Madhya Pradesh High Court cautions litigants against threatening trial judges with contempt of court pleas

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently deprecated the practice of litigants threatening trial court judges with contempt pleas for wrong judicial orders [Majid Beg & Ors v Tej Pratap Singh]..A Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra pulled up litigants for making reckless allegations against trial judges and warned them to desist from such adventurism."We deprecate such attitude. We do not appreciate that every wrong order passed by the trial court is to be brought under contempt and the concerned judge has to be proceeded against. Trying to threaten the judges with petitions for contempt, in our considered view, is not going to be accepted," the Court said. .The bench, however, restrained from taking any strict action against the litigants since this was the first instance of such conduct by them. "Since this matter is arising for the first occasion we have restrained ourselves from taking strict action but only direct a warning to the petitioners to desist from such adventurism," the Court said..The present plea by four petitioners sought initiation of contempt of court proceedings against Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Tej Pratap Singh for willfully disobeying a High Court order dated July 9, 2022.The counsel for petitioners submitted that although order by the CJM dated May 10, 2022 was set aside by the High Court and kept for final orders, the trial judge was proceeding to recall the witnesses and record their evidence. It was further submitted that the order of the High Court was brought to the notice of the trial judge but he told that there was no order to restrain him from summoning witnesses. This led to the plea before the High Court..The High Court ruled that the CJM committed no contempt as there was no specific order directing the trial court against summoning witnesses.The High Court after setting aside the order dated May 10, 2022, had directed the CJM to decide the matter afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to petitioners and accused, the bench noted..Even if the case of the petitioners was to be accepted of certain misapplication of the law, that does not amount to contempt, the High Court made it clear. "Every order that is passed by a superior court, is liable to be followed by the lower court...The understanding of the trial court is quite a different issue than disobedience. One has to show that the disobedience is willful to the orders passed by the superior courts. If there is any scope for any interpretation in the directions being issued then that cannot constitute a contempt," the Court said..The division bench further observed that in the instant case, the order was set aside with a direction to consider the matter afresh and, therefore, the trial court has to consider the matter afresh. "As to how that amounts to contempt, we are unable to follow. Therefore, we are of the view that this is nothing but a pure adventurism by the petitioners in making such reckless allegations against the trial judge."The bench, therefore, dismissed the petition.Advocates Vishal Vincent and Rajendra Daniel represented the petitioners..[Read Order]