Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Non-Compliance on Counter Affidavits Draws Exemplary Costs Warning: Supreme Court in Gauri Maulekhi PIL
13 Mar 2026
SLPs Challenging PoP Idol Immersion Orders Disposed as Infructuous; Liberty to Assist Bombay HC: Supreme Court
13 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, KIRTI SINGH
Court on Its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Surjeet Singh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.
This criminal original contempt petition has been listed after suo motu notice had been taken by the Single Bench with regard to the averments of the respondent in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The respondent, while preferring the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., had stated that the Judicial Magistrate is not inclined to pass an order but is only inclined to give adjournments and the respondent is being harassed by the action of the Judicial Magistrate. The Single Bench had referred to the zimni orders passed by the Court of JMIC which indicated that the matter had been adjourned at the request of the counsel for the respondent and, therefore, it took suo motu notice for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. The order of the Single Bench dated 12.10.2023 is reproduced hereunder:-
Statements made in good faith about a judicial officer do not constitute criminal contempt, promoting open dialogue and criticism within the justice system.
The publication by the contemnor constituted criminal contempt by scandalizing the court and interfering with the administration of justice, warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Statements that are scurrilous, offensive, and malicious, and are intended to scandalize the court and lower its authority, amount to contempt of court and are not protected by the freedom of speech ....
The court affirmed its power to take suo motu action in instances of criminal contempt that undermine judicial authority, irrespective of the Advocate General's opinion.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an advocate's conduct of making false, baseless, and mischievous allegations against the court and its judges, thereby scandalizing and loweri....
Attempt to scandalize or lower authority of Court falls under definition of ‘criminal contempt’.
Statements undermining the judiciary and attributing improper motives to judges constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, warranting strict action to uphold judicial authority.
A contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable without the Advocate General's consent, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and accountability.
Allegations undermining judicial authority and disrupting court proceedings constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The judgment emphasizes the need to respect judicial independence and pursue legal remedies for challenging judicial decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article