‘Litigant criticising judicial order not attack on judge’: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that a litigant’s act of criticising or questioning a judicial order and challenging its reasoning, even in strong words, cannot be construed as an attack on the judge or the institution

The Delhi High Court has held that a litigant’s act of criticising or questioning a judicial order and challenging its reasoning, even in strong words, cannot be construed as an attack on the judge or the institution.

(Shutterstock)

A bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in its October 8 verdict released on Friday, however added that bald allegations attributing corruption, collusion, deliberate manipulation or improper motives to individual judges stand on a different footing, particularly where such allegations are repeatedly made without any material whatsoever.

“A litigant is entitled to question an order, challenge its reasoning, and pursue the remedies available in law. Such criticism, even if strongly worded, cannot merely on account of its adverse nature be equated with an attack upon the Judge or the institution. However, bald allegations attributing corruption, collusion, deliberate manipulation or improper motives to individual judges stand on a different footing, particularly where such allegations are repeatedly made without any material whatsoever,” the court said.

The court delivered the verdict while adjudicating two applications, one filed by a lawyer seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings against his former client, and the other filed by the former client seeking the release of the matter in view of a change in the roster.

The dispute arose after the lawyer allegedly withdrew from representing his client shortly before a crucial hearing in a matter concerning the death of the client’s younger brother. Subsequently, the former client initiated multiple proceedings against the lawyer, alleging professional misconduct and other irregularities, while the lawyer, in turn, instituted criminal defamation proceedings against his former client.

In his application, the lawyer asserted that the man, over a considerable period, made abusive, intemperate and scandalous remarks on various social media platforms against sitting and former judges of the Supreme Court of India and this court, including the Chief Justice of India, besides other constitutional functionaries and elected women representatives.

He contended that the nature and tenor of these posts disclose a sustained pattern of derogatory allegations against members of the judiciary and other public functionaries, and that the man’s conduct was not confined to criticism of judicial orders or expression of grievances in pending proceedings but extended to offensive and derogatory remarks against individual judges and women occupying public offices, including elected representatives.

Such remarks, the lawyer said, reveal a continuing pattern of personal attacks.

In its 21-page order, the court, however, refused to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the man. “No finding is being returned as to whether any individual post constitutes criminal contempt and the question of the legal consequence, if any, of the material placed on record is left open to be considered in appropriate proceedings,” the court said in the order.

With regard to the man’s application for releasing the matter, though it released the matter, it held that the question of whether a matter which has been categorised as part heard should continue before the same bench or be released has to be considered by the same bench only.