The Delhi High Court sentenced the lawyer to six months in jail (File)
The Delhi High Court held a lawyer guilty of criminal contempt of court for "scandalous, unwarranted, and baseless imputations" against several sitting judges of the High Court and district courts in Delhi in a plea filed in July 2022 and sentenced him to six months in jail.
Given an opportunity by the High Court to apologise for the contemptuous allegations made by him in his plea, he refused and stuck to his remarks against the judges and the judiciary.
The court noted that since the accused, who made the contumacious allegations, is an officer of this court, it was necessary to check such actions with a "firm hand".
"Consequently, we hereby sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs 2,000, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 7 days," a bench of justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said in an order passed on Tuesday and made available on Wednesday.
The bench directed the police officials to take the lawyer into custody and hand him over to the Superintendent of Tihar Jail. He asked the court registry to prepare his arrest warrants.
At the request of the man, the High Court allowed him to go home, change clothes, drop his vehicle there, and get his medicines to the jail and also asked the police to accompany him.
The man filed a plea before a single judge in July 2022 in which he accused several judges of acting arbitrarily, whimsically, or in a biased manner. He also named the judges in his petition.
When the single judge asked the lawyer if he would like to retract the allegations, he replied in the negative, claiming these were not contemptuous allegations but statements of fact.
The single judge then issued a notice of contempt to the man and directed the matter be placed before the division bench concerned.
The division bench heard the lawyer and held that the contemnor had made contumacious allegations in the plea, making scandalous, unwarranted, and baseless imputations against the judges of this court as well as district courts who have been discharging their judicial function.
"Moreover, being an officer of this court making such averments in the judicial pleading are more serious in nature. It is incumbent upon the courts of justice to check such actions with a firm hand which otherwise will have pernicious consequences," the bench said.
It added, "In our considered opinion, the respondent/ contemnor has committed contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, accordingly, we hold him guilty."
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)