'Rampant Corruption In Judiciary' Remark: PIL In Rajasthan HC Seeks Suo Moto Contempt Case Against CM Ashok Gehlot

A PIL plea has been moved before the Rajasthan High Court to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings by invoking powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against State's Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot over his alleged 'rampant corruption in Judiciary' including in the higher judicial institutions remark.

The PIL plea has been filed by a Supreme Court advocate and former Judicial officer Shiv Charan Gupta claiming that the alleged statement of Gehlot amounted to scandalizing & lowering the image of the State Judiciary. 

#JustIN | A PIL plea has been moved before the #RajasthanHighCourt to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against State's Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot (@ashokgehlot51) over his alleged 'Rampant Corruption In Judiciary' remark. pic.twitter.com/XqnQ1gz2cH

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 31, 2023

It may be noted that while speaking to the media on 30th August, Gehlot had said "Aaj jo bataiye itna corruption ho raha hai judiciary ke andar. Itna bhayankar corruption hai, kayi wakil log toh, maine suna hai, likh ke le jaate hain judgment, aur judgment wahi aata hai. Chahe lower ho ya upper, halat bade gambhir hain. Ye deshwasiyon ko sochna chahiye" [Today, the corruption taking place within the judiciary is frightful. I have heard that a lot of lawyers write judgments and take them along and the same judgments are pronounced. Be it lower or upper judiciary, the situation is serious. The countrymen should think about it.] 

It may be noted that concerning the statement in question, a private complaint has been filed before a court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Bihar's Muzaffarpur district concerning Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot's remark alleging 'Rampant Corruption' in the Judiciary.

The Complaint has been filed by a lawyer named Sudhir Kumar Ojha stating that by making the statement in question, Gehlot deliberately played with the reputation of the advocates and the same amount to contempt as he raised questions on the judicial officers and the procedure followed by them.