The court established that making defamatory allegations against judges constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, and reasserted the importance of upholding judicial authority.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. On 30/07/2025, this Court has passed the following order:

“1. On 16.07.2025, we had clarified that no further time shall be granted in the present suo motu proceedings.

2. This Court had registered the suo motu proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of the communication dated 02.09.2013 addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court, wherein the respondent-Contemnor had made reckless allegations against the then sitting Judge, Hon’ble Ms.Justice S.G.Gokani, the following order was passed on 29.11.2013, which reads thus:

“From the communication addressed by the respondent herein-Mr. Anand H Goswami, under trial prisoner 721 /13, Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad dated 02.09.2013, addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, we are prima facie of the opinion that the language used and the averments made by the respondent in the said communication against the Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani are contemptuous and for which it can be said that the respondent is liable for criminal contempt.

Hence, Registry is directed to issue notice upon the respondent, making it retunable on 26.12.2013, calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why he should not be held for criminal contempt for using contemptuous language and making reckless allegations against Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani. Registy is directed to issue notice in the prescribed form / format and after following due procedure, more particularly Section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

3. The matter thereafter, was adjourned on numerous occasions and the respondent-Contemnor had also remained present before this Court.

4. The respondent- Contemnor was also given an opportunity to approach the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee, to have legal assistance of an advocate from the panel. It appears that thereafter he was represented by learned advocate Mr.Anand H.Goswami and a last chance was given to the respondent- Contemnor vide order dated 07.05.2015. Accordingly, the respondent-Contemnor remained present on 04.11.2015 before this Court. However, he had taken time and requested for an adjournment. On 18.03.2016, this Court recorded that the respondent-Contemnor has not remained present and thereafter from the order sheet, it reflects that he would like to appear as a party-in-person. Again, on 10.06.2016, he appeared and requested for an adjournment as he would like to obtain Legal Aid from the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for further occasions as and when it was listed at the request of the respondent- Contemnor.

5. A detailed order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 04.10.2016, wherein it was recorded that the respondent-Contemnor has been whiling away time and dodging the hearing of this matter. However, further chance was granted to him to get an assistance from the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee. Further, opportunity was also given by the Coordinate Bench on 07.12.2021. From the order dated 23.12.2021, it is noticed by us that the Coordinate Bench had issued a Non-bailable Warant and fixed the matter on 25.01.2022 however, later on, the respondent- Contemnor had appeared as a party-in-person, sought adjournment and also made a statement that he would appear on all the dates of hearing. Accordingly, the matter was ordered to be listed on 25.01.2022.

6. On 04.02.2022, when the matter was listed, since the respondent- Contemnor had not remained present the Court had