Litigant Cannot Use Contempt Proceedings To Challenge Judicial Order Or Attack Judge: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal contempt petition filed against a Judicial Officer of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, observing that a litigant cannot use contempt proceedings to challenge a judicial order or make personal allegations against the Judge who passed it.
The Circuit Bench at Port Blair comprising Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that an aggrieved litigant must challenge an adverse judicial order through the appropriate appellate, revisional or other legal remedy, rather than targeting the Judicial Officer personally.
The Court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Manoj Paul against the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Port Blair, concerning an order dated August 21, 2026, dismissing his money suit for default.
The petitioner had subsequently addressed an email to the District and Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, containing allegations and aspersions against the Judicial Officer who had passed the order.
Two advocates, Arul Prasanth and KMB Jayapal, appeared as amicus curiae and submitted that the contempt petition was legally misconceived. They argued that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the judicial order, he had an appropriate remedy in law and could not convert his dissatisfaction with the order into criminal contempt proceedings against the Judge.
The High Court agreed with the submissions.
"It is an established principle that an order passed by a Judicial Officer in the lawful discharge of his judicial functions is required to be challenged before the forum prescribed by law," the Court observed.
The Court held that contempt jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be used as a substitute for an appeal or revision.
"The remedy of contempt cannot ordinarily be employed as a substitute for an appeal or revision," the Court said, adding that the correctness of a judicial order cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in proceedings concerned with preserving the dignity and authority of the judicial process.
The Court emphasised the distinction between challenging a judicial order and attacking the Judge who passed it.
"A litigant may legitimately contend that a judicial order is erroneous, contrary to the evidence, contrary to law or otherwise unsustainable. Such grievance is required to be addressed before the competent forum," the Court observed.
At the same time, the Bench cautioned that the right to criticise a judicial order does not permit reckless allegations against the personal integrity of a Judicial Officer.
"The freedom available to a litigant to question a judicial order does not confer an unrestricted licence to make reckless allegations against the personal integrity of a Judicial Officer," the Court said.
The Court noted that the petitioner had also made certain remarks while appearing before it through virtual mode and that his representation to the District and Sessions Judge dated September 2, 2026 was stated to contain aspersions concerning the Judicial Officer.
The Bench observed that a Judge cannot invoke contempt merely because a litigant expresses dissatisfaction with an order. However, a litigant cannot claim immunity from contempt jurisdiction merely by describing a personal attack on the Judge as criticism of the judicial order.
"Contempt jurisdiction cannot be allowed to become a collateral appellate jurisdiction over judicial orders," the Court held.
The Court further observed that allowing such proceedings would permit every disappointed litigant to convert dissatisfaction with an adverse order into proceedings against the Judge who passed it, thereby bypassing the established hierarchy of judicial remedies.
Although the contempt petition was dismissed, the Court deprecated the petitioner's conduct and imposed a cost of ₹40,000.
The amount was directed to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Andaman, within two months, with proof of deposit to be filed before the Registrar within one week thereafter.
The Court also cautioned the petitioner to exercise restraint and maintain the requisite dignity and decorum in future, directing him to pursue any grievance against a judicial order strictly through the appropriate legal forum.
Case No: CPAN/66/2026
Case: Manoj Paul Vs Pabitra Sen