Judges are not superhumans; constructive criticism welcome: Punjab & Haryana High Court in contempt case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently said that healthy and constructive criticism of a court’s decisions should always be welcome, as dialogue and debate are hallmarks of a democracy [Court on its Own Motion v. Surjeet Singh]..A Bench of Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Kirti Singh said that suggestions towards improvement in administration of justice should always be taken with gratitude. “The judgments of the Court are in public domain and open to discussions and critical analysis. Judges are not super humans and do commit mistakes,” the Court said..It made the comments while dropping criminal contempt proceedings initiated in 2023 against one Surjeet Singh, who argued that he was facing harassment at hands of a judicial magistrate due to repeated adjournments. Aggrieved by the delay in disposal of his case, Singh had then approached the High Court seeking directions for expeditious decision by the judicial magistrate..In his plea before the High Court, Singh argued that the magistrate was not inclined to decide the case due to which “he has been harassed by the actions of magistrate”.A single-judge of the High Court had found that the adjournments were sought mostly by the counsel representing Singh, and issued show cause notice to him for making allegations against the magistrate. The Court in November 2023 ordered initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Singh. .The Division Bench agreed that Singh ought to have been a more circumspect while approaching the High Court. He should have pleaded the facts in consonance with the record, it said. However, it emphasised that Singh is one among many citizens who approach the courts for redressal of their grievances.“The dockets of the Courts are clogged and often cases are not decided speedily or as speedily as expected by the litigant. The respondent appears to be a hapless citizen who is awaiting justice at the portals of the District Court and in these circumstances he appears to have transgressed by not setting out the correct factual backdrop. However, we do not find that the action of the respondent would amount to contempt of Court.”It also opined that the argument made by Singh in relation to the judicial officer would not amount to contempt of court in terms of Section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act. “The pleadings in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not suggest that they are malafide or not in good faith. The pleadings could have been better worded but it is difficult to arrive at the conclusion that they were malafide. The respondent was only seeking expeditious disposal of his case,” it explained. .The Court further advised against judges being oversensitive to the pleadings of citizens and stressed that contempt jurisdiction should not be exercised at the drop of a hat."If we were to be oversensitive to the pleadings it would deter an ordinary citizen to approach the Court for redressal of his grievance."If the litigant does not state the true facts of the case or tries to mislead the Court, then the relief sought can be declined or he/she can be burdened with costs, it observed.“It [contempt jurisdiction] ought to be invoked only in rare or exceptional cases where there is interference with administration of justice or such action amounts to scandalizing or lowering the authority of the Court. The respondent appears to be a hapless citizen who is awaiting speedy justice at the portals of the District Court. The Courts ought to encourage the citizens to knock its doors to ventilate their grievances and seek justice which would be in consonance with its endeavour towards inclusive justice,” the Court said..In this backdrop, the Court said that Singh’s actions did not constitute criminal contempt of court.Amicus Curiae Tanu Bedi with Advocates Pushp Jain and Akhil Dadwal appeared in the matter.Advocates Tushar Tanwar and Sanjeev Kumar represented the contemnor..[Read Judgment]