The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a batch of 11 contempt petitions filed by one Jeetendra Kumar Rajan after noting that he himself had prima facie committed criminal contempt of court [Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. TG Shivashankare Gowda]..A Division Bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice MG Uma stated that the way in which the complainant had filed the contempt petitions was a threat to the judicial officers against whom the petitions had been filed. "The complainant has not made out any ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused persons. He is misusing and abusing the process of Court and harassing the judicial officers and wasting the precious public judicial time of the Court, thereby it has to be dealt with an iron hand to uphold the majesty of the Court. It is high time for this Court to protect the judicial officers of the State, otherwise there is no end to this type of speculative litigation in the years to come," the Court said. .The Bench also made strong observations about speculative litigation, noting,"The experience of this Court depicts that in recent years there has emerged a trend of filing speculative legislation before various Courts of law, not just in the Court of first instance, but also in the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that such speculative legislation is weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing it to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants seeking justice treating Court as "temple of justice.".A series of writ petitions had been filed by the petitioner against the Department of Higher Education, Karnataka; Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU); the Vice-Chancellor of the Karnataka State Law University (KSLU), and others. The petitioner, who was enrolled in an engineering college, was declined permission by VTU to appear for his 7th and 8th semester classes as he had a series of backlogs from his earlier semesters. He had also filed writ petitions seeking directions to the KSLU to admit him to the law course.Justice R Devdas had dismissed this batch of writ petitions, observing that they had no merit and the petitioner was abusing the process of the Court. The Single Judge also directed the petitioner to deposit ₹1 lakh, failing which future petitions filed by him before the High Court would not be listed. .The petitioner then proceeded to file the present batch of contempt petitions against the Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial) of the Court, alleging disobedience of court orders. In the contempt petitions, he claimed that the "total understanding of the Registry" regarding the order passed in the batch of writ petitions was that the matter could not be listed unless the complainant deposits ₹1 lakh. He claimed that there was a total violation of the order and the Court should take suo motu action against the Registry. He also prayed that costs of ₹1 lakh be imposed on the Registry..Acknowledging the difficulties faced by parties-in-person who are "virtually mentally injured persons," the Bench said that courts must be considerate towards them as they are not legally equipped. In this case, it was opined that the High Court was very considerate towards the complainant who was appearing as a party-in-person, and showed undeserved leniency towards him. Despite this, he did not take the advice of the court and took its goodness as its weakness, it was observed. .The Bench also made observations about the protection needed to be afforded to the judicial system, "It is true that Judges should not be hyper sensitive in discharging judicial functions, but that does not mean and imply that they ought to maintain angelic silence. Immaterial it is as to the person, but it is the seat of justice which needs protection; it is the image of judicial system which needs protection. Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temple of justice. The majesty of the Court shall have to be maintained and there ought not to be any compromise or leniency in that regard. It is well settled that legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is called a noble profession and and all those who belong to it are its honourable members.".While dismissing the batch of petitions, the Court stated that abusing the process of court to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to contempt of court. It imposed costs of ₹1 lakh for each petition, amounting to total costs of ₹11 lakh to be paid to the Advocates Association, Bengaluru. The Registry was directed not to post any of the petitioner's matters on the same cause of action unless he deposits this amount of ₹11 lakh.It also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to take the necessary steps to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioner under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. .[Read Order]
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a batch of 11 contempt petitions filed by one Jeetendra Kumar Rajan after noting that he himself had prima facie committed criminal contempt of court [Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. TG Shivashankare Gowda]..A Division Bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice MG Uma stated that the way in which the complainant had filed the contempt petitions was a threat to the judicial officers against whom the petitions had been filed. "The complainant has not made out any ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused persons. He is misusing and abusing the process of Court and harassing the judicial officers and wasting the precious public judicial time of the Court, thereby it has to be dealt with an iron hand to uphold the majesty of the Court. It is high time for this Court to protect the judicial officers of the State, otherwise there is no end to this type of speculative litigation in the years to come," the Court said. .The Bench also made strong observations about speculative litigation, noting,"The experience of this Court depicts that in recent years there has emerged a trend of filing speculative legislation before various Courts of law, not just in the Court of first instance, but also in the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that such speculative legislation is weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing it to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants seeking justice treating Court as "temple of justice.".A series of writ petitions had been filed by the petitioner against the Department of Higher Education, Karnataka; Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU); the Vice-Chancellor of the Karnataka State Law University (KSLU), and others. The petitioner, who was enrolled in an engineering college, was declined permission by VTU to appear for his 7th and 8th semester classes as he had a series of backlogs from his earlier semesters. He had also filed writ petitions seeking directions to the KSLU to admit him to the law course.Justice R Devdas had dismissed this batch of writ petitions, observing that they had no merit and the petitioner was abusing the process of the Court. The Single Judge also directed the petitioner to deposit ₹1 lakh, failing which future petitions filed by him before the High Court would not be listed. .The petitioner then proceeded to file the present batch of contempt petitions against the Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial) of the Court, alleging disobedience of court orders. In the contempt petitions, he claimed that the "total understanding of the Registry" regarding the order passed in the batch of writ petitions was that the matter could not be listed unless the complainant deposits ₹1 lakh. He claimed that there was a total violation of the order and the Court should take suo motu action against the Registry. He also prayed that costs of ₹1 lakh be imposed on the Registry..Acknowledging the difficulties faced by parties-in-person who are "virtually mentally injured persons," the Bench said that courts must be considerate towards them as they are not legally equipped. In this case, it was opined that the High Court was very considerate towards the complainant who was appearing as a party-in-person, and showed undeserved leniency towards him. Despite this, he did not take the advice of the court and took its goodness as its weakness, it was observed. .The Bench also made observations about the protection needed to be afforded to the judicial system, "It is true that Judges should not be hyper sensitive in discharging judicial functions, but that does not mean and imply that they ought to maintain angelic silence. Immaterial it is as to the person, but it is the seat of justice which needs protection; it is the image of judicial system which needs protection. Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temple of justice. The majesty of the Court shall have to be maintained and there ought not to be any compromise or leniency in that regard. It is well settled that legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is called a noble profession and and all those who belong to it are its honourable members.".While dismissing the batch of petitions, the Court stated that abusing the process of court to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to contempt of court. It imposed costs of ₹1 lakh for each petition, amounting to total costs of ₹11 lakh to be paid to the Advocates Association, Bengaluru. The Registry was directed not to post any of the petitioner's matters on the same cause of action unless he deposits this amount of ₹11 lakh.It also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to take the necessary steps to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioner under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. .[Read Order]