Delhi High Court Initiates Criminal Contempt Against Lawyer for "Judicial Terrorism" Allegations

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against a lawyer for making "reckless allegations of corruption" against the judiciary, which the Court deemed "contemptuous, contumacious and scandalous in nature." In an order dated September 19, a single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma held that a prima facie case of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was established against the advocate, Vedant.

The matter, which has a history of escalating allegations and a withdrawn apology, will now be placed before a Division Bench for further proceedings on November 19, 2025. The case, titled Gunjan Kumar & Anr. v. Vedant , underscores the judiciary's firm stance on allegations that it believes are aimed at scandalising the institution and interfering with the administration of justice.

---

Background of the Contempt Petition

The proceedings stem from a contempt petition filed in 2023 by Gunjan Kumar and another party. The petitioners sought action against Vedant for the alleged wilful disobedience of an order passed by a Rohini Civil Court on January 17, 2023, in a separate matter ( Canara Bank v. Vedant ).

The case first came before a predecessor bench of the High Court in December 2023. At that hearing, Vedant, appearing in person, tendered an unconditional apology for making allegations against judicial officers and gave an undertaking that he would not repeat such conduct in the future.

However, the matter took a sharp turn in January 2024. A show-cause notice for contempt was issued to the lawyer in connection with a civil suit involving him. Subsequently, the petitioners in the original contempt plea moved an application for "aggravated contempt." They argued that Vedant had violated judicial orders and continued to make scandalous imputations against the judiciary, thereby warranting more stringent action.

Escalation: The "Judicial Terrorism" Email

The turning point appeared to be an email authored by Vedant, dated January 21, 2024, which the predecessor bench reviewed during a hearing on January 24, 2024. The Court’s order reproduces excerpts from the email, describing its contents as libellous and containing sweeping allegations against the judiciary.

In the email, Vedant described himself as a “victim of judicial terrorism, judicial emergency, judicial corruption and judicial collective conspiracy.” He further asserted that these perceived failings necessitated a “judicial accountability bill.” The bench at the time characterized these remarks as “not only scandalous, but also contumacious and contemptuous, aimed at lowering the dignity and majesty of the Court,” and issued a notice to Vedant.

Vedant's written reply to the show-cause notice did not temper his stance. He submitted that "due to corruption in the judiciary, he lost precious 10 years of his youth" and contended that "now the judiciary wants he will forget everything and trade for false aspersions created by corrupt judiciary." In another striking statement, he wrote, "That the corrupt judiciary by making orders will transform the goat into the lion and lion into the goat in India."

The Court's Prima Facie Finding

After reviewing the material on record, including the email and the reply to the show-cause notice, Justice Amit Sharma concluded that a prima facie case of criminal contempt was made out. The Court's order stated:

"Reckless allegations of corruption in judiciary have been made by him which are contemptuous, contumacious and scandalous in nature. The same tantamount to scandalising and lowering the authority of Court. It further tends to interfere with judicial proceedings and administration of justice."

Citing these reasons, the Court formed its opinion that Vedant had committed "criminal contempt" as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt as the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act which: (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

Following the established procedure for criminal contempt, Justice Sharma directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate Division/Roster Bench for further proceedings. Vedant has been directed to appear in person on the next date of hearing, scheduled for November 19, 2025.

Legal Analysis and Implications

This case highlights the delicate balance between the freedom of speech and expression, even for officers of the court, and the imperative to protect the judiciary from attacks that undermine public confidence in the institution. While fair criticism of judgments is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, allegations of systemic corruption and personal bias without substantial proof are viewed by the courts as crossing a critical line.

The charge of "scandalising the court" is one of the more contentious aspects of contempt law. Critics argue it can be used to stifle legitimate criticism, while proponents maintain it is essential for preserving the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The Supreme Court has, in several judgments, clarified that the power of contempt must be exercised with caution and only in clear cases of undermining the institution.

Vedant’s conduct, particularly after tendering an unconditional apology and then allegedly escalating his accusations, likely weighed heavily in the Court's decision to initiate proceedings. The use of inflammatory language such as "judicial terrorism" and "judicial collective conspiracy" in formal communications with the court moves beyond criticism of a specific order into a generalized attack on the integrity of the entire judicial system.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a stark reminder of the ethical and legal boundaries that govern their conduct. While lawyers are expected to advocate fiercely for their clients, they also bear a primary responsibility as officers of the court to uphold its dignity. The initiation of criminal contempt proceedings, which can lead to imprisonment or a fine, signifies the gravity with which the judiciary views such direct and unsubstantiated allegations from one of its own. The matter will now proceed before a Division Bench, which will conduct a full hearing to determine whether Vedant is guilty of criminal contempt.