The Delhi High Court Tuesday warned a person against misusing and abusing processes of the Contempt of Courts Act, who had filed a contempt plea against a district court judge claiming that his grievances had not been addressed properly.
A single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh said, “The courts are constitutional institutions that preserve and secure the rights and liberties of each citizen of this country with the utmost vigilance and caution. The conduct of the petitioner to pursue contempt proceedings against a judge of the district court on the ground that his grievances have not been duly addressed is severely misguided and should be deterred”.
The bench said the Constitution of India and the legal framework provide adequate safeguards to challenge a court’s decision however unavailing these liberties and pursuing contempt against a Judge in an “individual capacity is an unmitigated attack on the majesty and honesty of the courts”.
The bench also observed the litigant had attempted to use the contempt proceedings to seek an explanation from the additional district judge for his decision. “In case, such petitions are entertained, the learned judge, who is a party by name, will have to file a reply giving explanations and reasoning for his decision. This is impermissible,” Justice Singh underscored.
Angelo Mathews timed out; why was Sourav Ganguly not timed out even when he came out to bat once after 6 minutes?
‘Emotional’ Amitabh Bachchan recalls Dhirubhai Ambani offering monetary help during bankruptcy: ‘Iska bura waqt hai…’ Watch throwback video
Although the court said the man had exceeded the “limits of fair criticism”, it refrained from initiating contempt action against him since he had stated that he was “suffering from neurological issues”.
Apart from the district judge, the man had sought contempt proceedings against a private respondent and his lawyer. He claimed that his civil suit (for possession of immovable property) before the additional district judge was dismissed for non-payment of cost without deciding the application for waiver of cost, which was in violation of principles of natural justice, making his application infructuous.
The court also said contempt proceedings do not lie against the private respondent as well as his counsel. While dismissing the plea, the High Court bench said the man has the liberty to avail remedies available to him under law against the district court’s order.