Delhi High Court Initiates Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Lawyer For Calling Judiciary 'Corrupt'
The Delhi High Court has recently initiated criminal contempt proceedings against a lawyer who called the judiciary and judges corrupt and made scandalous allegations about the institution.
Justice Amit Sharma said that prima facie, the lawyer had committed “criminal contempt” as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court ordered that the matter be listed before the Division or Roster Bench on November 19 for further proceedings against the lawyer, while also asking him to appear on the said date.
The plea was filed against the lawyer in 2023 seeking contempt of court action against him. In December 2023, the lawyer appeared before the predecessor bench and tendered an unconditional apology for making allegations against the judges and stated that he shall never do so in future.
In January 2024, show cause notice for contempt was issued to the lawyer in a civil suit involving him. An application was then moved in the contempt petition for aggravated contempt for violating the judicial order and for making scandalous imputations against the judiciary.
During the hearing, the predecessor bench had taken note of an email written by the lawyer containing libellous content along with other scandalous, contumacious and contemptuous allegations made against the judiciary and judges.
In his email, the lawyer said that he was a victim of “judicial terrorism, judicial emergency, judicial corruption and judicial collective conspiracy” and thus, there was a need of “judicial accountability bill.”
In his reply to the show cause notice of contempt, the lawyer said that due to corruption in the judiciary, he lost precious 10 years of his youth and “now the judiciary wants he will forget everything and trade for false aspersions created by corrupt judiciary.”
Perusing the documents on record, the Court observed that reckless allegations of corruption in judiciary were made by the lawyer, which were contemptuous, contumacious and scandalous in nature.
“The same tantamount to scandalising and lowering the authority of Court. It further tends to interfere with judicial proceedings and administration of justice,” the Court said.
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, after perusing the material placed on record in the present petition, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that the respondent has, thus, committed “criminal contempt” as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,” it added.
Title: GUNJAN KUMAR & ANR v. VEDANT