UP man faces criminal contempt for 'scandalising' lower judiciary on Wha ...
The Allahabad High Court has recently framed charges under the Contempt of Courts Act against a man who posted messages deemed to ‘scandalise’ the lower judiciary in a WhatsApp group of advocates.Krishna Kumar Pandey, a resident of Kanpur, posted messages accusing a judicial officer of corruption and fabricating order sheets in certain cases in Basti district.
Pandey, not being a practising advocate, has led the court to also scrutinise how he became part of lawyers’ WhatsApp groups. The Bar Associations of Basti have denied any connection to his actions and also pledged to take internal action to restrict group participation to actual members.
A two-judge bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Pramod Kumar Srivastava said a prima facie case for proceeding in criminal contempt was made out against Pandey, who has refused to take legal counsel for his case. He has argued that the Advocate General’s prior permission is required to initiate a contempt of court case. The court rebutted his claim and said it is always free to take cognisance of a criminal contempt.
The court observed: "That you, Krishna Kumar Pandey…by your act in publishing the following post on the WhatsApp Group on 14.07.2023 from your Mobile No… committed an act which scandalises and lowers the authority of the Court of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Basti by bringing the Court to disrepute on account of the insinuations made… and thereby committed criminal contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971".
Pandey additionally claimed that there was a separate "in-house procedure" for investigating WhatsApp-based complaints against judges. This, too, was dismissed with the court clarifying that such disciplinary action is handled directly under administrative and vigilance procedures.
The case was referred to the High Court by the Additional District Judge of Basti.
It comes up for hearing on Thursday when a determination of the contempt charges shall be made.
This case is important as the country’s lower judiciary often faces criticism from those who approach it. One of the most frequent criticisms is linked to the huge pendency of cases (over 2.5 crores at present), which throttles the delivery of justice. Cases of bribes being demanded have also been reported.
This is in addition to criticism by the higher courts on the overall functioning of the lower courts. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, for instance, recently likened district judges to serfs under feudal lords. It noted that they operated under fear of the higher judiciary, which had an impact on their independence and the quality of justice dispensed.
The lower courts have also handed out widely criticised decisions at times. The Kozhikode Sessions Court, in 2022, granted bail to a 74-year-old writer accused of sexual harassment. The court’s logic was that sexual harassment complaints would not stand if the woman (complainant) was wearing a sexually provocative dress at the time of the offence.
In the famous gang-rape case of Bhanwari Devi (which led to the framing of the Vishakha Guidelines), the trial court in Rajasthan had held that she was not raped as "upper caste men cannot rape a lower caste woman".
The present case could then well become a determinant of how much criticism is too much, and also on the manner in which such criticism should be aired.
Pages:
[1]