Jahanvi Agarwal
The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court handed down on Tuesday, entails a six-month jail sentence for an individual charged with criminal contempt. This legal outcome stems from the appellant’s audacious plea for the imposition of the death penalty upon a high court judge who had previously dismissed the appellant’s petitions.
The bench, comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur, made its decision after a thorough review of the presented arguments and the case’s evidentiary basis. Notably, the bench found the appellant’s conduct devoid of any remorse, as he resorted to extremely derogatory language in describing the learned Single Bench judge, even going so far as to labelling the judge as a ‘thief’ and claiming to possess incontrovertible evidence to support this claim.
Furthermore, the appellant’s legal contentions extended to asserting that numerous government organizations, including prestigious institutions such as the Indian Institute of Technology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and Indian Institute of Management, were engaged in acts tantamount to sedition due to their status as societies registered under the Societies Registration Act or equivalent statutes. According to the appellant, such organizations possessed a legal avenue to defy the government and potentially unite against it.
Prior to his appearance before the single bench, the appellant had lodged three separate petitions, accusing various respondents, including the Delhi police, Mumbai police, Ratan Tata, and the Union of India, of involvement in criminal activities.
He contended that these respondents had established multiple public organizations that infringed upon his constitutional right to access his own criminal records, as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.
However, on July 20, the single bench dismissed his petitions, characterizing them as classic instances of frivolous and vexatious litigation and imposing a financial penalty of Rs 30,000 on each petition. Subsequently, the appellant lodged an appeal against this decision.
On August 31, a division bench led by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued a show-cause notice for criminal contempt, prompting the appellant to provide a response, and scheduled the matter before the roster bench. During the hearing on Tuesday, the bench led by Justice Kait expressed profound astonishment at the allegations put forth by the appellant in his appeals, his complaints to the police, and the previous court orders dated July 20 and August 31.
It is essential to underscore that the appellant, who claims to have received an education in engineering and science from highly esteemed institutions such as the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur and Bombay, as well as in the United States, is expected to demonstrate due respect for the Constitution of India and faith in the nation’s legal system. As a responsible citizen, he is expected to articulate his grievances in a civil and dignified manner, thereby upholding the sanctity of the court and the judicial processes of law.
Moreover, the bench noted that even if the appellant’s petitions were driven by outrage, his response to the show-cause notice was marked by a distinct lack of respect, signifying a notable absence of remorse on his part. In fact, the appellant explicitly stated that he harbored no regret for his actions and stood unwaveringly by his prior assertions.
Case Name: Court on its own motion v. Naresh Sharma
Diary Number: 10/2023
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur