Trial-Related Anxiety Does Not Justify Act Of Casting Aspersion On Judge: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5K Cost On Contemnor

Closing the contempt proceedings against a person, the Delhi High Court observed that the anxiety, which the man went through during the trial of the case filed by his former wife, does not justify the actions of casting aspersion on a judicial officer.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora accepted the unconditional apology tendered by him, with a warning to exercise restraint and refrain from casting any aspersion on the court in future.

The court disposed of the contempt plea dated September 29, 2016, forwarded on a reference made by Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts. The judge had observed that the accused, during the course of trial in a 2011 case, habitually casted aspersions on the integrity of the court after he was denied the relief in successive applications seeking similar relief.

Justice Arora directed that if he casts aspersion on integrity of the court in any legal proceedings where he is a party in future, the record of the contempt petition shall be read in evidence and the subsequent conduct will be considered as an “aggravated contempt of the Court” under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Senior Advocate Akshay Makhija, an amicus curiae in the matter, submitted that the person was acquitted in the trial during the pendency of contempt proceedings.

He also requested the court to consider that the contemnor is a layman without any formal education of law and that he unfortunately used intemperate language in the application owing to the fact that he was defending his case in person.

Noting that the contemnor had persisted in casting aspersions on the judge despite the fact that the transfer applications filed by him were dismissed as being without any merit, the court said:

“This Court is of the opinion that the anxiety which the Respondent went through during the trial does not justify his actions of casting aspersion on the presiding Judge. The fact that the Respondent elected to defend his own case is no justification for being disrespectful towards the presiding Judge and therefore, the opinion of the ASJ that accused with a mala fide intent had started to quote him in such a manner, so as to show that he is deliberately trying to supress the evidences of the criminal case and that the accused has been casting aspersions on the integrity of the Court in order to justify his act of moving one application after another, cannot be faulted with.”

The court observed that if the contemnor's explanation for his “intemperate pleadings” is accepted, it would entitle every litigant to undermine the majesty of the court “on the specious plea of anxiety.”

While imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 on him, the court said that the same be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

“It is directed that the Respondent herein will be under an obligation to disclose this order to the Court in which any subsequent contempt proceedings is filed against him. With the aforesaid directions the present contempt petition is disposed of,” it said.

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. REHMAN AFTAB ALAM

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 174

Click Here To Read Order