The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by advocate Arun Mishra, alleging bias by the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court. The plea filed under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against Justice Agarwal, who previously served as a judge at the Allahabad High Court.
The Allahabad High Court rejected a petition seeking the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Justice Sunita Agrawal, the current Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court.
A Bench consisting of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I ruled that the petition was entirely “misconceived, frivolous, irresponsible, without merit,” and therefore deserved to be dismissed outright.
Read Also: Chief Justice is Master of Roster, Can’t Transfer Cases: Gujarat HC CJ
The Bench stated in its observations,
“We … have no hesitation to hold that the present criminal contempt application is not only frivolous but also vexatious. In the interest of the proper functioning of this Institution, such applications should be discouraged by all means. More so, when the litigant happens to be an Advocate, from whom the Court is entitled to expect a certain degree of responsibility and restraint as an Officer of the Court,”
Advocate Arun Mishra filed the plea under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against Justice Sunita Agarwal, who previously served as a judge at the Allahabad High Court.
Mishra alleged that a Division Bench, consisting of Justice Agarwal and Justice Jayant Banerji, dismissed a writ petition in which he was representing a client in December 2020 without giving him the opportunity to present his arguments. The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 15,000 in that case.
He further expressed grievance over another order passed by a Bench led by Justice Agarwal on February 23, 2021, in which a case he was handling was “dismissed for want of prosecution.”
Mishra argued that, on the same day, in other cases where the petitioners’ counsel were absent, the matters were simply adjourned and rescheduled.
He claimed that the order against him was passed with “oblique motives” and was “purposely biased” to cause him harm and harassment, adding that it “in fact tantamounts to contempt of her own Court.”
Addressing Mishra’s arguments, the Court noted at the outset that the orders he referred to were issued by the Division Bench led by Justice Agarwal, based on judicial discretion and the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
The Court further clarified that these orders do not, in any way, amount to contempt of her own court, as alleged by the applicant, who sought to initiate criminal contempt proceedings solely against Justice Agarwal.
Additionally, the Court highlighted that the Advocate General had denied consent to initiate contempt proceedings in Mishra’s case. Under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, criminal contempt proceedings can only be initiated by the Supreme Court or High Court either on its own motion or through a motion made by the Advocate General, or with their written consent.
In this context, the Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 15 is to protect the Court’s valuable time from being wasted on frivolous contempt petitions.
The Court observed,
“It is for the mere purpose of ensuring that the High Court is not flooded with frivolous motions but receives only motions of substance. The Advocate General has been entrusted with that function by virtue of his legal training, experience, and the responsibility presumed in the holder of that Office,”
The Court also pointed out that criminal contempt is primarily a matter between the Court and the contemner, not between a citizen and the contemner, and that citizens do not have an unrestricted right to initiate such proceedings.
The Court further noted that citizens do not have an absolute right in this matter, as some individuals may be driven by personal pride or vendetta rather than a genuine intention to protect the Court’s dignity, the Court further stated,
“In order to safeguard such a situation, the framers of the Act thought it that a restriction should be imposed on such applications being filed directly and required them to be filed with the written consent of the Advocate General, who holds a constitutional position and can scrutinize any such application before coming to Court,”
In conclusion, the Court ruled that Justice Agarwal’s conduct did not fall within the definition of criminal contempt by any stretch of the imagination, leading to the dismissal of the plea.
Read Attachment