U’khand HC Dismisses “Contempt Petition” Against Sitting Judge As Not Maintainable, Unhappy With AG’s Opinion [Read Judgment]

Holding that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against a Judge of Court of Record, on allegations of committing a contempt of his own Court, the Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed as not maintainable the criminal contempt petition moved by an advocate against Justice Lok Pal Singh for allegedly losing his temper and using intemperate language against the petitioner in open court.The petition also came to be dismissed as it was not accompanied by the statutory consent of the Advocate General.Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dismissed the petition filed by advocate Chhitij Kishore Sharma from Nainital without going into the facts of the case.In doing so, the court answered two questions—first, whether a contempt petition is at all maintainable against a judge of a high court, where the allegations are that he has committed a contempt “of his own Court”.The second question was whether a contempt petition can be entertained by this Court under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, where the Advocate General of the State has not granted his “consent”, on a motion made by a person under sub-section (1)(b) of Section 15 of the Act.The bench answered both the questions in negative as it held that “contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against a Judge of Court of Record, on allegations of committing a contempt of his own Court” and “this petition which is before us cannot be treated as a contempt petition, as in the absence of a consent of the learned Advocate General, it is only in the nature of an “information”. From now, such petitions to be placed before Chief JusticeThe bench also directed the Registry that “[i]f any other person (i.e., any other person except the Advocate General of the State), moves a petition under Section 15 of the Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging a case of criminal contempt against any person, and if such a petition is not accompanied by the consent of the Advocate General then the Registry shall not list the case as a criminal contempt petition, as at this stage the petition is only in the nature of an “information””.“Such matters shall always be captioned as “in Re.......(the name of the alleged contemnor)”, and be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the chamber. The Chief Justice may either himself or in consultation with other Judges of the Court may take further steps in the case as deem to be necessary,” it said.While dismissing the petition, the bench went on to consider a hypothetical situation.“Hypothetically speaking therefore it is always open for a Court to proceed with the matter, even where the Advocate General has refused to grant his consent, since powers are given to the Court to take a suo motu cognizance, but this can be done only after the due procedure is first followed – procedure as referred above. Although in the absence of a consent of the Advocate General, this Court can take action on its own motion, but presently this channel is not open to us here, as proceeding of contempt cannot be initiated against a Judge of a Court of Record, on a charge of “committing a contempt of his own court”.”“We, therefore, dismiss the present petition being not maintainable,” it said.In the instant case, the complainant advocate had alleged that on May 9 and May 11, the judge used improper language against him, his client, threatened him that he would be sent to jail and even made sarcastic comments against brother judges.The petitioner, in his petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has alleged that he stated that “unlike other Judges he is not in a habit of changing orders in his chamber” and also passed similar remarks against a senior advocate, who was also a former judge of a high court.The petitioner alleged that the judge also heard a matter from which he would have otherwise recused.The court relied on a full bench of Patna High Court decision in a case titled Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and others v. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed wherein it was held that a criminal contempt would not lie against a judge of a Court of Record.“The duty of a Judge, after all, is to dispense justice – without fear or favour, affection or ill will, without passion or prejudice. It is not a part of his duty to please litigants or keep lawyers in good humor. The principal requirement for all Judges, and particularly for a Judge of Court of Record, is to maintain his independence. Often times, he has to deal with cases having high stakes, which are fiercely contested by both sides. Lawyers and litigants sometimes can be cantankerous, even unruly. Unpleasant situations and angry exchange of words at the Bar are not uncommon. A Judge can also be very helpless in situations like this. Irresponsible accusations may be thrown against a Judge by a disgruntled lawyer or litigant. Therefore, for the sake of the independence of the judiciary, a Judge has to be protected, from vexatious charges and malicious...

U’khand HC Dismisses “Contempt Petition” Against Sitting Judge As Not Maintainable, Unhappy With AG’s Opinion [Read Judgment]

akanksha jain

Tags