Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to man who demanded death penalty for High Court judge

The Delhi High Court recently issued a criminal contempt of court notice to a man for filing a petition seeking the death penalty for a judge of the High Court, demanding that charges of Sedition be framed against her and comparing her to a devil. .A plea filed by one Naresh Sharma for a probe into corruption by the Indian government since independence was rejected by a single-judge on July 27, 2023. His appeals against the judgment came up for hearing before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula on August 31. The Bench examined the three appeals, which contained several unsubstantiated and whimsical allegations of criminal acts against the single-judge and the Supreme Court of India.The Court also recorded that Sharma had sought death penalty for government officers by a firing squad.The Division Bench was of the view that such allegations are 'unacceptable' and 'distasteful' and that they are aimed at lowering the authority of the Court.“In our opinion, the statements have been advanced with the malafide intention to interfere with the administration of justice. This Court cannot disregard vilification of this magnitude against a judge of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is fine line of distinction which separates critique from allegations fuelled by disdain and a hostile intent to scandalise the court. The pleadings in the present appeal amount to the latter category and must be taken cognizance of,” the order stated..It then proceeded to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and asked him to explain why criminal contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him.The matter will now be heard by the roster bench on September 18, 2023..Sharma had filed a petition before the single-judge seeking drastic action against government officials. Among a host of allegations levelled by him was the claim that the Indian government since independence has been indulging in crimes affecting the entire economy, some of which were committed in connivance with the Tata group of companies.He claimed to be an alumnus of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and said that various organisations have been established criminally, thereby infringing his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which extends to “right to have public organisations that are not criminally established”..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had rejected his plea on July 27 this year.In a detailed order, the Court also asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to frame rules to regulate the conduct of litigants appearing in person who filed such frivolous petitions..In his appeals, Sharma said that criminal and defamation proceedings should be initiated against the single-judge because by dismissing his petitions, the judge has violated his fundamental rights.He contended that her judgment was not only ‘baseless’ but also 'defamatory,' and therefore, the judge should be charged with criminal defamation.“Criminally charge the Single Bench for a meaningless, defamatory, criminal, seditious judgment on such an important issue under IPC 124A, 166A(b), 167, 192, 193, 217, 405, 409, 499, 500, and Section 16 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), and give her death penalty considering that such blatant trampling of fundamental rights in Constitution of India by a High Court Judge in performing her duty if not punished in the strictest sense could be understood by other Judges to destroy with impunity the Judicial system of this country from within,” he prayed..Appellant Naresh Sharma appeared in person.Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Rakesh Kumar represented the Union of India.Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Sanjeev Bhandari along with advocates Kunal Mitta and Arjit Sharma appeared for the NCT of Delhi. .[Read Orders]