A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court Friday initiated “criminal contempt” proceedings against Additional District Judge (ADJ) Dr Kamini Lau, after she filed a petition claiming that a High Court judge “is selectively and
successively targeting the applicant/judicial officer”.
ADJ Lau had filed four applications before the bench of Justice Valmiki J Mehta and Justice Indermeet Kaur stating that the “adverse remarks” made against her judgments by a single judge bench of the High Court be deleted as they not only “effect the self-esteem, judicial reputation and career of the applicant but also violate the norms of Judicial Propriety”.
The HC observed, “We are indeed perturbed and upset at the language used by the applicant/judicial officer in her applications… the applicant/judicial officer has gone much further, to the shocking extent of stating in paras 7 and 8 of the application that the learned single Judge is selectively and successively targeting the applicant/judicial officer.”
Justice Mehta and Justice Kaur, in their order, said they have already reproduced four orders passed by “single judge of this court” to show that each of the orders reflect “correct judicial observations” made against the four “impugned judgments and the orders passed by ADJ Lau”.
“…We at first could not believe that a senior judicial officer of the rank of ADJ could have gone to the extent of making personal allegations against a learned single judge of this court…We really wonder as to how can the applicant/judicial officer descend to the extent of making grave and unfounded averments, as made in the said four applications,” the order stated.
Justice Mehta and Justice Kaur further said, “Accordingly, we are of prima facie opinion that… Dr Kamini Lau, ADJ, is guilty of criminal contempt of court…that the averments made by the applicant/judicial officer in her applications clearly amount to scandalising or tending to scandalise or lowering or tending to lower the authority of this court… There cannot exist situations where learned single judges of this court, exercising appellate jurisdiction, would have to keep in mind that a judicial officer whose judgment is being examined in appeal… would file misconceived and non-maintainable applications on the judicial side for expunging of remarks”.