Litigants turning aggressive because courts are not using contempt powers: Allahabad High Court

Litigants are increasingly turning aggressive towards the judiciary because of the reluctance of courts to use their contempt of court powers, the Allahabad High Court recently said [Jai Singh v State of UP and 6 Others]..Justice JJ Munir added that the courts avoid such action to respect the citizens' right to free speech but such liberal approach cannot be misused to make scandalous allegations against the judges."It is unfortunate that in contemporary times, litigants have turned aggressive because for one reason or the other, the Courts are eschewing invocation of their power of criminal contempt. The restraint or the hesitation comes from honoring the citizen's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and a fortiorari (sic) their right to ventilate their grievances. This does not mean that any kind of scandalous allegations without basis can be hurled at the Court and got away with," the single-judge said in his order dated April 25. .The Court was dealing with a petition challenging the Board of Revenue's refusal to transfer an application moved under the UP Revenue Code, 2006 from the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) 3rd, Bareilly to any other court.The request to transfer the case was made on the ground that the presiding officer was acting with bias since he was giving long dates in the matter which was helping the other party (respondent). It was also alleged that there was some kind of connivance between the presiding officer hearing the case and the respondent..The High Court found the allegations to be utterly scandalous and said they were absolutely unsupported by any material to compel it to conclude that the presiding officer was not fair towards the parties. "The fact that an application which the petitioner desires to be heard first before final hearing, has not been taken up separately, is a matter which may be an illegal course on the Presiding Officer's part to adopt or it may not be so, but it is no ground to interfere bias. A wrong order or a wrong procedure does not lead to an interference of bias. Likewise, mere delay on the part of the Presiding Officer in hearing the revision is no ground to infer bias," the Court said.Further, the Court said delay or laxity by itself would not show bias against a party. Thus, it opined that the allegation of connivance between the presiding officer and the responded bordered on criminal contempt."If an allegation of connivance by any party is made against a Presiding Officer, it has to be one with the highest sense of responsibility and material of sterling quality. It is another matter that the Court hearing the transfer matter or whatever forum the complaint is laid may accept it or not. But, to make such an application without any material or circumstances to point out, shows not a sense of freedom to express amongst citizens who are litigants but virtually extreme indiscipline and lack of sense of propriety, to say the least," the Court said.The single judge stressed that the sense of propriety and proportion was essential for the entire citizenry to sustain a civil society. .Considering the lack of evidence to support the allegations against the presiding officer, the Court dismissed the plea with a costs of ₹5,000.Advocate Umesh Chandra Tiwari represented the petitioner. Advocate Sher Bahadur Singh appeared for respondent. .[Read Order]