Case Note & Summary
Suo-motu criminal contempt proceedings were initiated by the Bombay High Court against an individual who, through his Facebook profile, published a series of posts containing scurrilous, highly offensive, and malicious allegations against sitting and retired judges of the Court. The posts included statements that judges had sold justice, that bail orders could be obtained at specific rates akin to a menu card, that some lady judges acted like prostitutes, that retired judges were middlemen, and that the Court suppressed evidence of corruption by banning mobile phones. A sitting judge brought these posts to the notice of the Registrar General, and on the direction of the Chief Justice, the suo-motu contempt petition was registered. A Division Bench initially issued show cause notices under Rule 9(1) of the Contempt of Court (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994, observing that the writings prima facie constituted gross criminal contempt. The matter was subsequently placed before a larger Bench of five judges, and later, an administrative order constituted a Bench of three judges to hear the case. The Court examined the scope of its contempt power under Article 215 of the Constitution, emphasising that it is elastic, unfettered, and not trammelled by ordinary legislation. It held that the summary procedure adopted, where the contemnor was made aware of the gist of the allegations and given an opportunity to be heard, complied with the principles of natural justice. Citing the maxim salus populi suprema lex, the Court stressed that fearless and independent justice administration requires protection from scathing attacks that scandalise the judiciary and lower its dignity. The respondent, appearing in person and filing affidavits-in-reply, did not challenge the procedure. The Court noted that such publications on social media pose a serious threat to the rule of law and the orderly administration of justice. The judgment excerpt concludes at a procedural stage where the respondent was reported to be in judicial custody in another case, and the Court was in the process of final adjudication on the contempt charge. The final decision and any punishment imposed are not part of the extracted text.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court – Criminal Contempt – Article 215, Constitution of India – Contempt Jurisdiction and Power – The High Court's contempt power is inherent, elastic, unfettered, and not limited by ordinary legislation; it exists to uphold the dignity and authority of the court – Held that such power must be exercised sparingly but effectively to prevent flagrant onslaught on judicial independence (Paras 7-9) B) Contempt of Court – Suo-Motu Proceedings – Rule 9(1), Contempt of Court (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 – Notice and Procedure – The test is whether the contemnor is aware of the specific allegations; it is not always necessary to formulate a charge with precise specificity; summary procedure does not violate natural justice provided the contemnor is given an opportunity to be heard – Held that the procedure adopted, including issuance of show cause notice based on the gist of allegations, was valid (Paras 6-7) C) Constitutional Law – Judicial Independence – Articles 215, 246, Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 77, List III Entry 14, Constitution of India; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (by implication) – Protection of Judiciary from Scandalising Attacks – The judiciary cannot be subjected to scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory, or malicious allegations that lower its dignity and interfere with the administration of justice; such attacks constitute a challenge to the supremacy of the rule of law – Held that the respondent's Facebook posts equating bail orders to a menu card and alleging judges act like prostitutes and land-grabbers are grossly contemptuous and tend to scandalise the court (Paras 2-5, 8) D) Legal Maxim – Salus Populi Suprema Lex – Application in Contempt Law – The welfare of the people is the supreme law, achievable only when justice is administered lawfully, judicially, without fear or favour, which in turn requires that respect for the judiciary is fostered and maintained – Held that the respondent's conduct undermined the public trust reposed in the judiciary and the orderly administration of justice (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent committed criminal contempt by publishing scandalous and scurrilous allegations against sitting and retired judges of the Bombay High Court on Facebook, and whether such posts scandalised the judiciary and interfered with administration of justice.
Law Points
- contempt power under Article 215 is elastic
- unfettered
- not restricted by ordinary law
- gist of allegations sufficient for notice
- precise charge not always necessary
- summary procedure permissible if opportunity of hearing given
- salus populi suprema lex
- judicial independence and fearless discharge of duty must be protected from scurrilous attacks
