The Delhi Government's Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Amol Sinha has accorded consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against CJP's Ratna Singh over her social media posts allegedly imputing that a judicial officer was acting under the instructions of an unidentified external authority.

In an opinion dated November 02, Sinha stated that the remarks prima facie question the independence and impartiality of the judicial process and are capable of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The consent has been granted under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for taking appropriate steps towards initiation of criminal contempt proceedings through a motion by the competent Law Officer before the Delhi High Court.

The opinion, however, clarifies that it is confined to the prima facie nature of the allegations and does not constitute a final determination of criminal contempt.

The proceedings stem from representations dated October 14 and October 28, filed by advocate Kausik Chatterjee seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Singh over her posts on X and a statement reported by the Press Trust of India.

The original representation concerned proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey of the South-East District, Saket Courts, relating to Singh's alleged detention by the Delhi Police. An order dated October 10 had declined the relief sought against the alleged detention.

Following the proceedings, Singh allegedly posted on X:

“Judge serving the master. Went for break/meeting 4 times during entire hearing. Order without any application of law.”

In another post, she allegedly stated: “@DelhiPolice is following order from master. Judge is following order from master.”

The complainant contended that the statements went beyond criticism of the judicial order and questioned the independence and impartiality of the presiding officer.

Sinha, in his opinion, drew a distinction between questioning the correctness of a judicial decision and attributing extraneous influences or improper motives to the judicial officer.

“In the present case, the statements that the Judge was "serving the master" and "following order from master" are not confined to the merits of the order or the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. The said expressions prima facie suggest that the Judicial Officer was acting under the instructions of an external authority rather than independently exercising judicial discretion in accordance with law,” the opinion said.

“Such imputations, in my opinion, strike at the independence and impartiality of the judicial process,” it stated.

It further observed that allegations that a judicial officer acted at the instance of an external authority, without disclosing any supporting factual foundation, are capable of creating an impression that judicial decisions are influenced by considerations extraneous to the merits of the case.

Referring to Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the opinion noted that criminal contempt includes publications which scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower, the authority of any Court.

The supplementary representation also referred to Singh's posts concerning preventive proceedings involving CJP's Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka before Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj.

The material included an X publication dated October 16, a PTI report dated October 19 describing the Special Executive Magistrate system as “compromised”, an order dated October 21, and another X post dated October 22.

Sinha observed that these subsequent publications were principally directed against the conduct of the Delhi Police and the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system and they could not be treated as criminal contempt merely because they expressed strong criticism of those authorities.

The opinion also clarified that the October 21 order did not record any personal apology or undertaking by Singh, nor did it contain any finding of contempt against her.

“The additional material has therefore been considered for its context and relevance, but the opinion in favour of initiation of criminal contempt proceedings rests independently upon the earlier publications directly alleging that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was acting under the instructions of an unidentified 'master',” Sinha said.