Don’t confuse freedom of expression with licence to level baseless allegations on judiciary: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The bench observed that while freedom of expression and the right to approach courts are integral to the rule of law, such liberties cannot be confused with a licence to level unfounded allegations against judiciary.

“The advocate or the party appearing in person, therefore, is given liberty of expression. At the same time, they equally owe countervailing duty to maintain dignity, decorum and order in the court proceedings or judicial process. The liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with licence to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the judiciary,” the court held.

It also noted that the court has a pious duty to preserve the magnanimity of the courts and that no one can be permitted to desecrate their sanctity.

“The imputations levelled by the petitioner against the learned Magistrate seem to be intended at scandalizing the Court in such a way so as to create distrust in the people’s mind and impair the confidence of the people in the Court and the Judge,” the order read.

The court ordered the petition along with the judgement to be placed before the Chief Justice for listing the matter before an appropriate bench for considering whether contempt proceedings should be initiated or not against the petitioner.

Plea related to cheque bounce case

• The petitioner had initially filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of a cheque worth Rs 5 lakh.
• The accused was acquitted by the trial court in November 2024, following which the petitioner pursued appellate remedies.
• During the pendency of the complaint proceedings, the petitioner had also moved an application alleging false statements and obstruction of justice by the accused.
• When the application came up for consideration before the judicial magistrate, the magistrate directed him to engage legal counsel, noting deficiencies in procedural understanding and concerns over courtroom conduct.
• Feeling aggrieved by this, the petitioner moved high court.

‘Petition to satisfy whims and fancies’

• The petition has been actuated by the petitioner, just to satisfy his “whims and fancies”, by levelling direct allegations/imputations against magistrate.
• The petitioner may be very good in his own profession and might have been appearing before different courts or authorities in person by filing and defending his cases, but it does not mean that he is having an absolute or indefeasible right and permanent entitlement that cannot be annulled, revoked, or voided by any court of law.
• Even if a litigant insists on self-representation or refuses legal help, the court is duty bound to impart justice and the court may override that refusal, especially if the case risks being mishandled or prejudiced.
• The court can appoint a counsel for its own assistance, even if the complainant/litigant refuses legal representation. This is done to ensure that the proceedings are fair, legally sound, and not hindered by lack of expertise or cooperation.
• No substance in the averments and truth in the allegations made by the petitioner against the magistrate.
• There is no ambiguity in the impugned order warranting any interference.
• The choice of words and the language used by the petitioner in the main petition as well as in the subsequent additional affidavit are defamatory.
• The scurrilous attack on the integrity and honesty of the magistrate is calculated to cause irreparable harm to the reputation and character of the judicial officer who is seized with the case of the petitioner on the judicial side.
• The personal attack on the impartiality and fairness of the magistrate while discharging judicial functions is a direct attack on his character, causes prejudices and intends to interfere with the judicial processes.
• It is not for the first time that such a type of petition has been filed by the petitioner.
• Despite the caution having already been given by the coordinate bench of this court, the petitioner did not stop and filed the instant petition imputing scandalous allegations against the magistrate.
• Registry is directed to place the present petition along with today’s judgement before the chief justice for listing the matter before an appropriate bench for consideration whether further proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the petitioner be initiated or not.