Derogatory Remarks Against Judges: Madhya Pradesh High Court Convicts Octogenarian Law Journal Editor For Criminal Contempt Of Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently found an octogenarian law journal editor guilty of criminal contempt for making certain remarks against the judiciary through his publication. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra deemed it fit to impose a fine of Rs 4,000/- on Dr N.S. Poonia, the 85-year-old founder, editor and publisher of ‘Lost Justice’, citing...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently found an octogenarian law journal editor guilty of criminal contempt for making certain remarks against the judiciary through his publication.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra deemed it fit to impose a fine of Rs 4,000/- on Dr N.S. Poonia, the 85-year-old founder, editor and publisher of ‘Lost Justice’, citing his deteriorating health as the primary reason.
In certain journal volumes from the year 2010, the contemnor published disparaging remarks about the manner in which some sitting judges of the High Court had been deciding cases. On 09.07.2013, adjudging the editor’s remarks as equivalent to scandalizing the judiciary's image, suo motu proceedings were initiated with the approval of the then Chief Justice of the High Court.
“The said comments are not in the nature of a mere fair and dispassioned critique of the judgments but are couched in intemperate language with use of undesirable expletives. As per charge no.6 above, it is expressed that the Hon’ble Judge deserves to be impeached for his overall performance. It has been expressed that the rights of the public have been demolished and humiliated. Thus, it was a deliberate attempt made by the respondent-contemnor to scandalize the image of the court…”, the Division Bench explained about the comments made by the contemnor that come within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The court also added that ‘even an attempt to scandalize or lower the authority of the court’ squarely comes under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’.
“Therefore, a tendency to scandalise the court or tendency to lower the authority of the court or tendency to interfere with or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or tendency to challenge the authority or majesty of justice, would be a criminal contempt…Any conduct of the contemnor which has the tendency or produces a tendency to bring the Judge or court into contempt or tends to lower the authority of the court would also be contempt of the court”, the court further explained.
It is pertinent to note that the second contempt proceedings were initiated against the respondent-contemnor in 2018, owing to the barrage of contemptuous comments in the documents filed by him in the first contempt case from 2013.
Placing reliance on Prashant Bhushan & Anr, in Reference Suo Motu Contempt Petition, (2021) 1 SCC 745 and Baradakanta Mishra v. High Court of Orissa (1974) 1 SCC 374, the bench opined that the editor was liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
On the quantum of punishment to be awarded, the contemnor vehemently pleaded and the court observed that he tendered an unconditional apology about the contentious remarks after withdrawing all his pleadings related to the merits of the case. While deciding the extent of punishment, the court also gave due regard to the fact that he is bedridden and suffering from one-sided paralysis.
While imposing the fine of Rs 4000/- jointly for the two contempt proceedings against the respondent-contemnor, the court also advised him to be cautious in the future. The contemnor will be required to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of ten days if he fails to pay the fine within 15 days from the date of the order.
Case Title: In Reference (Suo Moto) v. Dr N.S Poonia
Case No: Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 12 of 2013 & Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.4 of 2018