The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sentenced a man to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten days for making reckless allegations of corruption against a district judge and circulating it on WhatsApp.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed,

“Making allegation on the Judicial Officer regarding his working, integrity and misuse of his position, there cannot be any explanation for the same especially in the event when the complaint made by the respondent was duly investigated and found to be baseless by the authorities.”

The suo motu proceedings for contempt were initiated against the respondent after a reference was sent by S.P.S. Bundela, Additional District Judge, Bareli under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for registration of a civil as well as criminal contempt for flouting the orders of the court passed in a Civil Appeal directing him to deposit the amount received as donation from the devotees of a temple in the Bank in the name of trust.

The presiding Judge had further mentioned that the respondent/contemnor had committed criminal contempt by circulating a letter on social media maligning the image, reputation and prestige of the court as well as the presiding judge causing adverse impact in the due process of the judicial proceedings.

Before the contempt proceedings were initiated against the contemnor, an enquiry was conducted by the District Judge (Vigilance) and the complaint made by the contemnor against the judicial officer was found to be incorrect.

The opinion was placed before the Portfolio Judge and thereafter to the Chief Justice, and the complaint was directed to be closed. However, a decision was taken to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent keeping in view the complaint which was made by him.

While referring to the letter and the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court observed, “...if a complaint alleging reckless allegation of misuse of powers and corruption against a Presiding Officer is made, the same falls under the definition of the ‘criminal contempt’.”

The bench observed that an attempt was made by the contemnor to scandalize and lower the majesty of the court and also the Judicial Officer concerned. While referring to the judgments in Prashant Bhushan and Another, In Reference Suo Motu Contempt Petition (2021) 1 SCC 745 and Baradakanta Mishra vs. High Court of Orissa (1974) 1 SCC 374, the bench observed that such an attempt falls within the scope of ‘criminal contempt’.

The bench further observed that a proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the contemnor to submit his explanation in the enquiry, and thus, the procedure which was required to be followed in the enquiry, was adhered to by the authorities.

“Therefore there is no illegality as far as the procedure adopted in the enquiry is concerned,” the bench held.

The sole question for consideration before the bench was as to whether or not the words which were spelt out in the complaint made by the contemnor fell under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?

"The words which are mentioned in the letter…on the basis of which the proceedings of the criminal contempt have been initiated, are questioning the working of the Judicial Officer and levying allegations regarding corruption and misuse of his position. The same clearly falls under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971," the court said.

While disposing of the criminal contempt proceedings, the bench held, "The reply/explanation which has been given by the respondent and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent to justify the action is of no help to him as there is no explanation for making such reckless allegation against the Judicial Officer, who in the interest of public at large and just to put a check on the misappropriation of funds of the temple had directed the Sub Divisional Officer to put a lock on the donation box. "

The court concluded that a fine alone would not be adequate, and thus sentenced the contemnor to ten days of imprisonment, in addition to a fine of Rs. 2,000 to be paid within seven days.

Case Title: In Re Suo Motu Contempt Petition Criminal No. 5 Of 2020

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 67

Click Here To Read/Download Order