Calcutta High Court Imposes ₹2K Fine For Contempt On TMC's Kunal Ghosh Over 'Attack' On Judiciary During 2025 SSC Protest

The Calcutta High Court has held eight persons, including Trinamool Congress spokesperson Kunal Ghosh, guilty of criminal contempt for acts that the Court found scandalised the judiciary and interfered with the administration of justice during the April 25, 2025 protest by SSC recruitment candidates outside the High Court.A Special Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee, Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj held that the conduct of the protestors, which included allegedly shouting abusive slogans against a sitting judge, threatening advocates, obstructing access to lawyers' chambers and desecrating photographs of a judge, amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.The Court imposed a fine of Rs.1,000 each on contemnors 1 to 7, with a default sentence of three days' simple imprisonment. Kunal Ghosh was fined Rs.2,000, the maximum permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, with the same default sentence.According to the contempt proceedings, advocates had approached the then Chief Justice after the April 25 incident alleging that a mob of SSC recruitment candidates had blocked advocates and litigants from leaving their chambers near Kiran Shankar Roy Road, threatened lawyers, abused a judge hearing recruitment-related cases and trampled upon photographs of the judge while recording videos of the acts. The Chief Justice thereafter constituted a Special Bench to hear the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings.The Court also considered statements allegedly made by Kunal Ghosh during a press conference on the following day, in which he criticised the judicial proceedings and made remarks concerning the judge and advocates appearing in the recruitment litigation. While Ghosh maintained that he was not present during the protest and that his comments were made in his capacity as a political spokesperson, the Bench held that his statements nevertheless scandalised the Court and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.Rejecting the preliminary objection that the proceedings were not maintainable for want of the Advocate General's consent, the Bench held that the High Court's contempt jurisdiction flows from Article 215 of the Constitution and that the proceedings had been initiated suo motu after information was placed before the Chief Justice. The affidavits filed by advocates were merely information prompting the Court to act and did not convert the proceedings into privately initiated contempt petitions.Emphasising the importance of protecting the institutional integrity of the judiciary, the Court observed that while citizens enjoy the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19, that freedom remains subject to the law of contempt."The law of contempt has been designed and promulgated not for protecting any particular Judge or Judicial Officer, but for preserving and upholding the institutional majesty of the Judiciary and justice delivery system and the sanctity of Court orders," the Bench observed, adding that imputing improper or dishonest motives to judges cannot be permitted as it erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system.The Court found that the protestors' conduct constituted "an unwarranted and legally unacceptable scurrilous attack on the functioning of the Judiciary as a whole and its impartiality.""The acts and conduct of the alleged contemnors lowered or tended to lower the majesty of the Court and sanctity of Court orders thereby interfering with the administration of justice. This clearly was criminal contempt of Court," it held.The Bench relied upon video recordings produced in a pen drive, noting that the authenticity of the footage had not been disputed. The videos showed slogans against the judge, allegations of collusion with a senior advocate and declarations that the protestors would not allow the concerned judge to hear the recruitment case.Although the Court accepted that contemnors 1 to 7 had expressed remorse and were frustrated due to prolonged litigation over their appointments as teachers, it held that such circumstances could not justify attacks on the judiciary. Their apologies persuaded the Court only to adopt a lenient approach on punishment.However, the Bench refused to accept Kunal Ghosh's apology, observing that an apology in contempt jurisdiction must be genuine and cannot be accompanied by attempts to justify the impugned conduct."The purported apology tendered on behalf of Shri Ghosh is not real or genuine and is undeserving of acceptance," the Court held while imposing the maximum statutory fine.Case Title: Court on its own motion v. Raju Das & Ors., CRLCP 5 of 2025 with CRLCP 6 of 2025 and CRLCP 7 of 2025.Click here to read order

Calcutta High Court Imposes ₹2K Fine For Contempt On TMC's Kunal Ghosh Over 'Attack' On Judiciary During 2025 SSC Protest

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

Calcutta High Court Imposes ₹2K Fine For Contempt On TMC's Kunal Ghosh Over 'Attack' On Judiciary During 2025 SSC Protest

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers