Can a private lawyer set criminal contempt against Ratna Singh in motion over X posts about a Saket Courts judge? A letter to Delhi’s Standing Counsel (Criminal) under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act is testing that route, with the posts allegedly saying the judge was “following order from master”.
New Delhi: Asking the Delhi Government’s law officer to consider criminal contempt against Ratna Singh, legal affairs head of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), Advocate Kausik Chatterjee has written to the Standing Counsel (Criminal) of the Government of NCT of Delhi over posts on X that allegedly said a judge of the Saket Courts was “following order from master” [Request by Advocate Kausik Chatterjee for consent to initiate criminal contempt against Ratna Singh].
Chatterjee’s letter invokes Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Nothing has been initiated yet, and the Standing Counsel has not decided on the request.
After the October 10 order
The posts are said to have come after a Saket court, on October 10, turned down Singh’s application seeking registration of an FIR against police personnel. In that application, Singh had alleged that police confined her in her car ahead of the October 10 protest in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. What Chatterjee’s request takes up is what she wrote on X about the judge once that order was passed.
Why a law officer is asked, and not the High Court
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act lays down who can start criminal contempt proceedings. For contempt of a subordinate court, Section 15(2) lets the High Court proceed in two ways: on a reference from the subordinate court itself, or on a motion by the Advocate-General or, for a Union territory, by whichever Law Officer the Central Government notifies for the purpose.
This means a private person cannot go straight to the High Court for criminal contempt of a subordinate court. The course open to a member of the public is to approach the designated law officer, who then decides whether to move a motion, and that is the step Chatterjee’s letter asks for. Separately, the High Court may take notice of such a contempt on its own motion, as the Supreme Court recognised in S.K. Sarkar v. Vinay Chandra Misra (1981).
Nothing here has been tested
The request is built on Chatterjee’s own reading of the posts. Ratna Singh’s response is not available, and no authority has examined whether the posts amount to contempt. Singh’s allegations against the police are likewise untested, and the reasons for the October 10 order rejecting her application have not been made public.
Request: Advocate Kausik Chatterjee to the Standing Counsel (Criminal), Government of NCT of Delhi
Provision invoked: Section 15(2), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Subject: X posts by CJP legal head Ratna Singh about a Saket Courts judge