The court should not permit any litigant to initiate a proceeding on disparaging, scurrilous and intemperate remarks against the judges and such person should be dealt with seriously, the court said.
The Calcutta High Court recently admonished a man who filed a writ petition against its sitting judges and their conduct in dealing with the cases filed by him.
Justice Harish Tandon, who heard the writ petition filed by the petitioner against sitting judges, observed: “It is not only alarming but equally disturbing when a Writ Petition is launched by the citizen against the sitting Judges of the High Court on unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations and / or aspersions not only undermining but also belittling their image, institution, position and the authority of law exercised in course of judicial dispensation.”
Atanu Chattopadhyay, the petitioner, had approached the high court and wanted his matter to be listed before a particular judge. Allegation is also made against another judge who recused as one of the respondents is known to him. Later, a judge who presided the vacation bench, heard the petition, but no order was passed which, according to him, is misconduct amounting to perjury causing breach to him.
The relief portion of the writ petition reads thus:
The court said it is not open to any person to make scandalous, disparaging and intemperate remarks directly on the judges or their judicial act with intent to undermine the majesty of the court and inculcate any adverse notion against the judicial system of the country to gain publicity. It is one thing to say that the criticism against the conduct, act and the orders of the Judges in dignified and healthy manner but it is totally different when the language and the expressions impair and hamper the administration of justice, the court observed.
“The petitioner consistently harps upon denial of access to justice and injustice perpetrated upon him in not acceding to his prayer either listing as per his desire before the particular Judge and refusal to release the matter as he has inculcated a sense of bias against a particular judge,” the court said.
The court also said if the judge does not find any urgency in the matter to give precedence to the Petitioner’s application over the other matter, it cannot be taken as an act infringing any right of the petitioner. “The Judges in the country dealing with large cases and every citizen in the country has equal right to have its matter taken by the Court. Giving precedence to one matter as the Petitioner is appearing in person shall overreach the rights of the other person. There cannot be any discrimination between the right of each individuals guaranteed under the law. Every matter is important and equal treatment is the backdrop of the Constitution,” the court said.
The court, however, did not to initiate a contempt proceeding against the petitioner but cautioned him be vigilant, cautious and careful in initiating proceeding of such nature in future. “Though imposition of costs is inevitable, yet bearing in mind the submission advanced by the Petitioner that he is homeless and have no substantial income, this Court does not impose cost for this frivolous litigation,” the court said.