Law of criminal contempt of court is not meant to protect personal prestige of judges: Rajasthan High Court

The law of criminal contempt of court is not meant to protect the personal prestige or ego of individual judges, the Rajasthan High Court said recently.

A Division Bench of Justices Farjand Ali and Yogendra Kumar Purohit added that personal criticism of individual judges that is unlikely to scandalise the Court would not fall within the ambit of criminal contempt.

"The law of criminal contempt is not meant to protect the personal prestige or ego of Presiding Officer as an individual. Personal criticism or allegations directed against an individual Presiding Officer, without any tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or to scandalise the institution of the Court, would not ordinarily fall within the ambit of criminal contempt," the judgment reads.

The Court added,

"The law of contempt is concerned solely with preserving the dignity, authority, and effective functioning of the Court as an institution. For an act to constitute criminal contempt, it must be directed against the Court and must have the tendency to undermine public confidence in the judicial system, rather than merely affecting the personal sensibilities of the individual presiding over the Bench,” the Court said.

The Court also said that merely alleging that a judge has acted improperly does not amount to imputing impropriety to the court or its judicial functioning, to classify such comments as contempt of court.

“An individual may be criticised for his conduct, but that cannot automatically be equated with criticism of the Court or its judgments. The judiciary derives its strength from public confidence. Such confidence is strengthened not by suppressing grievances but by ensuring that genuine complaints are examined in a fair and transparent manner,” it further said.

Criticism, even if couched in strong or disagreeable language, cannot be brought within the sweep of criminal contempt when it only pertains to the personal behaviour of an individual, the Court emphasized. 

The Bench was dealing with a contempt of court reference made by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) against seven police officers including an Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP).

The AJCM in the reference alleged that the police officers had committed criminal contempt of court through their statements during an inquiry conducted by the ASP into claims of improper investigation in a rape case. 

The police officials had told the inquiry officer that the ACJM frequently misbehaves with police personnel and court staff. They further said that the ACJM intentionally creates procedural hurdles to the acceptance of police reports and makes the cops wait for long durations, sometimes in humiliating circumstances.  

The cops told the ASP (inquiry officer) that the judge's overall conduct created an atmosphere of fear for police officers, and affected coordination between the court and the investigation agency, resulting in the erosion of mutual institutional respect.

The inquiry officer was also informed that a complaint had been made to the Registrar (Vigilance) against the ACJM. Thus, it was stated that he harboured resentment against the cops.

The High Court noted that the statements were part of a case diary, which is not a document in the public domain. 

“These statements were not made in a public forum, not in any publication, and not with any intention to scandalise the institution of the judiciary, but rather in response to questions posed by a superior officer during the course of an official inquiry ordered by the Presiding Officer,” the Bench said.

It added that the police officials had merely narrated their perceptions and expressed grievances “regarding the behavior of an individual” to the inquiry officer.

“The statements do not appear to contain any criticism of a judicial order, nor do they cast aspersions upon the majesty of the court or the judicial institution. A person who has faced humiliation or perceives that he has been subjected to improper behaviour cannot be expected to remain silent. The law does not impose a gag order upon truthfully narrating facts, particularly when such narration is made before a competent authority conducting an inquiry,” the Bench said. 

Taking note of the pending complaints before Registrar (Vigilance) against the ACJM, the Court said,

“If the mere act of submitting a complaint regarding the conduct of a Presiding Officer were to be treated as criminal contempt, the entire vigilance mechanism would become redundant and ineffective. Such an interpretation would have the chilling effect of discouraging individuals from raising genuine grievances and would ultimately undermine the principles of fairness, transparency, and institutional accountability.”

The Bench also explained that there exists a fundamental distinction between personal criticism of an individual judicial officer and comments attacking the dignity of the Court.

“In the context of criminal contempt, the concern of law is not the personal feelings or reputation of the individual officer who happens to be presiding over the Bench. Rather, the law is intended to safeguard the dignity, authority, and orderly functioning of the Court as an institution. The jurisdiction relating to criminal contempt is invoked only when an act tends to scandalise the Court, lower the authority of the Court, prejudice or interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice,” it said.

The Court concluded that the police officers' statements to their senior officer about an individual judge cannot be construed as scandalising the authority of the Court, interfering with judicial proceedings, or lowering the dignity and majesty of the Court.

“Criminal contempt jurisdiction is not intended to silence grievances or shield judicial officers from criticism, unless such criticism transgresses into deliberate vilification or an attack on the institution of justice itself,” the High Court said, while dismissing the reference.

Additional Advocate General Sajjan Singh Rathore represented the State.

[Read Judgment]