Criminal contempt against Additional District Judge for “unbelievable personal allegations” against HC Judge

The Delhi High Court has initiated criminal contempt against Additional District Judge (ADJ) Kamini Lau for making allegedly “personal allegations” against a judge of the High Court.

In a judgment passed yesterday by Justices Valmiki Mehta and Indermeet Kaur, the High Court has rebuked the ADJ with strong words for making what it termed as “unacceptable and unfounded statements” with respect to observations contained in judicial orders passed by a single judge bench of the High Court.

The judgment was borne out of four applications filed by Kamini Lau, who is an Additional District Judge at Tis Hazari. Lau, in her applications had sought expunction of certain adverse remarks/observations made by a single judge of the Delhi High Court in four separate orders. The remarks/observations were against the orders passed by the ADJ in cases before her.

The High Court in its judgment yesterday considered the submissions made by Lau regarding the remarks/observations by the single judge.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it was held that though High Courts should not make unwarranted, disparaging comments against judicial officers, the power to make critical observations is undoubted.

“The observations made by the High Court against a judicial officer of the subordinate court however if are only in the nature of judicial comments, i.e. of judicial nature and the observations made cannot be faulted for their lack of sobriety, then in such a case the observation so made by this court cannot be said to be in the nature of adverse remarks or strictures or negative, disparaging remarks personally against the judicial officer.”

It then proceeded to consider the alleged remarks made by the single judge in his four orders and held that there was nothing personal or disparaging in them. Holding that the applications filed by the ADJ are “clearly misconceived”, the Court dismissed the four applications.

However, it did not stop there.

“Ordinarily we would have concluded the matter here itself, however a reading of the averments made in the subject four applications by the applicant/judicial officer has caused us to wonder as to whether the applicant/judicial officer can at all have said what is stated by her in the various paras of her applications.”

Referring to the averments made by the applicant that the single judge was selectively and successively targeting her, the Court observed

“We are indeed perturbed and upset at the language used by the applicant in her applications….the applicant in para 2 has stated  that the learned Single judge of this court is guilty of violation of the norms of judicial propriety. Surely, it is impermissible for the applicant/judicial officer to make such observations against the Single judge of this court who is exercising appellate jurisdiction over the judgment passed by the applicant/judicial officer…..

The applicant/judicial officer has gone much further to the shocking extent of stating in paras 7 and 8 of the application that the learned Single judge is selectively and successively targeting the applicant/judicial officer whereas we have already reproduced the four orders passed by the learner Single Judge of this court to show that each of the orders reflect correct judicial observations…”

Terming the above as “unbelievable and unacceptable”, the Court observed,

“We found it unbelievable and unacceptable that the applicant has crossed all norms of acceptable behavior and made personal allegations against learned single judge of this court…

The applicant judicial officer has proceeded to give herself a certificate that she is one of the hard working judicial officers and that only judicial officers like her who do work and do disposal of cases take the risk of the High Court taking a different view in the orders passed by them…

We really wonder as to how the applicant/judicial officer can descend to the extent of making grave and unfounded averments.”

The Court, therefore, held that it is of the prima facie opinion that ADJ Kamini Lau is guilty of criminal contempt of court as her averments tend to scandalize or lower the authority of the court.

It proceeded to issue notice to Kamini Lau and directed that the matter be listed on February 16 before the Bench hearing criminal contempt petitions.

Read Judgment