The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dismissing the criminal contempt case against a man who had levelled allegations against a judicial officer of the Dera Bassi court by saying that the judicial officer hearing his case “is not prepared to pass an order but is only prepared to grant an adjournment”, observed that “…healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcomed… Judges are not supermen and they make mistakes…”
In 2023, a single court initiated ex officio criminal contempt proceedings against Surjeet Singh after he moved the High Court to file a petition against a judicial officer of Dera Bassi, seeking directions to the judicial officer to expedite the hearing of his case and also stating in his petition that the judicial officer is not willing to pass an order but is only willing to give a stay. He had also added that he was being harassed due to the actions of the judicial officer of Dera Bassi.
The Single Court after examining the contents of the petition of Surjeet Singh and the orders passed by the Judicial Officer, Dera Bassi, issued a notice of contempt against him for levelling allegations against the Judicial Officer. As Surjeet was unable to give an explanation in this regard on the next date, the Single Court ordered initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt and thereafter the matter was placed on the list of the Division Bench.
During the course of hearing of the criminal contempt proceedings, Surjeet through his counsel contended that his allegations would not amount to criminal contempt and also submitted that he had filed his affidavit tendering unconditional apology for any lapse on his part and hence, the contempt proceedings be dismissed.
Hearing the matter, the division bench comprising Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Kirti Singh said, “What appears to have led to initiation of proceedings is that the perusal of the zimni orders showed that the adjournments were primarily sought by the respondent’s counsel. Admittedly, the respondent should have been more cautious in approaching this court and should have pleaded the factual matrix in consonance with the record. He should not have lightly asserted something which is not borne out on record or is factually incorrect. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent is one of the many citizens who have approached the court seeking redressal of their grievances.”
“The court dockets are overcrowded and cases are often not disposed of as quickly or expeditiously as the litigant expects. 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 find that the respondent’s action amounts to contempt of court,” the division bench judge said.
The Court noted that “the allegations made by the respondent (Surjeet Singh) about a judicial officer in his petition would not amount to contempt of court as 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.
Good faith has been defined in Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, which states that “the thing shall be deemed to have been done in good faith when it is done honestly, whether it was done negligently or not. The pleadings in the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not suggest that it is mala fide or not mala fide. The pleadings could have been better worded, but it is difficult to come to the conclusion that it was mala fide.”
The court of first instance stated: “We may hasten to add that healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcomed. The judgments of the court are in the public domain and are open to debate 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.”
While holding that Surjeet had tendered unconditional and unreserved apology and had undertaken not to use derogatory words or language in future and to abide by all conditions imposed by the court, the High Court dismissed the contempt proceedings against him.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
First uploaded on: 04-07-2024 at 08:01 IST
