Back
orders CBI to issue against Adeeshwar Singhal for contempt
The has taken a stern stance against Adeeshwar Singhal, a man facing for making scandalous and abusive allegations against Indian courts. On , a of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja directed the to issue a through to secure Singhal's presence, noting that his whereabouts remain unknown despite the issuance of .
A Virtual Appearance Marked by Defiance
The proceedings began with Singhal appearing virtually, but instead of showing compliance, he "again made unfounded allegations," according to the Court. This was not the first instance of disruptive conduct; the contempt case was initiated after Singhal previously threatened judges and made abusive remarks during court hearings. On September 18, Justice Chawla warned him, stating,
"We will ensure that you come to court, don’t think we will leave you like this. You are making a mockery of the proceedings and making allegations. Either you come here or we will get you here."
Flight Abroad and Expired Passport
Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC)
informed the Court that Singhal last traveled out of India in
to Italy and has not returned. His Indian passport expired on
, and although a
has been issued, it
"may not, by itself, be sufficient to secure his presence in spite of the issuance of the NBWs."
The Court noted that the LOC alone could not guarantee his arrest, especially since he is believed to be overseas.
Tracing the IP Address: A Trail to the United States
A report from Inspector Manish Kumar, SHO of Police Station Anand Vihar, revealed that on , Singhal joined court proceedings from IP address 147.160.149.90, which traced back to Gilroy, California, in the United States. Since Singhal again joined virtually on September 18, the Court directed the Cyber Cell of to identify the new IP address and share it with the for further action.
International Cooperation to Enforce Court Orders
Recognizing that the LOC and NBWs are insufficient, the Court ordered the CBI to
"issue a
through
against the respondent for securing his presence in compliance of our orders."
The MEA was further directed to inform the relevant US authorities about the NBWs, the expired passport, and the identified IP address. The Registry was also instructed to supply the IP details to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Key Observations from the Bench
The Court made several pointed observations during the hearing:
-
"The respondent has appeared virtually and has again made unfounded allegations."
-
"A Look Out Circular has also been issued against the respondent, however, it may not, by itself, be sufficient to secure his presence in spite of the issuance of the NBWs."
-
"Given the above, we direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to issue a
through
against the respondent for securing his presence."
The Final Directive
The Bench listed the matter for reporting compliance on , and reiterated its direction for Singhal to appear in person. The Court also ordered that all proceedings shall continue to be recorded and preserved. This case underscores the High Court's determination to enforce its orders across borders, leveraging international mechanisms to hold accountable even when they flee the country.
