Delhi High Court rejects plea seeking contempt of court action against judge for dismissing case

The Delhi High Court observed on Tuesday that there are safeguards to challenge the decision of a court but pursuing contempt of court action against a judge in his personal capacity for a judgment rendered by him is an unmitigated attack on the majesty and honesty of courts..Justice Jasmeet Singh said that a judge may be guilty of contempt of court only if there is material to show gross and intentional misuse of judicial process, corruption or intentional insubordination.“The Constitution of India, 1950 and the legal framework of the country provide adequate safeguards to challenge the decision taken by a court. However, unavailing of such liberties and pursuing contempt against a Judge in an individual capacity is an unmitigated attack on the majesty and honesty of the courts,” the Court observed.Justice Singh further said that a lawyer acting in his professional capacity cannot be impleaded in contempt of court proceedings in his personal capacity and there are laws to deal with professional misconduct.“The scope of judicial independence is inclusive of the independence of the bar so that lawyers are able to carry out their professional duties in a secure and unprejudiced environment," the Court said..It made the observations while dealing with a civil contempt case filed by one Vijay Kumar Agarwal against the Additional District Judge (ADJ) who passed an order dismissing his suit, the counsel who represented the respondent before the trial court and the respondent himself.Agarwal had filed a civil suit regarding possession of immovable property in Delhi’s Mayur Vihar area. It was dismissed in default in May 2012. He later filed an application for restoration of the suit. The matter went on for years and he filed a few perjury applications against the respondent as well.On July 22, 2023, the suit was dismissed under Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on account of non-payment of cost which was found to be a precondition for restoration of the suit..After considering the case, Justice Singh noted that the petitioner was not challenging order dismissing his suit on merits but was seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings.The Court recorded that the petitioner was attempting to make use of the contempt proceedings to seek an explanation from the learned ADJ for the decision taken by him and if such petitions are entertained, the judge will have to file a reply giving explanations and reasoning for his decision.This is impermissible, the High Court made it clear.“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 single-judge said.He added that though the petitioner exceeded the limits of fair criticism, it was refraining from initiation of contempt action against him since he is stated to be suffering from neurological issues..The Court concluded that in the trial court judgment, there was no enforceable direction against the respondent (who was respondent in the trial court as well) and therefore, no contempt was made out against him as well.“In this view, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedies as may be available in law against the order dated 22.07.2023,” the High Court ordered. .Petitioner Vijay Kumar Agarwal appeared in person.Respondents were represented through advocates Abhinav Singh and Ryat Dwivedi..[Read Judgment]