Bombay High Court dismisses writ against Justice Dalvi; Says no prosecution for acts performed in course of judicial duties

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a criminal writ petition against sitting judge Justice Dalvi, filed by an advocate, Nilesh Ojha. The petition was filed in response to the initiation of contempt proceedings against Jha and his client Sanjay Punamiya..In the first week of May this year while arguing before Justice Dalvi, Ojha had stated in open court that he was allegedly promised a favourable order if he coughed up Rs. 25 lakh to the husband of the judge. This resulted in Justice Dalvi initiating contempt proceedings. In fact after the allegations were made, Justice Dalvi had placed Punamiya and Ojha in the court’s custody. Ojha then filed a complaint to the CJ about the detention, after which the judge ordered their release..The petitioner challenged the contempt show cause notice, and also asked for the observations made by Justice Dalvi be expunged from the record. Lastly, in his writ petition Ojha sought the initiation of prosecution proceedings against the Bombay High Court Judge, along with compensation of Rs. 1 crore. However, a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice B.P. Colabawalla held the view that the writ petition was not maintainable for challenging the judicial order passed by the Single Judge Bench..The court relied on Section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and Section 77 of Indian Penal Code to highlight the protection afforded to Judges for actions performed in the course of their judicial duties. The court added:.“It is also pertinent to note that Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.’) provides that when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government i.e. the appointing authority.”.As far as the detention of Ojha and his client was concerned, the court opined,.“The Single Judge believed, in good faith, that she had the power given to her by law under the first part of Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to detain Defendant no.1 and his Advocate (present Petitioner) until they obtained the documents upon whom Defendant no.1 had relied in his complaint.”.The petitioner also prayed that CCTV cameras be installed in all courts to avoid such incidences in future and to ensure fair trial and proceedings for the Judge, Advocates and litigants. The court replied saying,.“These proceedings shall continue and the Petitioner cannot be allowed to stall those proceedings on the ground of any such prayer which can be considered only in the future.”