Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar vs State of NCT Of Delhi
A single bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of the Delhi High Court has issued an order to commence contempt of court proceedings against a lawyer for making derogatory remarks in the chat box during a video conferencing.
The bench requested an advocate Sanjeev Kumar to clarify his actions and provide reasons why the matter should not be referred to the appropriate Division Bench for contempt of court proceedings.
The court deemed Kumar’s response to be disrespectful and lacking in pertinent justification for his comments posted in the chat box.
The Court’s rationale was based on the observation that Kumar had a pattern of lodging complaints and disparaging the judges of the district court who had adjudicated and issued unfavorable judgments in cases he had initiated.
The bench said that, “This Court is of the considered opinion that reckless allegations made against several Judicial Officers of the District Courts as well as the comments placed by the petitioner in the public domain in the Chat Box have grave implications and potentiality of mischief, if the same are not curbed with a firm hand”.
It was highlighted by the bench that the accusations, implying motives and using intemperate language, were deliberately employed to bring scandal to the court proceedings. Such actions not only undermine the authority and integrity of the justice system but also constitute contempt.
“Petitioner appears to have taken a wrong end of law, aggrieved against adverse orders passed by the Judicial Officers of the District Courts as well as this Court and cannot be permitted to cross the red line, thereby making personal attack on the Judges which undermines the integrity of the Institution”.
In January, the Court dismissed Kumar’s petition challenging a trial court order, imposing a fine of Rs 25,000. Following this, Kumar submitted a review petition contesting the decision. The remarks attributed to Kumar were made a day before the scheduled hearing of his case.
Subsequently, the bench recused himself from the matter and directed that it be reassigned to a different bench.
