IMPORTANT POINT
Attempt to scandalize or lower authority of Court falls under definition of ‘criminal contempt’.

ORDER

These suo motu contempt proceedings have been initiated against respondent – Narinder Singh Poonia as per the order given by the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice dated 09.07.2013.

2. For effective adjudication of the instant petitions, the facts leading to initiation of the proceedings are required to be dealt with in a nutshell. It is undisputed that the respondent was the Founder & Editor and Publisher of a journal titled as ‘Lost Justice’. He had published certain articles in the journal ‘Lost Justice’ in Volume 03 Issue No.03 of July to September, 2010, making allegations against certain sitting Judges of this Court, indicating and commenting about the manner in which certain cases were decided by them on the judicial side. Finding the publication to be amounting to contempt of court, after due approval of the Acting Chief Justice on 09.07.2023, suo-motu proceedings have been initiated against the respondent under Section 2(c)(i) and (ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. The comments which have been published in the said journal clearly scandalize the image of the judiciary and High Court Judges in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

4. On notice being issued, a detailed reply has been filed by the respondent on 16.09.2013 denying the allegations. It is contended by the respondent that he has not committed any contempt neither civil nor criminal. At the same time, I.A. No.21216 of 2013 was filed seeking reopening of all the cases in the matter which are under the reference of Concr. No.12 of 2013. Vide order dated 04.02.2016, this application as well as ten other applications were rejected on merits.

5. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.01.2018 passed in Concr. No.12 of 2013, it was found that the charges as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have not been framed against the respondent. Therefore, the charges have been framed so as to enable the respondent to answer each one of them. The same reads as follows:—

1. “Whatever reached HC was judicially killed paving path for Hoarders around the country. Questionable rulings were relied to generate questionable judgments and it should continue. The menace should extend to all the essential commodities and those around the country.” (page 181)

2. “This is how system as a whole protects and promoters crime, money-grabbing, property-grabbing, hoarding, black marketing, market-inflation and everything which crushes the poor public.” (page 181)

3. “Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (ECA-1955) was flouted by 57 dealers in every manner. Courtesy, senior advocates who appear on behalf of offenders only to mislead the court, the government advocates who gain more by keeping their mouths shut and the HC Judges who can even argue-&-generate evidence in favour of offencers.” (page 182)

4. “This senior most Judge of MPHC at Jabalpur (Justice RS Garg on behalf DB) created a disastrous foundation of giving a clean chit to who was an outlaw in every respect- a ‘judgment’ which influenced the junior colleagues even at other benches of the court.” (page 183)

5. “Performance of justice RS Garg (at Jabalpur)and of Justice S.S. Dwivedi (at Gwalior) tarnished the image of MPHC and of the judiciary from where ascertained offenders escaped at the expenses of public rights-those rights which got demolished and humiliated.” (page 183)

6. “Most effortful Justice Dwivedi deserves to be impeached for his overall performance. One Judge is not more important than nation as a whole, and a Judge (Justice RS Garg) after retirement is also accountable being still richly nourished by the nation.” (page 183)

7. “Strange are the ways of advocacy. Books say advocates are officers of the court whose only function is to assist administration of justice but, instantly, every senior advocate of the State deployed his professional skill to shield the richly paying offenders by misdirecting the very issue, to mislead and influence the HC Judges.” (page 183-184)

8. “For