Contempt Petition Under S.15 Contempt of Courts Act Not Maintainable Without AG's Consent, Can Be Treated as 'Information': Madras High Court - 2025-06-14

Madras High Court: Contempt Plea Without AG's Nod Not Maintainable, But Can Be 'Information' for Suo Motu Action

Chennai: The Madras High Court, in a significant order underscoring judicial restraint and transparency, has ruled that a criminal contempt petition filed by a private individual under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is not maintainable if the Advocate General (AG) has refused consent. However, Justice S.M.Subramaniam clarified that such a petition can be treated as "information" by the Court, which may then decide whether to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings.

The Court dismissed a contempt petition that sought action against a respondent for allegedly scandalizing a Judge of the High Court and attributing bias to court orders, thereby interfering with the administration of justice.

Case Background and AG's Refusal

The petitioner had initially approached the Advocate General seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings. The AG, by an order dated September 22, 2023 (Consent Petition No.15 of 2023), declined to grant consent. One key reason cited by the AG was that the concerned Judge, Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh , whose orders were criticized, had himself "refused to initiate any Contempt of Court action by stating that the Court was not inclined to take any action against anyone, who criticised his orders of suo moto revisions."

Following this refusal, the petitioner directly filed the contempt petition before the High Court.

Maintainability of the Petition

The primary legal question before Justice Subramaniam was the maintainability of such a petition in the absence of the AG's consent. Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act stipulates that the Supreme Court or a High Court can take action for criminal contempt either on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate-General (or other specified law officers), or by any other person with the written consent of the Advocate-General.

The Court observed:

"In the absence of consent from the Advocate General as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act, a petition moved by a third person before the Court for initiation of criminal contempt must by treated only as “information” on which the High Court might or might not take Suo motu action..."

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in P.N.Duda vs. V.P.Shiv Shankar and others (1988) , the High Court noted that while the AG's decision to withhold consent can be subject to judicial review, if such a petition comes before the court, it should be treated as information.

"Thus, we are of the considered opinion that against the rejection of a consent petition by the Advocate General, power of judicial review can be exercised and while exercising the powers of judicial review, the High Court has to treat such petition only as an “information” provided to the Court on which Court might or might not initiate action..."

Judicial Philosophy: Embracing Criticism and Transparency

Justice Subramaniam dedicated a significant portion of the order to discussing the broader principles governing contempt jurisdiction, emphasizing the judiciary's need for openness and resilience to criticism.

Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 's famous statement that he was "bound to obey his judgment but I am not bound to respect it," the Court highlighted the liberty to critique judicial pronouncements.

The judgment invoked the wisdom of jurists like Lord Atkin and Lord Denning :

* Lord Atkin : "Wise Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgment, the fearlessness and fairness of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum, which they observe in their judicial conduct."

* Lord Denning : "We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less that freedom of speech itself."

The Court asserted:

"The very foundation of justice delivery system is transparency. Criticisms helps in building the Institution... In this world where all the public institutions are under public scrutiny, judges cannot shy away from criticism. Judiciary is also subject to public scrutiny. The cure for misinformation and criticism is more transparency and accountability."

Further, it was emphasized that contempt jurisdiction is "designed to protect the institution and not the judges in their personal capacity." Personal remarks against judges, unless they obstruct the administration of justice, do not automatically warrant contempt proceedings.

Assessment of the Respondent's Conduct

Regarding the respondent in the current case – described as "a lawyer by profession and a seasoned politician" – the Court acknowledged that they hold a higher responsibility. While some remarks made by the respondent "could have been avoided," the Court found "no strong intention behind such statements to interfere with the administration of justice."

An interesting parallel was drawn to a 1987 incident where the Daily Mirror called British Judges “You Old Fools” after the Spycatcher judgment, and no contempt was initiated, with Lord Templeton remarking, "Whether I am a fool or not is a matter of personal opinion..... I do not need to invoke the power of contempt.”

Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the High Court found no reason to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent.

"As we are progressing towards a vibrant democracy and the press freedom and freedom of expression constitute the foundation. Courts are expected to exercise restraint, while initiating criminal contempt proceedings on each and every criticism made in the public domain by any person."

The Court concluded that the path to earning public trust lies in transparency and the quality of judicial work, stating, "Our conduct and judgments is the answer to the criticisms and it should be left to the people to judge the judges."

The Contempt Petition was accordingly dismissed. This judgment reinforces the high threshold for initiating criminal contempt and champions the principles of free speech and judicial accountability in a democratic society.