Anxiety during trial cannot justify casting aspersion on judge: Delhi HC imposes Rs 5,000 cost on man

The high court said that if the explanation given by the man for his “intemperate pleadings” (uncontrolled) is accepted it would “entitle every litigant to undermine the majesty of the Court on the specious plea of anxiety”. Imposing cost of Rs. 5,000 on the man, the high court directed him to deposit it within two weeks with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

The HC further directed that if the man casts similar aspersions on the integrity of the Court in any legal proceedings where he is a party, the record of the present contempt case against him shall be taken as evidence and his subsequent conduct will be considered as an “aggravated contempt of the Court” under the Contempt of Courts Act. “It is directed that the Respondent herein will be under an obligation to disclose this order to the Court in which any subsequent contempt proceedings is filed against him,” the HC said closing the contempt case.

The high court was hearing a contempt case referred to by Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts. The high court went through the reply of the man and said that the same shows that he had persisted in casting aspersions on the ASJ despite the fact that certain transfer applications filed by him were dismissed as being without any merit.

Senior Advocate Akshay Makhija, the amicus curiae in the matter, submitted that the man was perturbed and concerned due to the denial of an opportunity to prove a document–an RTI reply which he considered vital for proving his innocence. It was stated that the high court may consider that the Respondent is a layman without any formal education of law and because he was defending his case, in person, and he unfortunately used intemperate language in the application. “He states that considering that the personal liberty of the Respondent was at stake in the said criminal trial the Respondent may have been anxious and fell in error,” the order records wherein the amicus asked the court to take a lenient view in the matter and that the man had tendered an unconditional apology which may be accepted.

The HC on this said, “in view of the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae, as well as the fact that the Respondent is a single father, who is looking after his five children, this Court deems it appropriate to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the Respondent, with a warning to him to exercise restraint and refrain from casting any aspersion on the Court”.