Delhi High Court: A review application was filed by a practicing advocate challenging the dismissal of a petition filed seeking to set aside an order dated 10-10-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), South East District, Saket Courts, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. directed the advocate to show-cause as to why the notice for contempt be not issued and contempt proceedings be initiated against him for consideration in accordance with law.
Background:
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking to set aside an order dated 10-10-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. This petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 23-01-2024, with the court imposing a cost of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within eight weeks. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of his petition and the imposed cost, the petitioner filed the review petition challenging the High Court’s order. This review petition was listed for consideration on 27-03-2024. During the review petition’s pendency, the matter was scheduled for further listing on 07-05-2024 and 22-08-2024.
The petitioner, while awaiting the hearing of the review petition, submitted a miscellaneous application which led to the case being listed earlier than the scheduled date. On 06-05-2024, during a video conferencing session, the petitioner posted a series of comments in the chat box that were critical and derogatory towards the court, questioning its efficiency, impartiality, and the influence of bar members on its proceedings.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that when the petitioner was inquired about the incident, he showed no remorse and stood by what he had commented. The Court stated that on the face of it, the comments were placed in the public domain to scandalize the Court and that these comments were contemptuous and interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings.
Further, the Court said that since this act was done to undermine the authority of the Court in the perception of the public at large, it falls within the ambit of criminal contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The petitioner was directed by the Court to show cause as to why a notice of contempt should not be issued against him and why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. The Court noted at this stage that the petitioner wished to withdraw the Review Petition and sought to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. A reference regarding this was also made in the comments posted in the chat box.
The Court opined that the petitioner could always exercise the legal remedies available to him but this does not give him the liberty to make contemptuous allegations and undermine the authority of the Court.
[Sanjeev Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3585, Order dated 09-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Petitioner-in-person
For Respondents — APP Meenakshi Dahiya
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
