Allahabad High Court rejects plea alleging bias by Gujarat High Court CJ

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking initiation of criminal contempt of court proceedings against Justice Sunita Agrawal, who is presently the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court.

A Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I said the plea was entirely misconceived, frivolous, irresponsible, without merit and therefore liable to be rejected outright

"We ... have no hesitation to hold that the present criminal contempt application is not only frivolous but is also vexatious. In the interest of proper functioning of this Institution, such applications should be discouraged by all means. More so, when the litigant happens to be an Advocate from whom the Court is entitled to except certain degree of responsibility and restraint as an Officer of the Court," the Court observed.

The plea was moved by advocate Arun Mishra under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Justice Agarwal, who was previously a judge at the Allahabad High Court.

Mishra alleged that a writ petition in which he was a lawyer was dismissed in December 2020 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Agarwal and Justice Jayant Banerji without allowing him the opportunity to present his arguments. A cost of ₹15,000 was also imposed in that case.

Mishra was also aggrieved by another order passed by a Bench led by Justice Agarwal on February 23, 2021, where a case in which he was representing the petitioner was 'dismissed for want of prosecution'.

He argued that, on the same day, in other petitions where the counsel for the petitioners did not appear, the cases were adjourned and scheduled for another date.

He alleged that the order was purposely passed in a biased manner with oblique motives just to harass and damage him. He also claimed that the same "in fact tantamounts to contempt of her own Court."

Dealing with Mishra's arguments, the Court at the outset observed that the orders referred to by him were issued by the Division Bench, presided over by Justice Agrawal, in the exercise of its judicial discretion and based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The same does not in any way amount to contempt of her own court as claimed by the applicant, who seeks criminal contempt proceedings solely against Justice Agarwal, it added.

The Court also noted that in Mishra's case, the Advocate General had denied the consent for initiating the contempt proceedings.

Under Section 15(1) of the Contempt Act, the Supreme Court or High Court can take action of criminal contempt on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or another person with the consent of Advocate General in writing.

In this context, the Court said the whole object of prescribing procedural mode of taking cognizance under Section 15 of the Act is to safeguard the valuable time of the Court from being wasted by the frivolous contempt petitions

"It is for mere purpose of ensuring that the High Court is not flooded with frivolous motions but receives only motions of substance. The Advocate General has been entrusted with that function by virtue of his legal training, experience and the responsibility presumed in the holder of that Office," it added.

A criminal contempt is primarily a matter between the Court and the contemner and not a matter between a citizen and the contemner, the Court said further.

It added that citizens have no unfettered right in this respect because in some cases, a person may act more out of personal prestige and vendetta than out of motive to uphold the dignity of Court.

"In order to safeguard such a situation, the framers of the Act thought it that a restriction should be imposed on such applications being filed directly and required them to be filed with the written consent of the Advocate General, who holds a constitutional position and can scrutinize any such application before coming to Court," the Court said.

Concluding that Justice Agarwal's act and conduct by no stretch of imagination falls within the definition of criminal contempt, the Court dismissed the plea.

[Read Judgment]