Punjab & Haryana HC holds 81-year-old guilty of contempt of court for maligning judges

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held an 81-year-old litigant, Ram Niwas Aggarwal, guilty of criminal contempt for his comments against sitting High Court and district judges after he received unfavourable interim orders [Court in its own motion v. Ram Niwas Aggarwal]..A Division Bench of Justices Vinod S Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur rejected Aggarwal's defence of truth and fair criticism, observing:"Imaginative belief spun out of thin air, fortified by repeated thought and senseless action, cannot partake the character of truth. A lie hammered and clamoured again and again does not acquire the character of truth.".The case stems from a 1976 petrol pump partnership dispute in Hansi, District Hisar, where Aggarwal alleged that he was forcibly ousted through a forged 1988 dissolution deed involving a former MLA and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) officials.In August 2019, aggrieved by interim High Court orders exempting the personal appearance of the accused and staying trial proceedings, Aggarwal moved an application before the sub-divisional judicial magistrate (SDJM), demanding arrest warrants.Annexed to his plea were self-styled "show cause notices" addressed to multiple High Court judges and subordinate judicial officers accusing them of corruption, bribery and criminal conspiracy with the accused.The SDJM forwarded the matter to the High Court, which initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Aggarwal..Before the High Court, Aggarwal appeared virtually in person an reiterated his allegations, claiming that his actions constituted "truth in public interest" under Section 13(b) and "fair criticism" under Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.A lie hammered and clamoured again and again does not acquire the character of truthPunjab and Haryana High Court.Dismissing the plea of fair criticism, the Court held that Section 5 applies solely to final decisions, not pending matters."The distinction between an objective and fair criticism of a judgment and criticism and vilification of a Judge are two different acts...the respondent-contemnor has indulged in vilification of the Judges and has indulged in a systematic attack on judicial system by repeatedly attributing motives to each and every person."Holding that Aggarwal's unrepentant conduct was aimed at browbeating judges into recusals or favorable rulings, the Bench held him guilty. It issued bailable warrants to secure Aggarwal’s presence on October 12, 2026, for hearing on the quantum of sentence.Advocate Gurfateh Singh Khosa appeared as amicus curiae..[Read Judgment]