Delhi High Court Dismissed Contempt Petition Against Civil Judge and Advocate
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today dismissed a contempt petition against judicial officers, emphasizing the sanctity and independence of the judiciary. Justice Jasmeet Singh, while pronouncing the judgment, highlighted the essence of judicial sovereignty, stating, “The independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct for the rule of law and democracy.”
The contempt proceedings were sought by the petitioner, alleging willful non-compliance with judicial precedents that mandate giving primacy to perjury applications over civil suits. The case revolved around a long-standing civil dispute, with the petitioner accusing the respondents of evading the law.
Justice Singh’s bench meticulously dismissed the petition, clarifying the legal stance on the matter. The Court observed, “The act of seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against a judge is improper and should be deterred,” thereby setting a precedent for the boundaries of contempt jurisdiction.
The Court also made It clear that the bar’s independence is integral to the administration of justice, stating, “There cannot be existence of a strong judicial system without an independent Bar.” The learned judge warned against the misuse of contempt proceedings, which can lead to an unjustified attack on the majesty and honesty of the courts.
This judgment reaffirms the legal protection granted to judicial officers under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, against litigation for actions performed within their judicial capacity. Moreover, the Court underlined that while judges are accountable, their actions in the discharge of judicial duties should not be challenged through contempt proceedings.
The case also addressed the applic”tion’of Section 35B of the CPC, with the Court referencing a Supreme Court judgment to elaborate that non-payment of costs does not automatically result in the dismissal of a suit. The Court dismissed the contempt petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedies against the impugned order dated 22.07.2023.
The legal fraternity views this de”Isio’ as a reinforcement of the judiciary’s position and a reminder of the legal avenues available to challenge judicial decisions without resorting to contempt proceedings. The judgment comes at a time when the balance between judicial independence and accountability is under close public scrutiny.
Date of Decision: 07.11.2023
VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS
