‘No Repentance’: Delhi High Court Sentences Litigant Seeking Death Penalty For Sitting Judge To Six Months In Jail

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur observed that Naresh Sharma, the litigant against whom criminal contempt proceedings were initiated in August, has no repentance for his conduct and actions.

“Accordingly, we hereby hold the Contemnor guilty of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and consequently, we sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of seven days,” the court said.

It further directed that Sharma be taken into custody and be handed over to Tihar Jail today itself.

The bench noted that Sharma, in his complaint, called the single judge a thief and that the Delhi High Court in is involved in making the criminal situation more complicated by committing crime upon crime.

Expressing shock about Sharma’s averments, the bench said that as a responsible citizen of the Country, he is expected to set-forth his grievances in a civilized manner, maintaining the dignity of the Court and judicial process of law.

“Even if, it is taken that Contemnor due to outrage preferred the writ petitions, but despite issuance of Show Cause Notice, he without pleading guilty, filed a highly disrespectful reply thereto, which explicitly show that he has no guilt to his actions. Rather, the Contemnor has stated that he has no remorse to whatever he did and he stands by the same. The Contemnor has used utter derogatory language for the learned Single Bench to the extent of saying that the learned Single Judge is a ‘thief‟ and he has full proof of the same,” the court said.

Sharma was issued show cause notice for criminal contempt by the bench while hearing his appeals challenging the single judge order passed on July 20 rejecting his pleas with costs of Rs. 30,000 each.

Naresh Sharma, an alumni of IIT, submitted before the single judge that hundreds of Government organisations, including top institutions like IIT, AIIMS and IIMs, are criminal “in the extreme sense of sedition” because they are Societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He added there is a “legal option” for such organisations to disobey the Government and even join forces against the Government.

Sharma alleged before the single judge that his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was being infringed. He argued that Article 21 includes "right to have public organisations that are not criminally established‟.

Sharma, in his appeal before the coordinate bench, prayed that the Single Bench should be “criminally charged” since the judgment was not just baseless but also defamatory and inserted with "lies".

As seen from an excerpt of his appeals, reproduced by the Court, Sharma prayed to "criminally charge the Single Bench for a meaningless, defamatory, criminal, seditious judgment on such an important issue under IPC 124A, 166A(b), 167, 192, 193, 217, 405, 409, 499, 500, and Section 16 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), and give her death penalty considering that such blatant trampling of fundamental rights in Constitution of India..."

Sharma had also alleged that the Supreme Court passed a judgment by "selectively quoting the law amounting to theft of humongous Government property".

Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Naresh Sharma

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

Click Here To Read Order