Gujarat High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Litigant For Remarks Found To "Lower Institutional Dignity" Of Courts
Holding that a litigant cannot resort to pleadings or oral submissions that undermine the authority of constitutional courts after failing to secure favourable orders, the High Court found that the language used crossed the bounds of permissible criticism and warranted initiation of contempt proceedings to preserve institutional dignity and the integrity of the judicial process.
The Gujarat High Court has issued a contempt notice to a litigant after concluding that the averments made in his petition and the remarks advanced during the hearing were intended to lower the dignity of constitutional courts and the judicial institution.
The High Court held that such conduct, following failure to secure favourable relief, amounted to an abuse of process and attracted action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Court was hearing a special criminal application filed by the petitioner challenging an order of a Judicial Magistrate declining to refer his complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and instead proceeding to examine the complaint under Section 200.
A Bench of Justice M. R. Mengdey, while examining the challenge, found that the tenor of the pleadings and the submissions made in court went beyond criticism of judicial orders and crossed into statements perceived as undermining the authority of courts.
Referring to the litigant’s conduct, the Justice Mengdey observed: “This conduct on the part of the petitioner is nothing short of Contempt of Court of not only this court but also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the learned trial court. Therefore, a notice is directed to be issued against the petitioner Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar, calling him to explain as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him”.
Background
The proceedings arose out of a complaint lodged by the petitioner alleging irregularities relating to construction near an airport and seeking directions for registration of a First Information Report. After police authorities declined to register an FIR, the petitioner approached the High Court in earlier proceedings, which were disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with that order.
Pursuant to the liberty granted, the petitioner moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Magistrate declined to direct an investigation, noting the absence of material disclosing a cognizable offence, but treated the application as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC and proceeded accordingly.
Instead of participating in that process or invoking revisional jurisdiction, the petitioner again approached the High Court with substantially similar prayers, in addition to seeking action against the Magistrate.
The State opposed the petition as repetitive, and an attempt to reopen issues already concluded, pointing out that statutory remedies remained available and that the impugned order was judicial in nature.
Court’s Observations
The High Court first held that the petition was misconceived and constituted an abuse of process. It noted that the Magistrate’s order was amenable to revisional jurisdiction, yet the petitioner bypassed the statutory remedy.
The Court found no illegality in the Magistrate treating the Section 156(3) application as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, explaining that the statutory framework permits a Magistrate to take cognisance upon information from any person and proceed accordingly.
On merits, the Court observed that the material on record, including affidavits from relevant authorities, did not establish submission of forged documents as alleged. In that view, the Magistrate’s refusal to order an investigation under Section 156(3) could not be faulted.
The Court then turned to the language used in the petition and during oral submissions. It reproduced passages where the litigant questioned the authority and functioning of constitutional courts and attributed motives to judicial decisions.
The Bench held that such statements were not merely expressions of grievance but were aimed at lowering institutional dignity. It recorded that the petitioner, having failed to obtain favourable orders, had resorted to imputations against courts and judges, which, in the Court’s view, attracted contempt jurisdiction.
The Court clarified that judicial orders cannot form the basis of contempt proceedings merely because a litigant disagrees with them. However, imputations suggesting institutional incapacity, bad faith, or deliberate disregard of law crossed permissible bounds of criticism.
The Bench emphasised that the rule of law allows challenge to judicial orders through prescribed remedies, not through attacks on the institution.
“By making the averments in the petition as well as the remarks made by the petitioner during the course of hearing before this court are made with an intention to lower the dignity of the institution at large”, the Bench further remarked.
Finding the petition frivolous and repetitive, the Court imposed costs and proceeded to direct issuance of notice to the petitioner to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated, observing that such action was necessary to protect the dignity of the judicial process.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition as frivolous and an abuse of process, upheld the Magistrate’s approach in proceeding under Section 200 CrPC, imposed costs on the petitioner, and issued a show-cause notice initiating contempt proceedings in view of remarks found to undermine the dignity of the judiciary.
The Court also observed that the competency certificate issued by the Registry in favour of the petitioner Party-in-Person, allowing him to appear before this Court in-person needs to be revisited.
The Court directed that the matter relating to contempt be placed before the appropriate roster bench and ordered administrative follow-up concerning the petitioner’s permission to appear in person.
Cause Title: Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar v. State of Gujarat & Others
Appearances
Respondents: Hardik Dave, Public Prosecutor, with H.K. Patel, Additional Public Prosecutor