Unfounded allegations against judges constitute criminal contempt, undermining judicial authority and integrity.

ORDER :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Gujarat Operational Creditors Association, acting through its Duly Authorized Manager, Ms.Priti Chaudhary filed Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No.2559 of 2024 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. and its Director and other personnel and also against the learned advocates representing them. Vide order dated 04.02.2025, we rejected the contempt application with exemplary costs. The prolonged verbal calisthenic of learned advocate Mr.Khosla, while conducting the said application and the averments made in the application, appear to be scornful. We may first incorporate the averments made in the aforesaid application: -

“13. Thereafter, when item 1 was called up, after waiting for around 2-3 minutes for the parties to start their arguments, the moment counsel for the Respondent No. 4 (who is the Petitioner herein) commenced to address the Hon'ble Court, the Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge directed him not to open his papers, as it would not be hearing the matter. The Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge then proceeded to pass an order to the effect that the matter shall not be before her Court. At that juncture, Ld. senior advocate (Mr. Mihir Joshi) attempted to convince the Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge that merely because a senior advocate had appeared in a particular matter on a particular day (in this case, Ld. Advocate General, senior advocate Mr Kamal Trivedi) ought not to be reason for the Hon'ble Court to recuse from hearing the matter if such senior advocate no longer continued to appear in that particular matter.

In this argument, he was supported by counsel for the Petitioner herein, but who attempted to highlight that what was relevant was not only the earlier appearance of the aforementioned senior advocate, but the fact that the Petitioner then had deliberately suppressed this very vital and material fact from this Hon'ble Court on 08-08-2024 (whether for reasons set out in para 112 below, or otherwise, the Petitioner refuses to speculate), no doubt, in order to influence its decision to continue to hear the matter (rather, precluded from deciding as to whether or not it ought to hear the matter).

However, this Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge preferred not to enter into this particular controversy, and held that the matter would not be before her Court. At that juncture, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner (Mr. Brijesh Trivedi) enquired if 'not before this Court would also apply also to item 36 of the day, and this Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge was pleased to confirm that it would. At that juncture, advocate Brijesh Trivedi requested that the order dated 08-08- 2024 be recalled, but without the Petitioner therein (in whose favour the ex parte stay had been granted on 08-08-2024), requesting for any further protection, the Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge was pleased to add another line in its order to the effect that the interim relief granted by her Court by its order dated 08-08-2024 would continue till the matters are listed before another Court.

At this juncture, counsel for the Petitioner (advocate Deepak Khosla) protested, submitting that instead of directing that the stay would subsist till the matter is listed before another Court, instructions be issued to the Registry to obtain re-assignment instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice during the lunch recess so that the matter can be heard by the successor Bench after lunch, but the Hon'ble Court's predecessor Judge was pleased to cut short his protest, on the grounds that once 'not before this Court' had been pronounced, it would not be open to the counsels to say anything further, thereby contradicting herself, because she herself, after having announced 'not before this Court', she had, herself, passed a