‘We Have Nothing To Hide’: Delhi High Court Refuses Gag Order In Criminal Contempt Case Against Litigant Seeking Death Penalty For Judge

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to pass a gag order in the criminal contempt proceedings initiated by it against a litigant who demanded that death penalty be imposed on a sitting judge who dismissed his pleas.

As the counsel representing the State requested that the hearings in the matter be held in-camera and orders be not made public, Justice Mridul orally remarked:

“The institution of judiciary has reached a stage where everything that transpires in the courtroom is streamed live. We have nothing to hide. If someone criticizes us justly, so be it. If someone criticizes us unjustly, there is a proceeding for it. We will deal with it.”

The division bench also comprising Justice Anish Dayal had suo motu initiated contempt action last month, after Naresh Sharma made 'whimsical and objectionable allegations' against the judge as well as the government officials and Supreme Court of India.

During the course of hearing today, the Bench remarked, “We are not passing any gag orders…no gag orders. He has freedom of speech. If he transgresses the boundaries, there are proceedings in law. Proceedings have been initiated against him. But for us to say that the orders or in-camera hearing, we won’t do it in camera…The very purpose is transparency. We are an open court. We are going to be transparent.”

Sharma claims that he was not heard properly by the coordinate bench and said that if he is wrong, he is willing to accept the punishment, “including death penalty”. However, the bench told him that penalty on an individual’s conviction depends upon the nature of offence.

“What is the nature of the offence alleged against you? If it is an offence that carries death penalty…It makes no sense you are telling us that you are ready to face death penalty. We cannot act contrary to law,” the court said. It added that in a democracy, the principles of fair play and fair trial is available to everyone, including those facing a criminal trial.

The bench also requested both Sharma and State to not use these proceedings as a platform to air their personal views but limit it to the matter before court. “Nobody is persecuting you. Laws of this country and the Constitution does not sanction persecution in any manner,” Justice Mridul told Sharma.

The matter will now be heard on October 01.

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".

“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 coordinate bench had said.

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