Irresponsible Insinuations Against Judicial Officers Have Become A Fashion: Allahabad HC Imposes Rs. 50K Cost On A Petitioner

The Court also said that we are presently living in a democracy in its ugliest form, where nobody has got any regard for any institution.

These observations were made by the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Rahul Chaturvedi while dismissing a writ petition whereby allegations of bias were leveled against a judicial officer posted in Gautam Budh Nagar and an inquiry against the concerned judicial officer was also sought.

“This is unholy and dangerous sign that all and sundry are making unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations against the judiciary in an irresponsible manner,” the Court said as it imposed Rs. 50K cost on the petitioner.

In its order, the Court also recorded its strongest anguish and concern about the fact that people are now making unwarranted and unsubstantiated and canards against the judicial officers relying upon their whims and capricious and making irresponsible allegations of dishonesty.

In this regard, the Court stressed that the higher courts are duty-bound to save the dignity and honor of the system in general and the individual judicial officer as well so that no person is permitted to make sweeping and wild allegations regarding the integrity and character of any judicial officer.

The case in brief

Essentially, one Ravi Kumar, moved a writ of certiorari against a Judicial Officer posted as Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-2, Gautam Budh Nagar, and the Peshkar attached to the Court seeking action against them.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that the date in a criminal case pending against him was preponed pursuant to a conspiracy of the judicial officer and his predilection towards the prosecution side.

High Court’s observations

Perusing the plea moved by the petitioner, written in Hindi, the Court, at the outset, objected to the act of the petitioner of using a number of caustic innuendos and pungent remarks upon the judicial officer’s integrity.

Further, the Court noted that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Province of Bombay vs Khushaldas (AIR 1950 SC 222); T.C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa (AIR 1954 SC 440) and Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. ahmad Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233), a writ of certiorari can’t be issued to initiate the prosecution against the Judicial officer, nor can any disciplinary/departmental proceeding be initiated against the Judicial Officer.

Now, regarding the allegations put up by the petitioner, the Court noted that there was nothing on record to establish any nexus between the concerned presiding officer and the informant, the petitioner’s opponent, and hence, it was nothing but a deliberate and intentional attempt of the petitioner to browbeat the judicial officer.

“This is nothing but a stinking attempt on the part of the petitioner to put a question mark on the integrity of the Presiding Judge, which has to be handled with iron hands by the superior courts.” the Court said.

“So far as the allegation that the presiding officer is hand in glove with the opposite party is concerned, our judicial institutions are robust enough not to be swayed by any such parochial considerations. It is very easy to make insinuation against the presiding officer like this. We do not find any substantial record on the basis of which it may hold that either the presiding officer has been approached or the petitioner has been nurtured holds water. The allegation as has been fastened by the petitioner against the presiding officer is too vague and conjectural and perhaps even irrelevant and simply cannot persuade us,” the Court added.

In its order, the Court also noted that despite Bench’s repeated warnings not to use harsh expressions against the Presiding officer, the petitioner kept on using uncalled-for expressions against the Presiding Officer.

Against this backdrop, the Court said that if there was some such order passed by the trial court which the petitioner was aggrieved with, the right course for him was to challenge the same in a judicial capacity in the higher court.

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to deposit a cost of Rs.50,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of five months to be transmitted to the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre.

Case title - Ravi Kumar vs. State Of U P And 2 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15459 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 6

Click Here To Read/Download Order