NEW DELHI: The Delhi Government’s Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal), Amol Sinha, has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leader Ratna Singh before the Delhi High Court over her remarks about a trial court judge.
The decision follows complaints filed by advocate Kausik Chatterjee over statements Singh posted on social media platform X after a hearing before Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey at the Saket District Court.
On October 10, the court dismissed an application filed by Singh concerning her alleged detention by the Delhi Police. Following the order, Singh posted comments accusing the judge of “serving the master”. She also claimed that the judge had taken multiple breaks during the proceedings and issued the ruling without applying the law.
In a subsequent post, Singh alleged that both the Delhi Police and the judge were acting on the instructions of an external “master”.
Chatterjee approached the authorities seeking criminal contempt action. He argued that the remarks went beyond criticism of a judicial order and questioned the integrity and independence of the judge.
In an opinion issued on November 2, Sinha observed that there was a distinction between challenging the correctness of a judicial ruling and alleging that a judge had acted under external influence or with improper motives.
He said allegations that a judge was acting on the instructions of an unidentified authority, without supporting evidence, prima facie struck at the core of judicial independence and could undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
The consent was granted under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The provision allows a competent law officer to move a motion for criminal contempt before the High Court.
Sinha’s opinion also referred to Section 2(c)(i) of the Act, which covers publications that scandalise or tend to lower the authority of a court. He clarified that the opinion was only a prima facie assessment to allow the proceedings to move forward. The final decision rests with the Delhi High Court.
Sinha also examined supplementary material submitted by Chatterjee concerning Singh’s criticism of the Delhi Police and the Special Executive Magistrate system in separate proceedings involving CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka.
However, the counsel observed that Singh’s criticism of executive magistrates and police conduct did not meet the threshold for criminal contempt. He said the allegations directed at the Saket Chief Judicial Magistrate independently warranted moving the contempt motion.
With inputs from media reports.