A group of senior advocates, academics, and former officials wrote to the Chief Justice of India raising concerns over allegations by Arvind Kejriwal against a Delhi High Court judge, warning such claims without evidence threaten judicial independence.
NEW DELHI: A group of senior advocates, academics, and former public officials have written to the Chief Justice of India expressing alarm over recent public allegations directed at a serving judge of the Delhi High Court and seeking urgent measures to protect the judiciary’s dignity and independence.
The authors refer to reports that former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal accused a sitting woman judge and requested the transfer of his matter. They describe such public conduct as profoundly troubling, asserting that making allegations about a judge without substantiated evidence undermines judicial discipline and institutional integrity.
The representation reiterates the well-established legal principle that a litigant cannot “choose the Bench” before which a case is placed. It warns that leveling charges of bias or impropriety against a sitting judge without evidence risks eroding public confidence in the administration of justice and weakening the authority of the courts.
The signatories caution that if such behavior goes unchecked, it may encourage litigants to attempt to discredit judges or exert pressure on judicial bodies whenever decisions are unfavorable to them.
They urge the CJI to take note and consider appropriate measures, including initiating suo motu proceedings if warranted. In a related petition, members of the Bar have sought initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings concerning the allegations against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.
The petition stresses that judicial independence is a constitutional cornerstone and that public trust depends on the perception of judges’ impartiality and integrity.
Citing the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the signatories note that criminal contempt covers acts that “scandalise or lower the authority of courts” or interfere with judicial proceedings. They refer to authorities such as In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) and the Prashant Bhushan contempt matter (2020) to contend that unfounded accusations against judges constitute interference with the administration of justice.
While recognizing that litigants have access to remedies like appeals, reviews, and transfer petitions, the representation emphasizes that these procedural avenues must not be used to publicly impugn the integrity of a sitting judge.
The petition requests the Supreme Court to assess whether the statements in question fall within its contempt jurisdiction and to take necessary action to preserve institutional credibility.
Among those who signed the representation are Prof Sunaina Singh (Former Vice Chancellor, Nalanda University); Prof Neerja Gupta (Vice Chancellor, Gujarat University); Prof Vinay Kapoor (Former Vice Chancellor, Dr BR Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat); Nirmal Kaur (Retd. IPS, Former Director General of Police, Jharkhand); Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate; Monika Arora; Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate and Former President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association; Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate and Former Secretary of the Delhi High Court Bar Association; Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate; and advocates Avantika Pandey, Riya, Atulesh Saran Mathur, Dinesh Bhardwaj, Ramanand Gupta, Sanjay Dewan, Anish Dewan, Gaurav Bhardwaj, Amit Acharya, Girdhar Govind, among others.
The representation concludes by asking the CJI to take appropriate steps to reaffirm that the dignity and independence of the judiciary are inviolable, underscoring that the resilience of a constitutional democracy depends on preserving respect for its institutions.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
