Delhi High Court Frames Criminal Contempt Charges Against Lawyer Over 'Scandalous' Remarks, LinkedIn Post Against Judge
The Delhi High Court recently framed charges of criminal contempt against a woman advocate for allegedly making scandalous allegations against a judicial officer, both in court and through a social media post on LinkedIn.
A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja passed the order in a suo motu contempt case initiated on a reference from the trial court.
The contempt proceedings arose from incidents during hearings in cross FIRs pending before the Tis Hazari Courts. It was alleged that on January 25, 2025, the lawyer used unparliamentary language in open court and accused the presiding judicial officer of acting in collusion with the accused persons.
The reference further referred to a LinkedIn post purportedly made by the lawyer, containing serious allegations of bias and misconduct against the judge, along with uploading of court orders.
During the proceedings, the lawyer denied having uploaded the social media post. The Court had then directed LinkedIn and the Delhi Police Cyber Cell to furnish details regarding the account.
LinkedIn's affidavit disclosed that the account was created in the lawyer's name with associated email credentials. The Cyber Cell investigation further linked the account activity to mobile numbers registered in the name of the advocate and her family member, based on IP logs obtained from telecom service providers.
LinkedIn's counsel told Court that the account was closed or deleted the same day as the passing of the order by the High Court calling for reports from the social media platform and Delhi Police.
As the lawyer appearing in person still maintained the stand that the post was not uploaded by her, the Court said that prime facie, there was enough material against her to show that the said account not only belonged to her but also was being operated by her from the IP addresses belonging to her and her brother.
Observing that the post by itself contained scandalous remarks against the concerned Judicial Officer, the Court said:
“From the reply filed by the respondent to the present contempt petition, the respondent in a manner is reiterating the allegation of the learned Judicial Officer working in collusion with the opposing party. We have again inquired from her if she has any material or justification from making such allegations. She submits that the Court record is a justification for the same.”
It added that the allegations against the lawyer were intended to scandalize the Court, had the effect of lowering the judicial authority and to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceedings and the administration of justice.
The Bench framed two charges of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: one, for using unparliamentary language and making allegations of collusion against the trial court judge during proceedings, thereby interfering with administration of justice; and two, for publishing the LinkedIn post containing scandalous allegations, amounting to lowering the authority of the court and obstructing judicial proceedings.
The Court directed the lawyer to file a reply affidavit to the charges within four weeks and remain personally present on the next date of hearing.
The matter will now be heard on May 26.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SK