Allahabad HC dismisses lawyer’s ‘vexatious’ plea seeking criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Justice of Gujarat HC

A bank made of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I described the petition as “frivolous‘, ‘annoying‘, ‘irresponsible‘, ‘without merit‘ And ‘misunderstood” and added that in the interests of the proper functioning of the institution, such requests definitely not recommended.

Essentially, the applicant Lawyer Arun Mishrahad approached the Supreme Court with the complaint that a writ filed by him in 2020 had been rejected by a panel of judges consisting of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Jayant Banerji (on 7 December 2020) without giving him an opportunity to present his arguments and was also ordered to pay costs of ₹15,000.

The applicant counsel was also dissatisfied with another order passed by a bench headed by Justice Agarwal on February 23, 2021, dismissing a case in which he represented the applicant on the grounds of “lack of prosecution.”

It was his specific case that was dismissed on the same day for lack of prosecution, although other attorneys’ cases were not dismissed on the basis of lack of prosecution and were set for another date. However, his case was dismissed on the same day for lack of prosecution.

He argued that the order was issued intentionally, biased manner with indirect motives only to harass and harm him, which in fact amounts to a disrespect for their own court.

However, the Court of Appeal considered that his application was unfounded and dismissed it with the following finding:

“…we find that the aforesaid orders relied upon by the petitioner were passed by the Division Bench headed by the opposite party in the exercise of its judicial discretion and on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, which in no way amounts to contempt of its own court, and, therefore, the petitioner intends to initiate criminal proceedings for contempt of court, and that too only against the opposite party..”

The Court also held that the act and conduct of Justice Agarwal in passing the orders in question did not, even with the best will in the world, fall within the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’ within the meaning of the Act.

The court added that the court expected a certain degree of responsibility and restraint from him as a lawyer and judicial officer.

The Court also took note of the fact that the complainant advocate had earlier raised his grievance by filing an application with the Office of the Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh seeking written permission to initiate criminal proceedings for contempt of court against Justice Agarwal. However, the said application was rejected on May 7, 2024.

The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed as inadmissible a writ challenging the Advocate General’s refusal to grant leave to institute criminal proceedings for contempt of court.

In this context, the Court also held that a citizen does not have an unconditional right to initiate criminal proceedings for contempt of court, as he may act out of personal prestige and revenge rather than out of a motive to uphold the dignity of the court.

Therefore, the Court further found that, in order to safeguard such a situation, the drafters of the Law considered it necessary to directly restrict the filing of such applications and to provide that they may only be filed with the written consent of the Advocate General.

It should be noted that section 15(1) of the 1971 Act requires that the application must be made by the Attorney General or a person with the written consent of the Attorney General.

The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the High Court is not inundated with frivolous applications, but receives only substantive applications.