The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Port Blair has dismissed a contempt petition against a Joint Civil Judge, holding that contempt is not a substitute for an appeal or revision and that a litigant has no licence to make reckless allegations against a judicial officer’s personal integrity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Port Blair: The Calcutta High Court on Monday dismissed a contempt petition filed against a Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Port Blair, holding that a litigant cannot use contempt proceedings to challenge a judicial order or to attack the judge who passed it, and imposed costs of Rs 40,000 on the petitioner [Manoj Paul v. Pabitra Sen].
The Circuit Bench at Port Blair of Justice Prasenjit Biswas heard the matter. The allegations made by the petitioner against the judicial officer are the petitioner’s contentions; the Court did not find them established.
Background
The petitioner, Manoj Paul, had filed a money suit before the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Port Blair, which was dismissed for default on August 21, 2026. Dissatisfied, he sent an email to the District and Sessions Judge containing allegations against the judicial officer who had dismissed the suit. In the contempt petition against the officer, Pabitra Sen, he alleged personal misconduct and cast aspersions on the officer’s integrity through correspondence and remarks said to have been made during virtual proceedings.
The remedy lies before the prescribed forum
Justice Biswas held that a litigant aggrieved by a judicial order has recourse to the forum prescribed by law, and that contempt is not that forum:
“An order passed by a Judicial Officer in lawful discharge of judicial functions is required to be challenged before the forum prescribed by law.”
“The remedy of contempt cannot ordinarily be employed as a substitute for an appeal or revision.”
No licence to make reckless allegations
The Court drew a distinction between questioning a judicial order and attacking the judge. A litigant may contend that an order is erroneous or contrary to law before the appropriate forum, but:
“The freedom available to a litigant to question a judicial order does not confer an unrestricted licence to make reckless allegations against the personal integrity of a Judicial Officer.”
Directions
The Court dismissed the contempt petition and imposed costs of Rs 40,000, to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Andaman, within two months. The petitioner was cautioned to maintain dignity and to pursue his grievances through the appropriate legal channels.
Why The Calcutta High Court Order Matters
The order restates two settled limits on contempt jurisdiction: that it cannot stand in for an appeal or revision against a judicial order, and that the right to challenge an order does not extend to unrestrained attacks on the integrity of the judge who passed it. The remedy against a perceived error remains the appellate or revisional forum.
Case Title: Manoj Paul v. Pabitra Sen | CPAN 66 of 2026
Bench: Justice Prasenjit Biswas (Circuit Bench at Port Blair)
Date of Order: October 5, 2026