Delhi High Court Issues Criminal Contempt Notice To Litigant Seeking Death Penalty For Single Judge, Making 'Whimsical Allegations'

The Delhi High Court has issued show cause notice for criminal contempt to a litigant who sought death penalty for a single judge for dismissing his pleas and made 'whimsical and objectionable allegations' not only against the judge but also the government officials as well as the Supreme Court of India.

“These averments, extracted hereinabove, are prima facie aimed at scandalising and lowering the authority of the Court. In our opinion, the statements have been advanced with the malafide intention to interfere with the administration of justice. This Court cannot disregard vilification of this magnitude against a judge of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

The court was hearing the appeals moved by one Naresh Sharma 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, 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".

Right at the outset, the bench said that “objectionable and shocking allegations” were made against the Single Judge, government officials and the Supreme Court.

“This Court cannot disregard vilification of this magnitude against a judge of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is fine line of distinction which separates critique from allegations fuelled by disdain and a hostile intent to scandalise the court. The pleadings in the present appeal amount to the latter category and must be taken cognizance of,” the court said.

It ordered, “Considering the above, let notice be issued to the Appellant i.e., Naresh Sharma to show-cause as to why proceedings for criminal contempt under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should not be initiated against him.”

The court directed Sharma to file a reply to the show-cause notice, on or before September 18, the next date of hearing.