Court reiterates that contempt jurisdiction cannot substitute appeal or revision; personal allegations against judges are impermissible and undermine judicial authority
In a significant judgment dated October 1, 2026, the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) dismissed a criminal contempt petition filed by Manoj Paul against a Judicial Officer of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The petition arose out of the judicial officer's order dismissing a money suit for default. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner bypassed the legal remedies available such as appeal or revision and instead made personal allegations and derogatory remarks against the judicial officer, prompting the contempt proceedings.
The Court, presided over by Justice Prasenjit Biswas, emphasized the well-settled legal principle that contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for appeal, revision, or any other statutory remedy available against judicial orders. The petitioner's approach of assailing the judicial order by making personal imputations against the judge was deemed legally misconceived and not maintainable. The Court noted that while litigants have every right to challenge judicial orders before the competent forum, this right does not extend to reckless, derogatory, or scandalous allegations targeting the judge's integrity or motives.
The order under challenge had dismissed the petitioner's money suit for default, observing that the plaintiff was no longer interested in pursuing the suit and continuing the proceedings would waste court time. Instead of filing an appeal or review, the petitioner sent an email containing aspersions against the presiding judicial officer to the District and Sessions Judge and filed a criminal contempt petition.
The Court, assisted by amicus curiae Mr. Arul Prasanth and Mr. KMB Jayapal, referred to the Supreme Court precedent in Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute (2005) which underscored the mandatory procedural requirements for private contempt petitions under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court found that the petitioner's contempt application failed to comply with these procedural mandates and was essentially a collateral attack on the judicial order rather than a genuine contempt case.
Justice Biswas further observed that the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings must be upheld by all litigants. The petitioner's conduct, including derogatory remarks during virtual hearings and in written representations, was strongly deprecated. To impress upon the petitioner the importance of pursuing grievances through lawful means and maintaining respect for the judiciary, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 40,000 to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority within two months.
The Court cautioned the petitioner to exercise restraint in future and strictly adhere to the judicial process for challenging orders. It reiterated that personal attacks on judicial officers not only undermine the institution but also do not provide any legal remedy against adverse decisions.
This ruling reinforces the principle that judicial officers must be protected from personal vilification and that the proper recourse against an erroneous order lies in the statutory appellate or revisional forums, not in contempt proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, revision or other statutory remedy against a judicial order. A litigant cannot assail an adverse judicial order by making personal allegations, derogatory remarks or aspersions against the Judicial Officer; such criminal contempt petition is not maintainable and may be dismissed with costs.
Statutory provision(s):
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 15, Constitution of India Article 215
Manoj Paul v. Pabitra Sen, (Calcutta)(Circuit Bench At Port Blair) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991105
