Independent judiciary not only independent from executive, but also from external forces: Supreme Court in contempt case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasised that the independence of the judiciary lay not just in being free from executive pressures, but also in being free from external forces. [Krishna Kumar Raghuvanshi v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur through Registrar General].A vacation bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prashant Kumar Mishra remarked that contemnors who had cast aspersions against judicial officers to influence cases deserved imprisonment."You have casted allegations against a judicial officer? You deserve to learn hard lessons. An independent judiciary is not only independence from the executive but also independent of external forces. Justice cannot be bought like this. Judges of lower courts have to decide cases freely. Of course imprisonment is warranted. How can he malign the image of judicial officer on social media?" Justice Trivedi said..Counsel for the petitioner then suggested that the fine may be increased rather than his client being put behind bars.The Bench, however, was not moved."Not at all. He should be taken into imprisonment if not done yet. He circulated WhatsApp messages etc. We are here to impart justice and not show mercy! Even a small person has to learn some hard lessons. Plea dismissed.".The appellant before the apex court was a man who managed a small temple in Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh. He had challenged contempt proceedings initiated against him by the Madhya Pradesh High Court for maligning the judiciary through a WhatsApp message. On May 15, the High Court had sentenced him to 10 days' simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000..The case stemmed from a dispute between two parties over the management of a temple trust. The two sides were initially directed by a civil court to share the management of the trust in equal proportion. The appellant then challenged this order before the Additional District Judge (ADJ). However, after the ADJ did not hear the appeal for years, the parties reached a settlement.After the parties moved the High Court in this regard, the ADJ allowed the appeal. Through this order, additional conditions were imposed on the appellant. The appellant then once again approached the High Court, which stayed the lower court's order.Subsequently, the appellant filed a complaint with the High Court's Vigilance Registrar against the ADJ, claiming that the order amounted to an abuse of his office. The complaint was inadvertently shared over WhatsApp and even sent to the State government. Meanwhile, the complaint was rejected after an inquiry was conducted.The High Court then initiated civil and criminal contempt proceedings against the appellant after a reference by the concerned ADJ, leading to the order under challenge..Advocates Akshay Sapre, Abhijeet Swaroop, Phalguni Nigam, Aamir Siraj and Vinam Gupta represented the contemnor.