Court emphasizes protection of judicial integrity; fair criticism allowed only on merits of finally decided cases without imputing improper motives
In a significant judgment delivered on September 7, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Division Bench comprising Justices Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur, found Ram Niwas Aggarwal, a private litigant from Hansi, guilty of criminal contempt of court for filing applications and annexures containing scandalous and baseless allegations against several judges and judicial officers. The contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu by the High Court after a reference was made by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, concerning Ram Niwas's filing of legal notices and applications replete with defamatory accusations against the judiciary involved in his decades-old petrol pump partnership dispute.
The root of the dispute goes back to 1976, involving a partnership in a Bharat Petroleum petrol pump, wherein Ram Niwas was allegedly ousted forcibly from the business in 1987. Over the years, Ram Niwas repeatedly approached various courts alleging forgery of a dissolution deed and sought restoration of his share in the petrol pump. His criminal complaint filed in 2007 against several individuals, including a former MLA and BPCL officials, was subjected to prolonged judicial processes with multiple interim orders, exemptions, and stays.
The contempt issue arose from Ram Niwas's application dated August 8, 2019, seeking non-bailable warrants against accused persons who had been exempted from personal appearance by the High Court. This application included "show cause notices" containing scandalous allegations against multiple judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and judicial officers of Hisar district. The SDJM, Hansi, dismissed the application due to existing interim orders but forwarded the reference to the District & Sessions Judge, Hisar, who then sent it to the High Court for necessary action.
The High Court, after due consideration and appointment of an Amicus Curiae to assist, held that the act of filing such applications containing baseless and defamatory allegations constitutes "publication" under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court reiterated the legal position that criminal contempt includes publication or acts that scandalize or tend to lower the authority of any court or interfere with judicial proceedings.
Rejecting Ram Niwas's defense that these were fair criticisms or truthful disclosures in the public interest, the Court emphasized that fair criticism is permissible only with respect to the merits of finally decided cases and must not impute dishonest or improper motives to judges. The Court further held that the defense of truth in public interest requires proof and bona fide invocation, which was absent in this case as Ram Niwas failed to substantiate his allegations with any material evidence.
The Court also addressed the plea of limitation, clarifying that initiation of contempt proceedings occurs when a Magistrate forwards a reference to the High Court, not when cognizance is taken by the High Court. Since the reference was sent within the prescribed one-year limitation period, the proceedings were held not to be time-barred.
Highlighting the persistent and systematic vilification campaign launched by Ram Niwas against the judiciary over several years and in multiple proceedings, the Court noted his refusal to tender any apology or show remorse, thereby aggravating the contempt. However, considering his age (81 years) and ailments as mitigating factors, the Court indicated that the sentence of imprisonment, which is to be imposed only in rarest of rare cases, might be avoided, and a fine could be the appropriate punishment.
This judgment reinforces the principle that while the right to free speech and fair criticism of judicial orders is fundamental, it does not extend to baseless and scandalous attacks on the integrity of judges or judicial officers. The Court underscored the need to preserve the majesty and authority of the judiciary, which is crucial for the maintenance of public confidence and orderly administration of justice.
The matter is listed for hearing on the quantum of sentence on October 12, 2026, with bailable warrants issued to secure the contemnor's presence.
Bottom Line:
Contempt of Court - A litigant's scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations against Judges and judicial officers, made by way of applications and notices before the court, amount to criminal contempt by scandalizing the judiciary and lowering its authority, notwithstanding the litigant's right to fair criticism.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 2(c), 5, 12, 13(b), 20
