'Daring Ride On Court': Karnataka HC Dismisses 11 Contempt Petitions Filed Against Its Registrar General With ₹11 Lakh Cost

A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma further observed that no leniency can be shown when it comes to maintaining the the majesty of the Court and hence, imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on each petition, totaling to Rs 11 lakh.

Further the court directed the Registry not to post any of the matters of the complainant, on the same cause of action before the Court, unless he deposits the cost amount.

The court also held that,

"The cumulative acts of the accused would amount to undermining the dignity and majesty of the Court apart from interference with the court normal proceedings and procedures. Therefore, prima facie the complainant has committed criminal contempt."

Accordingly, it directed the Registrar (Judicial) to initiate suo-motu criminal contempt proceedings against the complainant, under the provisions of Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Rajan had previously filed two petitions which came to be rejected by the Single Judge bench by its orders dated May 19, 2021 and November 16, 2021. The court in its order dated May 19, 2021, observed that if the petitioner/complainant files any other writ petition/proceedings in this regard, office shall put up a note regarding the directions issued and the petitioner/complainant shall be called upon to deposit Rs.1,00,000/-, without which the matter of the complainant shall not be listed.

Instead of filing an appeal against the rejection orders, he filed 11 contempt petitions, seeking action against the Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial), for willful disobedience of the orders.

The bench on going through the petitions noted,

"The way in which the contempt petitions, which are accompanied by affidavits, are drafted, clearly depicts that the complainant is misusing and abusing the process of the Court. There is no clarity in the grounds urged by the complainant in the contempt petitions and it appears there is something wrong with the complainant – party-in person."

Further the court said the conduct and attitude of the complainant is nothing but a daring ride on the Court and wasting the precious public judicial time of the Court. It then said, "The law of contempt of courts is for keeping the administration of justice pure. Contempt jurisdiction exercised by the Courts for the purpose of upholding the majesty of the judicial system that exists. Any action on the part of a litigant which has the tendency to interfere with or obstruct the due course of justice has to be dealt with sternly and firmly to uphold the majesty of law."

It added, "Today, the judiciary is the repository of public faith. It is the trustee of the people. It is the last hope of the people. After every knock at all the doors fail, people approach the judiciary as the last resort. It is the only temple worshipped by every citizen of this nation, regardless of religion, caste, sex or place of birth."

On going through the court orders passed by the Single Judge bench the court said,

"The material on record clearly depicts that the complainant has filed several writ petitions for various reliefs on the same cause of action. Filing of case after case absolutely without justification is nothing but an aggravated form of abuse of process of the court. The valuable time spent by this Court in deciding these frivolous matters could have been invested in worthy causes."

Following which it held, "The complainant has not made out a case that the accused have disobeyed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, thereby no case is made out to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused."

The court also opined, "It is true that the judges should not be hyper-sensitive in discharging judicial functions, but that does not mean and imply that they ought to maintain angelic silence. Immaterial it is as to the person, but it is the seat of justice which needs protection; It is the image of the judicial system which needs protection. Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temple of justice. The majesty of the Court shall have to be maintained and there ought not to be any compromise or leniency in that regard."

Further it said there has emerged a trend of filing speculative litigation before various courts of law. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that such speculative litigation is weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing it to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants seeking justice treating the Court as 'temple of justice'.

Holding that the way in which the complainant filed these contempt petitions is a threat to the judicial officers - Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The court observed, "It is high time for this Court to protect the judicial Officers of the State, otherwise there is no end to this type of speculative litigation in the years to come."

The cost imposed is to be paid by the complainant to the 'Advocates Association, Bengaluru' within a period of eight Weeks. Failing which liberty is reserved to the Secretary of the Bar Association, Bengaluru, to initiate contempt proceedings against the complainant for recovery of the costs.

Case Title: Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare Gowda

Case No: C.C.C. No.43/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 38

Date of Order: 28th Day Of January, 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order