature on the complaint was recorded in earlier proceedings. The Court noted, “The contemnor has admitted the contents of the complaint dated 30.04.2016 written by him and the original document was shown to him, which was on record, and he admitted his signatures on the same.”

The Court examined the scope of criminal contempt relying on Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1996) 7 SCC 99 and T. Deen Dayal v. High Court of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 535, reiterating that “remarks against a judge with reference to the discharge of his judicial function are scandalous and interfere with the administration of justice.”

The Court underscored that proof of actual interference with administration of justice is not required. It is sufficient if the act is “likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law” quoting Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 10.

Referring to Prashant Bhushan & Another In Re, (2021) 1 SCC 745, the Court affirmed, “When the authority of this Court is itself under attack, the Court would not be a silent spectator… When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded.”

The Court concluded that the contemnor’s allegations were not fair criticism but amounted to a “scurrilous attack intended to scandalize the Court.”

While holding Devendra Kumar Dixit guilty, the Court refrained from imposing imprisonment considering his age and lack of prior offences. The Bench observed, “Looking to his old age and the fact that this is his first offence, we impose only a fine of ₹2,000 to be deposited within one month, failing which he will undergo simple imprisonment of one week.”

The Court also noted that the contemnor had neither offered any unconditional apology nor shown remorse, but still, in the interest of justice, the Court considered mitigating circumstances.

The Court directed the Senior Registrar to ensure compliance and collection of the fine.

The judgment reaffirms the fundamental position that courts are the guardians of the rule of law and any act which scandalizes or lowers the authority of courts is not immune under the right to free speech. The Bench reminded that “if the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.”

Date of Decision: 24th March 2025