IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining judicial dignity and the procedural safeguards required in contempt proceedings, highlighting that failure to frame specific charges violates natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C. J.

The present criminal contempt proceeding has been registered against the Advocate General and Additional Advocate General, following the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this High Court while delivering the judgment in W.P(Cr.) No. 139 of 2021.

2. The writ petition was filed by Devanand Oraon for investigating the murder of his daughter Rupa Tirkey by the Central Bureau of Investigation in UD Case No. 09 of 2021. In the latter part of the judgment delivered on 1st September 2021, the writ Court narrated the incident that had happened in the Court on 13th August 2021 and formed a prima facie opinion that Mr. Rajiv Ranjan who is the Advocate General and Mr. Sachin Kumar who is the Additional Advocate General had committed criminal contempt of the Court.

3. On that day, the Advocate General informed the writ Court that the counsel for the writ petitioner was heard saying that “the matter was going to be allowed 200%”. That incident had happened on 11th August 2021 after the Court proceedings were over for the day. On 13th August 2021 which was the next date of hearing of the writ petition, the Advocate General asked the Court not to hear the matter. This is also recorded in the order dated 13th August 2021 that Mr. Sachin Kumar supported the Advocate General. The writ Court took the incident seriously and asked the Advocate General to put his statement on the affidavit but he refused to do so. The writ Court therefore held that there was no need to recuse from hearing the case, on a mere statement made by him. However, the writ Court thought it proper to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for a decision on the administrative side.

4. After reassignment of the matter to the same Hon’ble Judge, the writ petition was listed for further hearing on 26th August 2021 and 31st August 2021. The judgment in W.P(Cr.) No. 139 of 2021 was delivered on 1st September 2021 directing the State Police to hand over the investigation of UD Case No. 09 of 2021 to the CBI. At this stage, the writ Court takes cognizance of the conduct of the Advocate General and Additional Advocate General in the Court on 13th August 2021. Before making a reference for registering a suo motu contempt proceeding against them, the writ Court made the following observations:

“87. Now, the only option before the Court is to take suo motu cognizance of the conduct of two senior law officers of the State. In the case of P.N. Duda (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the observation of Lord Denning in paragraph 15 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below:

“15. Lord Denning in Regina v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex parte Blackburn observed as follows:

“Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.

It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.

Exposed as we are to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that, nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us from doing what we believe is right; nor, I would add, from saying what the occasion requires, provided that it is pertinent to the matter