A criminal contempt petition has been filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court against CJP spokesperson Saurav Das, alleging that his X post on August 20 scandalised the Court and the then Acting Chief Justice by questioning their integrity, impartiality and authority in connection with a Division Bench judgment concerning payment of dearness allowance arrears by the Punjab Government.

The petition has been filed by practising lawyer Nitin Garg under Article 215 of the Constitution, read with Sections 2(c), 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

According to the petition, Das' post alleged that the then Acting Chief Justice, now Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, had clandestinely "withdrawn" a pending matter from "another independent bench", in violation of the roster. It further alleged that the judgment was politically motivated and directed against the Punjab Government, which was described as a political adversary of the BJP.

The post also allegedly claimed that the judgment had "created" a liability of ₹20,000 crore, arbitrarily reduced the compliance period from 30 days to 15 days, and made compliance practically impossible. The petitioner alleges that the post further insinuated a quid pro quo by asking whether the Collegium's recommendation dated August 6, 2026 for Justice Mishra's appointment as the CJ was "a coincidence."

The petition states that the post extended similar allegations to the previous Chief Justice and the process of elevation to the Supreme Court, alleging that the judiciary was being "weaponised to meet political ends."

The petitioner contends that while fair criticism of a judgment is constitutionally protected, attributing improper or dishonest motives to judges, suggesting political bargains or circulating distorted facts cannot be protected as fair comment.

On the alleged ₹20,000 crore liability, the petitioner submits that the Division Bench did not create any fresh head of liability but affirmed the Single Judge's order. According to the petition, the State itself had estimated the liability at approximately ₹14,000-15,000 crore. The ₹20,000 crore figure was therefore described as a "reckless inflation deployed to shock."

The petitioner further disputes the allegation that the Division Bench arbitrarily reduced a "live" 30-day compliance period to 15 days. It is submitted that the original deadline prescribed by the Single Judge on June 30 had already lapsed while the Letters Patent Appeals were pending. Paragraph 127 of the Division Bench judgment, according to the petition, expressly records that "the timelines, and the timelines alone" were modified, with a fresh fortnight granted from August 3 to make compliance workable.

The petition also challenges the post's reference to a "promotion" and states that as of August 31, no appointment had been notified. It further states that the Punjab Government had not filed its comments. Describing this as a completed "promotion" has therefore been characterised as a "knowing falsehood" intended to insinuate a bargain between the Bench and the political executive, it states.

On the allegation of a "roster violation" and withdrawal of the matter from an "independent bench", the petitioner relies upon State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India (2018), submitting that constitution of Division Benches and allocation of matters is an administrative function of the Chief Justice as Master of the Roster.

The petition argues that characterising the hearing of the LPA batch by the Acting Chief Justice, after several hearings and reservation of the matter, as a roster violation effectively undermines the constitutional office of the Chief Justice and scandalises the Court.

The petitioner also alleges that the post was "calculated for virality", having received thousands of likes, reposts and quotes. It is argued that social media content remains searchable and shareable, thereby causing lasting damage to public confidence in the judiciary.

Reliance is placed on the Delhi High Court's 2026 ruling in Delhi High Court Bar Association v. Kapil Kakar, 2026, which held that social media allegations of improper motive against sitting Judges do not constitute fair comment and warrant immediate takedown and contempt proceedings.

The petition seeks initiation of criminal contempt proceedings and issuance of notice; a direction to take down the post and all its republications; a public apology in the same medium and with the same prominence, a restraint against further scandalising publications concerning the High Court.

It also seeks exemplary costs; and, upon conviction, sentencing under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, including simple imprisonment up to six months and/or fine, along with any further order necessary to vindicate the Court's authority.

The petition is yet to be listed before the Court for consideration.