Advocate faces contempt for ‘scandalous’ remarks against HC judges
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only BenefitsThe Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a show-cause notice to an advocate, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her for allegedly making "scandalous" remarks and attempting to intimidate High Court judges and a judicial officer.
The notice was issued by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar on an application filed by the advocate seeking to advance the hearing date of her pending case. Justice Brar observed that the language and assertions in the plea were a "direct assault on the integrity of the adjudicatory system."
The petitioner-advocate, appearing in person, was seeking directions to advance the hearing of her case listed for October 31.
The court noted that the advocate had stated she might implead two High Court judges and an Additional Sessions Judge as parties in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) to the Supreme Court. She further alleged that justice had been deliberately denied to cause harassment and pressure her to withdraw complaints against an IPS officer.
Justice Brar stated that the petitioner's actions were an attempt to "browbeat the judges" and "intimidate the adjudicatory authority," which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process. The court emphasized that such remarks undermine the dignity of the rule of law and could shake public faith in the judicial system.
He observed that the petitioner failed to justify why the matter should be advanced, but the Bench nevertheless took up the case on her insistence. She was also offered assistance from the High Court Legal Aid Services.
“A perusal of the record indicates no reasons that could justify making such scandalous allegations… she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism. Thus, this court is constrained to note that the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,” the court asserted.