The Gujarat High Court recommended criminal contempt proceedings against suspended Additional District Judge GR Soni, observing that his allegations against a senior judge amounted to interference with judicial proceedings and obstruction of justice, thereby constituting “criminal contempt”.
The Gujarat High Court has recently recommended the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against suspended Additional District Judge GR Soni after he made allegations suggesting that a senior High Court judge exercised influence over junior judges in the court system.
The observations came in the case which was heard by a division bench comprising Justice NS Sanjay Gowda and Justice JL Odedra.
Factual Backgrounds:
Suspended Additional District Judge GR Soni was placed under suspension in view of a contemplated departmental proceeding against him on 16.12.2024.
He approached the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the departmental inquiry initiated against him. He also sought reinstatement, transfer of the inquiry to another senior judge, cancellation of his suspension order, and challenged the rejection of his plea seeking discharge from the disciplinary proceedings.
A charge-sheet containing six allegations was issued against Soni. The charges alleged that he developed an intimate relationship with an outsourced clerk, extended financial assistance to her, and used court staff to support her business activities. Additional allegations included obstructing CCTV functioning, irregular court sittings, using a mobile phone during proceedings, and engaging in prayers while presiding over court.
The proceedings also included allegations that Soni threatened peons to retract statements recorded before the President of the Industrial Court at Ahmedabad. After challenging his suspension before the Supreme Court of India through a writ petition, he later withdrew the matter with liberty to pursue remedies permissible under law. Several applications were subsequently filed challenging the inquiry process and seeking adjournments.
During the course of proceedings, Soni submitted written arguments on affidavit without the knowledge or approval of his legal counsel, despite being represented by Senior Advocate Percy Kavina and advocate Bhargav Hasurkar. His lawyers later informed the Court that they had no role in drafting or filing the affidavit and formally distanced themselves from its contents.
The Court specifically referred to paragraph two of Soni’s written submissions, which stated:
“(2) The purpose to go to Hon’ble Supreme Court for relief prayed for as I lost confidence in the Gujarat High Court because the senior most Hon’ble High Court Judge Mr. I J Vora is having good control over all branches of High Court and my grievance against Hon’ble Justice Mr. Vora. As I worked at Rajkot under the then Principal District Judge Shri I J Vora in the year 2012 for six month and I strongly believe that Hon’ble Justice Mr. Vora is capable to instruct/direct to his junior judge. As Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to approach the High Court on the judicial side and hence the petitioner filed the present Special Civil Application.”
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC Slams Magistrate Ignoring SC Bail Guidelines: “Unfortunate & Unwarranted”
ISSUE: (2) Whether the statements made in para 2 of the written submissions are contemptuous and merit initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioner?
Observations of the Court:
The Bench took serious note of certain statements made in written submissions filed before the Court. In those submissions, Soni alleged that a senior judge of the High Court exercised substantial control over junior judges and different branches of the High Court administration.
The Court noted,
“He is asserting that a senior judge of this Court has good control over all the branches of the High Court and it is his belief that this senior judge is capable of instructing or directing his junior judges,”
The Bench observed that such allegations had the effect of scandalising the institution and undermining the authority of the Court.
The Court said,
“This would also amount to an act which tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings and also tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. In other words, these assertions clearly constitute a criminal contempt,”
Accordingly, the Bench directed that the matter be placed before the division bench dealing with contempt of court matters for consideration of initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Soni. The suspended judicial officer has also been directed to remain personally present before the contempt bench on June 15.
Apart from examining the contempt aspect, the High Court also dealt with Soni’s challenge to the disciplinary proceedings on merits. Soni had argued that a departmental inquiry against a judicial officer could only be initiated if there was a formal written complaint supported by an affidavit and backed by verifiable material.
Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the disciplinary authority was only required to form an opinion that grounds existed for initiating an inquiry.
The Bench further clarified that guidelines requiring complaints against judicial officers to be accompanied by sworn affidavits were applicable only to complaints made by litigants and not to cases where the disciplinary authority itself decided to initiate proceedings.
“This requirement, issued in the form of a guideline, in relation to complaints by litigants against the judicial officers will have no application whatsoever in respect of the cases where the Disciplinary Authority has formed an opinion that there are good and sufficient reasons to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against a judicial officer.”
The Court also observed that the disciplinary authority for judicial officers is the High Court headed by the Chief Justice.
Addressing another argument raised by Soni regarding the alleged vagueness of charges framed against him, the Bench held that such objections could not be entertained at a stage when the disciplinary inquiry was already underway.
Earlier, Soni had approached the Supreme Court of India seeking transfer of the inquiry to an independent senior judge or to a judge from another High Court outside Gujarat. However, that petition was withdrawn on January 12.
Senior Advocate Percy Kavina along with advocate Bhargav Hasurkar appeared on behalf of Soni. Senior counsel Gautam Joshi along with advocate Vikas V Nair represented the Gujarat High Court.
Case Title: Giriishkumar Rameshchandra Soni v High Court Gujarat Through Registrar General
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE