Allahabad High Court Convicts Man For Criminal Contempt For 'Baseless Complaint' Of Corruption Against Judges

A Division Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh and Justice Vivek Chaudhary observed, “After going through the record and the submissions made on behalf of the contemnor, we find that he has made frivolous and baseless complaint…The aforesaid act scandalises and lowers the authority of the Court and such act is contemptuous inconformity with the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Act, 1971.”

The Court noted, “It is also relevant to mention here that contemnor has not made any request or file an affidavit tendering his apology.”

The Contemnor was represented by Advocate Indra Bhushan Singh, while the Government Advocate appeared for the Applicant.

Brief Facts

Criminal contempt was initiated against the Contemnor for leveling allegations of corruption against Judges of the Allahabad High Court. He alleged that while deciding his writ petition, the Judges dealt with corrupt, dishonest, and traitorous officials and had accepted money to dismiss the petition. He further claimed that, as per the arrangement with these officials, his petition was dismissed with costs on the first day of the hearing.

The Acting Chief Justice took cognizance and referred the matter to the concerned Court for appropriate proceedings. In pursuance thereof, the Contemnor appeared and sought time to file a reply. He subsequently filed an application along with an affidavit raising a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the criminal contempt proceedings against him. This application was rejected by the Court. Thereafter, the Contemnor submitted a reply in response to the Court's order. Upon considering the reply, affidavit, and material on record, the Court framed charges against the Contemnor.

The Contemnor submitted that he had placed a written complaint before the President of India, at Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi, and claimed he was unaware of how it had reached the Allahabad High Court. He further submitted that the covering letter/forwarding letter issued by Rashtrapati Bhavan, was essential for him to prove his case.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court noted, “The preliminary objection raised by the contemnor has already been rejected by this Court on 12.10.2022 by observing that the contemnor has admitted the contents of the complaint dated 30.04.2016 written by him and the original document was shown to him, which was on record, and he admitted his signatures on the same. He also admitted that he had sent the complaint. Therefore, there is no justification as to why the covering letter/forwarding letter issued by the Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi is required when he himself had admitted the contents of the complaint dated 30.04.2016.”

The Court referred to T. Deen Dayal v. High Court of A.P. (1997), wherein the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 2(c) of the Act, and held that ex facie contempt is established when there is a scurrilous attack intended to scandalize the Court.

The Bench observed that the contents of the complaint came under the purview of criminal contempt and that the Contemnor had leveled allegations against judges of the High Court without any basis or evidence.

“He has scandalised and lowered down the authority of the court, which amounts to interference in the administration of justice”, the Court added.

The Bench further noted that the Contemnor had not made any attempt to tender his apology before the Court.

Consequently, the Court found Contemnor guilty of committing criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Act. However, considering his old age, imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, to be deposited with the Registrar of the High Court, failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment for one week.

Cause Title: State of U.P. v. Devender Kumar Dixit (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:16744-DB)

Click here to read/download Judgment