People who malign judges do not deserve mercy, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday as it upheld a high court order of 10 days of prison for a 60-year-old man who circulated a fake complaint against a district judge in Madhya Pradesh on social media.
Comparing the post circulated by Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi as an assault on judicial independence, a vacation bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Prashant Kumar Mishra said: “If you do not get desirable order, that does not mean you will malign judicial officers. Judicial independence doesn’t mean independence from executive alone. It also means there should be no interference from any outside persons.”
Also Read: Petitions against two PMLA provisions need to stop: Supreme Court
Raghuvanshi was sentenced under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the Madhya Pradesh high court on May 15 following a reference made by additional district judge SPS Bundela of Bareli court, who was sought to be maligned by the contemnor.
The district judge in July 2019 decided a case against Raghuvanshi, who runs a private temple, directing him to deposit the amount received as donation from devotees in a bank in the name of a trust. Instead of complying with the order, Raghuvanshi circulated a letter on WhatsApp, accusing the judge of corruption and abuse of authority in passing the order against him.
{{/usCountry}}The district judge in July 2019 decided a case against Raghuvanshi, who runs a private temple, directing him to deposit the amount received as donation from devotees in a bank in the name of a trust. Instead of complying with the order, Raghuvanshi circulated a letter on WhatsApp, accusing the judge of corruption and abuse of authority in passing the order against him.
{{/usCountry}}The judge made a reference to the high court, seeking registration of civil and criminal contempt against Raghuivanshi for flouting the July 2019 order and for “maligning the image, reputation and prestige of the court” through social media posts that caused adverse impact in the due process of justice administration.
The letter circulated by the contemnor was addressed to the law and legislative affairs department of Madhya Pradesh. In addition, a complaint was also filed against the judge at the Madhya Pradesh high court.
Raghuvanshi tendered an unconditional apology to the high court and Supreme Court. His lawyer Akshay Sapra said Raghuvanshi should be shown mercy as he was not aware that he had stepped out of line.
“Judges in lower courts have to decide cases freely and must not be under pressure from any quarter,” the top court said. “We are here to decide law and not to show mercy, and that too, to such persons.”
Prior to initiating contempt proceedings, the high court had conducted an inquiry into the complaint against ADJ Bundela and found all charges to be incorrect. It was then that the high court decided to take a strict view of the contemnor, sentencing him to 10 days of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000.
Raghuvanshi was taken into custody on May 27 and considering that he had already undergone nearly four days of sentence, he should be let off while enhancing the fine amount, Sapra pleaded.
The court, however, told the lawyer: “You cannot malign judicial officers by using social media. You should have thought twice before you made the complaint. It has damaged the reputation of the judicial officer. Let this be a lesson for others.”