The Bombay High Court stated that personal comments about illegal benefits directed at a judge do not constitute criminal contempt of court.
The Bombay High Court rejected a contempt case brought by a Thane Civil Judge against Manubhai Hargovandas Patel, who accused the Judge of demanding bribes. The Court stated that such personal comments do not fall under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The High Court reviewed a reference from the 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, under the same section of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Division Bench, led by Justice Manjusha Deshpande and Justice Bharati Dangre, noted that while the judicial officer had reasons to postpone the case, the litigant became frustrated with the delays and made personal accusations against the Judge.
A.P.P. M. M. Deshmukh represented the State/Petitioner. The Referral Judge explained that Manubhai Hargovandas Patel, the only plaintiff in a Summary Civil Suit, had requested an ex-parte Decree during his in-person proceedings for money recovery. However, the case was postponed for further arguments and later transferred to the 4th Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane. On January 4, 2024, Patel sought a hearing, which could not be accommodated, leading to another adjournment. Despite ongoing hearings, the plaintiff was informed of the next date due to his age. Following this, he made allegations against the Judge regarding illegal payments for hearing his case. In response to these contemptuous remarks, a show cause notice was issued to him.
The Referral Judge informed the Court that the plaintiff submitted another Application containing offensive comments and unfounded claims about the referral Judge demanding illegal payments. In response, the plaintiff did not apologize for these remarks and instead made further disrespectful statements. The Court was also made aware that in 2021, the plaintiff had filed an application with accusations against the Court to prevent any orders from being issued in the case. Given these circumstances, the referral Judge asked the Court to consider the plaintiff’s behavior. After reviewing the Reference, Show Cause Notice, and the plaintiff’s Reply, the Bench observed that the plaintiff directed personal accusations at the judicial officer due to the delays in the litigation process.
The High Court acknowledged that while the judicial officer’s decision to postpone the matter might have been reasonable, the litigant became frustrated with the delays, leading to personal accusations against the referral Judge regarding illegal payments for hearing the case. The Bench concluded that these personal remarks did not constitute “causing interference” in the administration of justice or diminish the Court’s authority, and therefore, did not fall under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of the Courts Act. As a result, the Bench found no grounds for the Reference and rejected it.
Cause Title: Mr. S. B. Patil v. Mr. Manubhai Hargovandas Patel [Neutral Citation- 2024:BHC-AS:41565-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioner/State: A.P.P. M. M. Deshmukh
