Judiciary open to Healthy criticism but would not tolerate vilification by unscrupulous elements,

 

The Delhi High Court while stating that judiciary is not immune from criticism, has advocated for intolerance towards the criticism based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments, to intentionally lower the dignity and respect of this Court, it must be taken cognizance of.

The single-judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh was adjudicating upon an appeal raising allegations against Trial Court and High Court Judges.

The Judge issuing Notice to the appellant to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him, observed: 

"A bare perusal of the averments made hereinabove show that they are scandalous and aimed at lowering the dignity and majesty of this Court. They have been made malafidely and interfere with administration of justice and amount to contempt. The allegations made in the petition are intrinsically contemptuous in nature and fall within the definition of “Criminal Contempt” of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 under Section 2(c)(i)."

The Court remarked that there is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but several Judges of this Court. 

"This vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief. An unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing and unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court," it added.

It opined that for a healthy democracy, there must be impartial Judiciary, however, it cannot be impaired by vindictive criticism.

"The Judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when the criticism is based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments, to intentionally lower the dignity and respect of this Court, it must be taken cognizance of."

Noting that the representations and allegations are biased and intended to scandalize the Court, it was noted:

"To make allegations that a Judge deliberately wanted to twist issues in order to favour an accused or that they were personally interested in the matter acted illegally or impartially are unjust statements."

The appeal was filed challenging the final order passed by the an Additional Sessions Judge of Rohini Courts in a case registered under Sec. 376, 506, 323, 328, 109, 120B and 34 OR IPC

Citing the need to initiate contemt proceedings, the Court cited IN RE PRASHANT BHUSHAN, 2020 Latest Caselaw 483 SC

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure