The Jharkhand High Court closed a suo motu contempt case against the Advocate General and Additional Advocate General. The case stemmed from alleged derogatory remarks made against the judiciary during a virtual hearing. The court found no prima facie case of contempt and decided to close the matter. This decision highlights the importance of maintaining decorum in legal proceedings.
Jharkhand: The State’s Advocate General (AG) Rajiv Ranjan and Additional Advocate General (AAG) Sachin Kumar discharged by the Jharkhand High Court in a suo motu criminal contempt of court case, filed in 2021.
The Bench, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Ambuj Nath, stated that when a High Court exercises its authority to penalize contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution, it must adhere to the procedural guidelines outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act.
Read Also: Judges Rescuing from Hearing, Negative Impact on Independence of Judiciary: Kerala HC
The court remarked,
“It is beyond doubt that the writ Court had the authority to issue an order on August 13, 2021, after issuing a show-cause notice to the parties and giving them an opportunity to explain. However, this legal requirement was not brought to the court’s attention, making the reference dated September 1, 2021, susceptible to challenge.”
The AG and AAG faced suo motu contempt proceedings after the AG requested the recusal of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi in a particular case. The AG claimed to have overheard an opposing counsel making a statement suggesting that the case would be favourably decided. Justice Dwivedi took objection to the AG’s request and recorded it in his order.
When the judge asked the AG to submit his claims in an affidavit, the AG refused and insisted that his oral submissions were sufficient. The Court made it clear that a judge is not obligated to recuse from a case solely based on the submission of the Advocate General. However, despite this, the judge referred the matter to the Chief Justice for an administrative decision on listing. Interestingly, the Chief Justice assigned the case back to the same judge.
In an order issued in relation to the matter, Justice Dwivedi remarked,
“The behaviour of the two law officers amounted to intimidation and threats against the court.”
The judgment stated,
“Both individuals have petitioned aggressively and intimidated the Court, displaying behavior that led the Court to perceive it as a form of coercion. These actions occurred openly in the courtroom, witnessed by senior and junior members of the bar.”
Despite repeated requests from the Court, the Advocate General (AG) and Additional Advocate General (AAG) failed to submit their responses or offer any apology. This failure led the Court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the two legal officers on its own accord.
Encouraging advocates to uphold dignity, the Court emphasized,
“It is the shared responsibility of Bar members to uphold the rule of law. Any behavior aiming to stir unnecessary controversy within the Court undermines public trust in the judicial system and diminishes the Court’s authority. Such actions will be seen as a deliberate effort to impede justice and hinder the Court’s function.”
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the contempt proceedings upon discovering that the process outlined in the Contempt of Courts Act had not been adhered to. Concluding its statement, it remarked,
“In simple terms, a reference under section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the opposing parties is not sustainable without framing charges and providing them with an opportunity to clarify their actions.”
Senior Advocate Vijoy Pratap Singh and Advocate Ramit Satender served as Amicus Curiae.
Senior Advocate Umesh Prasad Singh, along with Advocates Piyush Chitresh, Surabhi, and Ravi Prakash Mishra, represented the law officers.
Read Judgement: [Court on its own motion v. Rajiv Ranjan]
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
