Judiciary Not Immune From Criticism But Action Must Be Taken When Based On Distorted Facts To Intentionally Lower Court's Dignity: Delhi High Court

While observing that Judiciary is not immune from criticism, the Delhi High Court has observed that such criticism cannot be based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments to intentionally lower its dignity and respect.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, who was dealing with an appeal raising allegations against Trial Court and High Court judges, issued notice to the counsel appearing for the appellant to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

"There is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but several Judges of this Court. This vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief. An unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing and unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court," the Court said.

It added,

"For a healthy democracy, there must be impartial Judiciary, however, it cannot be impaired by vindictive criticism. The Judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when the criticism is based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments, to intentionally lower the dignity and respect of this Court, it must be taken cognizance of."

The appeal was filed challenging the final order dated November 18, 2021 passed by the an Additional Sessions Judge of Rohini Courts in a case registered under sec. 376, 506, 323, 328, 109, 120B and 34 of IPC.

During the course of hearing, the Court told the counsel appearing for the appellant that the paragraphs in the plea raising allegations against the judges must be retracted and that the challenge to the findings of the Trial Court as well as High Court must be done in accordance with law without making any personal, tainted and malafide allegations against the judges.

However, the counsel submitted that he will not amend the appeal as the same were not allegations but statements of facts which can be easily seen and borne out from the record.

"The above quoted representations and allegations are biased and intended to scandalize this Court. To make allegations that a Judge deliberately wanted to twist issues in order to favour an accused or that they were personally interested in the matter acted illegally or impartially are unjust statements," the Court observed at the outset.

The Court further observed that the allegations made in the petition were intrinsically contemptuous in nature and fell within the definition of "Criminal Contempt" of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 under sec. 2(c)(i).

The Court thus issued show cause notice to the appellant's counsel as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

"He shall file a response to the contempt notice within 2 weeks from today," the Court ordered.

The matter will now be listed on August 8 before the Division Bench handling criminal contempt subject to the orders of the Chief Justice.

Case Title: MS. M VICTIM v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 691

Click Here To Read Order