The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasizes the value of healthy criticism as vital for democratic dialogue and improvement in judicial administration. Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Kirti Singh underscore the need to welcome suggestions for enhancing justice administration.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently emphasized the importance of healthy and constructive criticism of its decisions, underscoring that such dialogue and debate are the cornerstones of a thriving democracy. The Bench, consisting of Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Kirti Singh, highlighted the necessity of accepting suggestions for improving the administration of justice with gratitude.
“The Court’s judgments are open to public scrutiny, discussions, and critical analysis, acknowledging that judges, like all individuals, are fallible and prone to errors.”
-the Court stated.
This remark came as the Court decided to drop criminal contempt proceedings initiated in 2023 against Surjeet Singh, who had alleged harassment by a judicial magistrate due to repeated adjournments in his case.
Surjeet Singh, frustrated by the delays in his case, had approached the High Court, seeking directions for a swift decision from the judicial magistrate.
Singh argued that the magistrate’s reluctance to decide the case was causing him undue harassment, stating that-
“He has been subjected to harassment due to the actions of the magistrate.”
However, a single-judge bench of the High Court observed that most adjournments were actually sought by Singh’s counsel. Consequently, the Court issued a show cause notice to Singh for making allegations against the magistrate, and in November 2023, ordered the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against him.
The Division Bench acknowledged that Singh should have been more cautious when approaching the High Court. He was advised to present the facts in alignment with the official records. Nonetheless, the Bench recognized that Singh, like many other citizens, turned to the courts seeking redressal for his grievances.
In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Court addressed the persistent issue of delayed justice, emphasizing the necessity of caution in exercising contempt jurisdiction. The ruling underscored the plight of citizens seeking expeditious legal resolutions and the importance of fair judicial processes.
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.
This statement highlights the backlog of cases burdening the judicial system and the consequent frustration experienced by litigants. The Court acknowledged the respondent’s predicament, attributing the misrepresentation of facts to the stress of prolonged legal battles, but ultimately determined that his actions did not constitute contempt of court.
The Court further elaborated on the nature of the respondent’s actions, particularly in relation to Section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act, clarifying that the arguments presented did not amount to contempt.
“The pleadings in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not indicate malice or bad faith. While the wording could have been improved, it is challenging to conclude that they were malicious. The respondent simply sought expedited resolution of his case.”
– it explained.
This explanation reinforced the notion that while the respondent’s petition could have been more articulate, it did not display malicious intent. The primary objective was the swift resolution of the case, a sentiment that resonated with the Court’s understanding of the respondent’s desperation for justice.
The Court also advised against judicial oversensitivity, warning that it could discourage citizens from seeking legal recourse.
“Being overly sensitive to the pleadings could discourage ordinary citizens from seeking redressal of their grievances through the Court.”
This observation underscored the potential chilling effect that overly stringent interpretations of contempt could have on public access to justice. The Court emphasized that deterrents to legal redress should be avoided to maintain public trust in the judicial system.
In discussing the appropriate circumstances for invoking contempt jurisdiction, the Court highlighted the need for a measured approach.
“The contempt jurisdiction should only be invoked in rare or exceptional cases involving interference with the administration of justice or actions that scandalize or undermine the authority of the Court. The respondent seems to be an ordinary citizen seeking prompt justice in the District Court. Courts should encourage citizens to approach them to voice their grievances and seek justice, aligning with their commitment to inclusive justice.”
– the Court said.
ALSO READ:Gujarat High Court Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Policemen in Kheda Flogging Case
This statement encapsulated the Court’s stance that contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for severe instances that significantly disrupt the administration of justice or damage the Court’s authority. Encouraging citizen engagement with the judicial system was deemed essential for inclusive justice.
Conclusively, the Court ruled that Singh’s actions did not meet the threshold for criminal contempt.
Amicus Curiae Tanu Bedi, along with Advocates Pushp Jain and Akhil Dadwal, represented the matter. Advocates Tushar Tanwar and Sanjeev Kumar defended the contemnor, highlighting the collaborative legal efforts in resolving the case.
