Delhi High Court Flags Trend Of Disgruntled Litigants Casting Aspersions On Judges When Orders Go Against Them

The Delhi High Court has flagged the trend of disgruntled litigants casting baseless aspersions against courts, judges and the judicial system when the outcome of legal proceedings is not in their favour.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made the observation while hearing cross criminal revision petitions filed by a husband and wife, after the husband, an advocate appearing in person, sought transfer of the matters on the apprehension that the Bench would be prejudiced against him.

The husband submitted that the High Court had earlier, vide judgment dated April 10, 2023, held him guilty of contempt for wilfully violating an order dated September 18, 2019, passed by the Mahila Court.

He apprehended that the earlier contempt judgment would affect the Bench's impartiality while deciding the pending petitions.

Rejecting the submission, the Court observed:

“To say the least, this Court finds the submissions of Mr. Praveen Sehrawat meritless and an illustration of the current trend of disgruntled litigants and irresponsible individuals who habitually cast baseless aspersions against Courts, judges and the judicial system, when the outcome of the legal proceedings is not in their favour.”

The Court clarified that the judgment holding the husband-lawyer guilty of contempt was delivered on the merits of that case, in the course of judicial adjudication, and was not an expression of any personal opinion against him.

It further observed that while passing the earlier judgment, the Court had not formed any personal bias in favour of or against either of the parties.

The Court went on to remark that the case was fit for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the lawyer for casting aspersions against the Bench without any basis.

“It is a fit case for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Mr. Praveen Sehrawat for casting aspersions on this Court without any basis whatsoever,” the Court observed.

However, it added that the husband had appeared unlikely to be deterred even if such proceedings were initiated, describing him as a “hardened litigant”.

Notably, after making the allegations, the lawyer sought to withdraw his request for transfer of the matters.

The Court, however, observed that continuing to hear the petitions would only benefit the lawyer, who could potentially continue to malign the judicial process by casting baseless aspersions against the final orders if they were not in his favour.

“Accordingly, in the interest of justice, subject to orders of the Hon'ble Judge-in-Charge, list this matter before another bench on 19.11.2026,” the Court ordered.