'Judges Do Commit Mistakes, Healthy Criticism Welcome': Punjab & Haryana HC Drops Contempt Charge Against Man For Pleadings Against Judge

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while observing that "judges are not super humans and do commit mistakes" has set aside the suo moto criminal contempt case initiated against a man who made pleadings against a Judicial Magistrate.

The man had alleged that the Magistrate is not inclined to pass an order but is only inclined to give adjournments. However, it was found that the adjournments were granted at the request of man's counsel.

A division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh said his pleadings did not suggest that they are malafide or not made in good faith. It observed,

"The pleadings could have been better worded but it is difficult to arrive at the conclusion that they were malafide...Healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcome. The judgments of the Court are in public domain and open to discussions and critical analysis. Judges are not super humans and do commit mistakes. Dialogue and debate are the hallmark of a democracy governed by rule of law. Suggestions towards improvement in the administration of justice should always be taken with gratitude."

The division bench observed that the man was only seeking expeditious disposal of his case and if Courts were to be oversensitive to the pleadings, it would deter an ordinary citizen to approach the Court for redressal of his grievance.

The suo moto case was launched against Surjeet Singh, after he moved High Court seeking directions for expeditious hearing of his case by the judicial officer at Punjab's Dera Bassi.

Singh contended that he had legitimately sought recourse to judicial remedy under Section 482 CrPC and his pleadings would not amount to criminal contempt. He also submitted that an affidavit offering unconditional apology for any lapse on his part has been filed and, therefore, the contempt proceedings be dropped.

Amicus Curiae Advocate Tanu Bedi submitted that the conduct of the respondent in the light of the law pertaining to contempt of Court would not constitute criminal contempt in the light various precedents.

The Court referred to RE Harijai Singh and another RE Vijay Kumar (1996), wherein an article was published in the newspaper wherein it was stated that sons of the Chief Justice of India were beneficiaries of allotment of petrol pumps in discretionary quota. The information was found to be false. However, the Supreme Court accepted the apology of the journalist while observing that he had acted in a gross-carelessness to publish the article without confirming the contents thereof. It was observed that the Courts should not be hyper-sensitive in dealing with the contempt matters.

In the present case, the Court said, "It is true that the respondent ought to have been more circumspect while approaching this Court and pleaded the factual matrix in consonance with the record. He ought not to have casually stated something which is not borne out from the record or is factually incorrect."

"However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent is one among many citizens who have approached the Court seeking redressal of their grievances. The dockets of the Courts are clogged and often cases are not decided speedily or as speedily as expected by the litigant," the Court added.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Grewal said, "The respondent appears to be a hapless citizen who is awaiting justice at the portals of the District Court and in these circumstances he appears to have transgressed by not setting out the correct factual backdrop. However, we do not find that the action of the respondent would amount to contempt of Court."

Statement Pertaining To Judge Not Contempt If In Good Faith

Good faith has been defined in Section 3 (22) of the General Clauses Act. Court opined, "averments made by the respondent concerning a judicial officer in his petition would not amount to contempt of Court as in terms of Section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the statement pertaining to a presiding officer of a Court does not amount to Criminal contempt provided it is in good faith."

Adding that the increase in litigation in recent times indicates that not only people are more aware of their rights but they have enormous faith in the justice delivery system, the Court said, if the averments made are not true or to mislead then "the relief sought can be declined or he/she be burdened with costs."

The contempt jurisdiction should not be exercised lightly at the drop of a hat. It ought to be invoked only in rare or exceptional cases where there is interference with administration of justice or such action amounts to scandalizing or lowering the authority of the Court, it said.

While noting that an "unqualified and unconditional apology" has been furnished, the Court held that his action does not constitute criminal contempt of Court.

Consequently, the criminal contempt proceedings was dropped.

Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate as Amicus Curiae appointed by Litigation Cell, Punjab and Haryana High Court assisted by Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate and Mr. Akhil Dadwal, Advocate.

Mr. Tushar Tanwar, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the respondent –contemnor.

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SURJEET SINGH

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 238

Click here to read/download the order