The Delhi High Court in the case Ms. M Victim v. State Of NCT Of Delhi Through S.H.O & Ors, the court while observing that Judiciary is not immune from criticism and that such criticism cannot be based on gross misrepresentation or distorted facts of material averments to intentionally lower its dignity and respect.
The bench comprising of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, who was dealing with an appeal raising allegations against Trial Court and High Court judges and a notice is issued to the counsel appearing for the appellant to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against the appellant.
The Court stated that there is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but several Judges of this Court and this vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as such things becomes a form of public mischief. However, an unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing and unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court.
Adding to it, the Court further stated that there must be impartial Judiciary, for a healthy democracy, Therefore, it cannot be impaired by vindictive criticism. The Judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when on the distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments, the criticism is based to intentionally lower the dignity and respect of this Court, however, it must be taken cognizance of.
It was observed that an appeal was filled challenging the final order dated November 18, 2021 passed by the an Additional Sessions Judge of Rohini Courts in a case registered under sec. 376, 506, 323, 328, 109, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court told the counsel appearing for the appellant that the paragraphs in the plea raising allegations against the judges must be retracted and that the challenge to the findings of the Trial Court as well as High Court must be done in accordance with law without making any tainted, personal and malafide allegations against the judges. However, it was submitted by the counsel that he will not amend the appeal as the same were not allegations but statements of facts which can be easily seen and borne out from the record.
At the Outset, the Court observed that the above quoted representations and allegations are biased and intended to scandalize this Court. Making allegations that a Judge deliberately wanted to twist issues in order to favour an accused or that they were personally interested in the matter acted impartially or illegally are unjust statements.
Further, it was observed by the Court that the allegations made in the petition were intrinsically contemptuous in nature and fell within the definition of “Criminal Contempt” of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 under sec. 2(c)(i).
A show cause notice was issued by the Court to the appellant’s counsel as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
The Court ordered that he shall file a response to the contempt notice within 2 weeks.
Accordingly, the matter will now be listed on August 8 before the Division Bench handling criminal contempt subject to the orders of the Chief Justice.
