Delhi High Court Raps Litigant For Pursuing Contempt Against District Judge, Calls It Unmitigated Attack On Courts’ Majesty

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday warned a litigant for misusing the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as he sought contempt action against a district court judge on the ground that his grievances were not duly addressed.

Calling it an unmitigated attack on the majesty and honesty of the courts, Justice Jasmeet Singh said that the litigant, one Vijay Kumar Agarwal, exceeded the limits of criticism.

However, the court refrained from initiating contempt action against Agarwal since he said that he is suffering from neurological issues.

“The petitioner is warned against misusing and abusing processes of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,” the court said.

Furthermore, Justice Singh underscored that courts are constitutional institutions that preserve and secure the rights and liberties of each citizen of the country with the utmost vigilance and caution.

“The conduct of the petitioner to pursue contempt proceedings against a judge of the district court on the ground that his grievances have not been duly addressed is severely misguided and should be deterred. The Constitution of India, 1950 and the legal framework of the country provide adequate safeguards to challenge the decision taken by a court. However, unavailing of such liberties and pursuing contempt against a Judge in an individual capacity is an unmitigated attack on the majesty and honesty of the courts,” the court said.

Observing that Agarwal attempted to make use of the contempt proceedings to seek an explanation from the Additional District Judge for the decision taken by him, the court said:

“In case, such petitions are entertained, the learned judge,who is a party by name, will have to file a reply giving explanations and reasoning for his decision. This is impermissible.”

Agarwal, who filed a civil suit before the trial court, sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the Additional District Judge, private respondent in the case as well as the party’s lawyer.

He alleged that there was a wilful and malafide refusal to follow, disobey and evade the law laid down with respect to giving primacy and precedence to the perjury application over the civil suit. It was his case that the suit was dismissed for non-payment of cost without deciding the application for waiver of cost, which was in violation of the principle of natural justice.

“The learned ADJ appreciated the factual matrix of suit and dismissed the same on account of non-payment of cost. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order the petitioner is free to avail his remedies as may be available in law to challenge the said order. The act of the petitioner seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the learned ADJ is improper and needs to be deterred,” the court said.

Justice Singh also refused to initiate contempt proceedings against the private respondent’s counsel observed that he cannot be impleaded in the contempt proceedings in his personal capacity.

“The scope of judicial independence is inclusive of the independence of the bar so that lawyers are able to carry out their professional duties in a secure and unprejudiced environment,” the court said.

The plea was dismissed with liberty to Agarwal to avail his remedies as may be available in law against the order he was aggrieved by.

Title: VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. PARVEEN SINGH AND ORS

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1092

Click Here To Read Order