No contempt case has been registered yet, but Criminal Contempt Against CJP’s Ratna Singh now carries the prima facie consent of the Delhi Government’s Additional Standing Counsel over her X posts saying a Saket Court judge was “serving the master”. The final call rests with the Delhi High Court.
New Delhi: Questioning a judicial order is one thing; attributing an outside master to the judge who passed it is another, the Delhi Government’s Additional Standing Counsel has said while consenting, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to criminal contempt proceedings being initiated against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) legal affairs head Ratna Singh over two posts on X in which she said a Saket Court judge was “serving the master” and “following order from master”. The consent is prima facie and remains subject to the independent consideration of the Delhi High Court [Kausik Chatterjee re: Ratna Singh].
Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha gave the opinion in a communication dated November 2, 2026, addressed to advocate Kausik Chatterjee, who had sought the consent. The posts related to proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey of the South-East District, Saket Courts.
One consent, one refusal
Sinha treated the complaint in two parts. For the two posts on the Saket proceedings, he held that they prima facie attracted Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which covers publications that scandalise, or tend to scandalise, or lower, or tend to lower, the authority of any court. For the later publications raised in a supplementary representation, he declined to find contempt.
Those publications, he found, were principally directed at the conduct of Delhi Police and the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system, and could not be treated as criminal contempt merely because they voiced strong criticism of those authorities. He also clarified that the October 21 order of the Special Executive Magistrate did not record any personal apology or undertaking by Singh and contained no finding of contempt against her.
The posts and the order behind them
Singh had moved the Saket Courts seeking registration of an FIR against police personnel who, she alleged, wrongfully confined her and prevented her from joining the CJP’s proposed protest at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, for which Delhi Police had denied permission. The Chief Judicial Magistrate declined the relief she sought on October 10, 2026. Her allegations against the police remain untested.
Singh then published two posts on X expressing dissatisfaction with the order. In one, she wrote that the judge was “serving the master”, had gone for a break or meeting four times during the hearing, and had passed an order “without any application of law”. In the other, she wrote that Delhi Police and the judge were both “following order from master”.
Chatterjee submitted two representations seeking criminal contempt proceedings, on October 14 and October 28. The first concerned the posts on the Saket proceedings. The second, a supplementary representation, objected to Singh’s later publications on preventive proceedings involving CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka before Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj, including an X post of October 16, a news agency report of October 19, an order of October 21 and an X post of October 22.
Where he drew the line
The Standing Counsel distinguished between questioning the correctness of a judicial decision and attributing extraneous influence or improper motive to the judge who passed it. In his view, the words “serving the master” and “following order from master” were not confined to the merits of the order or the conduct of the hearing, but prima facie suggested that the judicial officer was acting on instructions from an external authority rather than exercising independent judicial discretion.
“Such imputations, in my opinion, strike at the independence and impartiality of the judicial process.”
He said an allegation of that kind, made publicly against an identifiable judicial officer without any factual foundation being disclosed, could create the impression that decisions turn on considerations unrelated to the merits, and could lower the authority of the court. He noted that the posts were on a publicly accessible platform and drew considerable attention, adding that circulation alone would not amount to criminal contempt but was relevant to their likely impact on public confidence. He relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in P.N. Duda v. V.P. Shiv Shankar and Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
A gatekeeping step, not a finding
Under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court may act on criminal contempt of a subordinate court on a reference made by that court or on a motion by the Advocate General or, in a Union Territory, the Law Officer designated for the purpose. A private complainant therefore has to persuade that officer first. The Standing Counsel’s opinion is that gatekeeping step, not a finding that contempt was committed.
Sinha consented to appropriate steps being taken under Section 15(2) of the Act for initiating criminal contempt proceedings through a motion by the competent Law Officer. He made clear that his opinion was confined to the prima facie nature of the allegations and was not a final determination of contempt, which rests with the Delhi High Court. No contempt case has yet been registered or heard, and Singh will be entitled to answer the allegations if a motion is moved. Her response to the consent is not yet on record.
The opinion also restates the settled distinction in contempt law: fair and even harsh criticism of a judgment, or of the police and executive authorities, is protected speech, while attributing an outside master or improper motive to a named judge may cross into scandalising the court. Whether Singh’s posts fall on the wrong side of that line is a question the Delhi High Court will decide independently, after hearing her.
Matter: Consent under Section 15(2), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, on the representations of advocate Kausik Chatterjee against Ratna Singh
Authority: Amol Sinha, Additional Standing Counsel, Government of NCT of Delhi
Date of Consent: November 2, 2026
Underlying order: Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey, South-East District, Saket Courts, October 10, 2026
