Court upholds inherent power to punish contempt, fines protesters and political spokesperson for acts undermining judiciary’s authority and obstructing lawyers’ access
In a landmark judgment dated July 13, 2026, the Calcutta High Court (Full Bench) took suo motu cognizance of a grave incident involving a group of individuals, including political figures and protesters, who unlawfully blocked access to court premises, intimidated advocates, and scandalized the judiciary. The proceedings were initiated following affidavits filed by several learned advocates and a law student highlighting acts of criminal contempt committed on April 25, 2025, near the Calcutta High Court.
The Court examined video evidence and affidavits revealing that the group had assembled unlawfully at 10, Kiran Sankar Roy Road, opposite the City Civil Court, Kolkata, and obstructed advocates and litigants from entering or leaving their chambers. The protesters shouted abusive slogans targeting a sitting High Court Judge, displayed and desecrated his photographs, and attempted physical assaults on advocates, including female members of the Bar. These acts were found to constitute criminal contempt by scandalizing the Court and obstructing the administration of justice.
The Court also addressed the maintainability of suo motu contempt proceedings initiated on the basis of affidavits without the formal consent of the Advocate General. After extensive analysis of statutory provisions and judicial precedents, the Court held that the High Court’s inherent power under Article 215 of the Constitution to punish contempt is not curtailed by procedural safeguards in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court further clarified that affidavits filed by responsible members of the Bar may be treated as information to initiate suo motu action, emphasizing the discretion of the Court to avoid frivolous petitions.
The alleged contemnors, including seven protesters involved in the physical demonstration and a political spokesperson, Mr. Kunal Ghosh, were heard. While the seven protesters admitted to their acts but claimed frustration due to delayed appointments as teachers, the Court rejected the justification that emotional distress could excuse contemptuous conduct. They were fined Rs. 1,000 each, with default imprisonment of three days.
Mr. Kunal Ghosh contended that he was not physically present at the protest site and that his controversial statements made during a press conference were political rebuttals rather than attempts to scandalize the judiciary. The Court held that physical presence is not a necessary element of criminal contempt and found Mr. Ghosh guilty of scandalizing the Court through imputations of bias and corruption against a sitting Judge and Senior Advocates. His apology was deemed insincere and conditional, resulting in a fine of Rs. 2,000 and default imprisonment for three days.
The Court underscored the critical importance of protecting the dignity and majesty of the judiciary to maintain public confidence in the rule of law. It emphasized that freedom of speech, while fundamental, cannot be exercised in a manner that undermines the authority of the Courts or obstructs justice. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that acts of intimidation, defamation, or obstruction targeting judicial officers, advocates, or court proceedings will attract punitive measures to preserve the sanctity of the justice delivery system.
This judgment reiterates the High Court’s power to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings based on credible information, the limited role of procedural technicalities in such inherent jurisdiction, and the necessity of sincere, unconditional apologies in contempt cases.
Bottom line:-
Criminal contempt proceedings can be initiated suo motu by the High Court on the basis of information placed before it by affidavits of complaint without the necessity of consent of the Advocate General, provided the Court exercises discretion to avoid frivolous petitions; acts scandalizing the Court, obstructing administration of justice, or lowering authority of judiciary constitute criminal contempt even if committed outside the court; mere apology without unconditional and sincere remorse is not sufficient to absolve guilt.
Statutory provision(s):
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 2(c), 14, 15; Article 215 of the Constitution of India; Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975 (Rules 16, 18); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (referenced for offenses such as wrongful restraint and intimidation)
In the matter of: Court on its own motion v. Raju Das, (Calcutta)(FB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2939318
