The Punjab and Haryana High Court, observing that “judges are not supermen and make mistakes”, has set aside the ex officio criminal contempt case filed against a man who raised allegations against a judicial magistrate.
The man had claimed that the magistrate was not prepared to make an order, but was only willing to grant adjournments. However, it was discovered that the adjournments were granted at the request of the man’s lawyer.
A division bank of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh He said his allegations did not suggest they were in bad faith or not made in good faith. He noted:
“The allegations could have been better worded, but it is difficult to conclude that they were in bad faith.…Healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcomed. The Court’s judgments are in the public domain and are open to discussion and critical analysis. Judges are not supermen and make mistakes. Dialogue and debate are the hallmark of a democracy governed by the rule of law. Suggestions for improving the administration of justice should always be gratefully accepted.“
The division bench observed that the man was only seeking a speedy disposal of his case and if the courts were too sensitive to the allegations, it would deter a common citizen from approaching the court for redressal of his grievance.
A suo moto case was initiated against Surjeet Singh after he moved the High Court for directions for expeditious hearing of his case by the judicial officer of Dera Bassi in Punjab.
Singh maintained that he had legitimately sought judicial relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that his allegations would not amount to criminal contempt. He also submitted that an affidavit had been filed offering unconditional apology for any lapse on his part and that, therefore, the contempt proceedings should be dismissed.
Amicus curiae attorney Tanu Bedi argued that the respondent’s conduct under the law relating to contempt of court would not amount to criminal contempt in light of various precedents.
The Court referred to RE Harijai Singh and another RE Vijay Kumar case (1996), in which an article was published in the newspaper stating that the children of the Chief Justice of India were beneficiaries of allocation of petrol pumps on discretionary quota. The information was found to be false. However, the Supreme Court accepted the apology of the journalist, while observing that he had acted with great carelessness in publishing the article without confirming its contents. It was observed that the courts should not be hypersensitive while dealing with contempt matters.
In the present case, the Court said: “It is true that the defendant should have been more cautious in approaching this Court and should have presented factual arguments consistent with the record. He should not have lightly asserted something that is not apparent from the record or is factually incorrect.“
“However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the defendant is one of many citizens who have turned to the courts seeking redress of their grievances. The court dockets are overcrowded and cases are often not resolved quickly or with the celerity expected by the litigant.” the Court added.
Speaking on behalf of the court, Judge Grewal said: “The respondent appears to be a hapless citizen awaiting justice at the doors of the District Court and in these circumstances, he appears to have committed a transgression by failing to state the correct facts. However, we do not consider that the respondent’s action amounts to contempt of court.“
Declaration that the judge will not be in contempt if he acts in good faith
Good faith has been defined in Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act. The Court opined: “The statements made by the respondent about a judicial officer in his petition would not amount to contempt of court, since in terms of section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act, a statement regarding a presiding judge does not amount to criminal contempt provided it is made in good faith.“
Adding that the rise in litigation in recent times indicates that not only are people more aware of their rights but they have enormous faith in the justice delivery system, the Court said that if the allegations made are not true or misleading, then “the relief sought may be denied or costs may be imposed.”
Contempt jurisdiction should not be exercised lightly, but should be invoked only in rare or exceptional cases where the administration of justice is interfered with or where such action would create scandal or undermine the authority of the Court, he said.
While noting that an “unconditional and unreserved apology” had been tendered, the Court held that his action did not amount to criminal contempt of court.
Accordingly, the criminal contempt proceedings were dismissed.
Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate as Amicus Curiae appointed by the Litigation Cell of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, assisted by Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Akhil Dadwal, Advocate.
Mr. Tushar Tanwar, Advocate, and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the respondent in default.
COURT ON REASON OF THE COURT VS SURJEET SINGH
2024 Live Law (PH) 238
Click here to read/download the order
