No Requirement To Seek Advocate General’s Permission Before Taking Cognizance Of Criminal Contempt: Allahabad High Court Frames Contempt Charges Against Man Over WhatsApp Texts

The High Court was hearing criminal contempt proceedings arising out of a reference made by a Judicial Officer of the District Judiciary concerning the circulation of a WhatsApp message that made unfounded allegations of corruption against a Presiding Officer.

A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava observed, “There is absolutely no warrant under the law for seeking permission of the learned Advocate General before proceeding in the matter. This Court is always free to take cognizance of a criminal contempt even on an application, without permission of the learned Advocate General.”

Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra appeared for the High Court, while Ashok Kumar Yadav represented the respondents.

Background

The contempt proceedings were initiated based on a reference submitted by an Additional District Judge, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The reference stated that a message was circulated by the contemnor on a WhatsApp group comprising members of the local Bar, alleging misconduct and corruption by a Presiding Officer in the discharge of judicial duties.

The Administrative Judge examined the matter and observed that the contents of the message were intended to bring the judiciary into disrepute and erode public faith in the administration of justice. On this basis, the matter was presented to the Division Bench for further consideration.

The contemnor, however, raised two preliminary objections before the framing of the charge: first, that permission of the Advocate General was mandatory under the High Court Rules before proceeding with the case; and second, that allegations against a judicial officer should be dealt with under an “in-house procedure” instead of contempt proceedings.

Court’s Observations

On Advocate General’s Permission

The Allahabad High Court categorically rejected the argument that permission of the Advocate General was a precondition for initiating criminal contempt proceedings, stating that there is no warrant under the law for seeking permission of the learned Advocate General and that Courts are always free to take cognizance of a criminal contempt even on an application, without permission of the learned Advocate General.

On “In-House Procedure”

The High Court also dismissed the contemnor’s second objection that the allegations should have been handled under an in-house procedure for the subordinate judiciary, stating that “there is absolutely no mechanism of an in-house procedure for inquiring complaints against Judges of the Subordinate Courts.”

The Bench clarified that “Judges of the District Courts are subject to the disciplinary control of this Court” and that “in case a complaint is laid against them, it is inquired into in the first instance administratively, and then, in a vigilance inquiry.”

Framing of Charge

Upon perusal of the material placed on record, including the reference and the contents of the WhatsApp message, the Bench found a prima facie case of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act. The Court noted that the contemnor’s message, which accused a judicial officer of corruption and forgery, was intended to scandalise the judiciary and erode public confidence in the courts.

Conclusion

The Court directed that the contemnor face trial on the framed charge for publishing contemptuous material against a judicial officer, and the proceedings were ordered to continue in accordance with law.

Cause Title: In Re: v. Krishna Kumar Pandey

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Gaurav Kumar Shukla, Rakesh Pathak, Sudhir Mehrotra

Respondents: Advocate Ashok Kumar Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment