An advocate practising before the Supreme Court has sought initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) legal affairs head Ratna Singh over her social media posts alleging that a judicial officer of the Saket District Courts was “serving” and “following order” from “master”.

In a representation dated October 14, 2026, advocate Kausik Chatterjee approached the Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the Government of Delhi, requesting that the material be examined and appropriate steps be taken to initiate criminal contempt proceedings before the Delhi High Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The representation concerns judicial proceedings before the court of Abhinav Pandey, Chief Judicial Magistrate, District South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, and an order passed on October 10, 2026.

The matter before the Judge was Singh’s own petition seeking registration of an FIR against police personnel for allegedly wrongfully confining her and preventing her from joining the proposed CJP protest at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, for which Delhi Police had denied permission.

Judge Pandey had dismissed her plea.

‘Judge Serving The Master’: Posts Cited In Representation

The representation refers to an alleged post published by Singh on X, stating: “Judge serving the master. Went for break/meeting 4 times during entire hearing. Order without any application of law.”

It also cites another post in which she stated: “Judge is following order from master.”

According to the advocate, the statements go beyond criticism of the judicial order or the reasoning adopted by the court.

The representation contends that attributing the judicial officer’s conduct and decision-making to an unidentified “master” suggests that the proceedings were controlled or influenced by an external authority rather than being guided by an independent application of law.

The advocate has clarified that his concern is not with Singh’s criticism of the judicial order or her reference to breaks during the hearing. Instead, it is confined to the allegation that the judicial officer was acting under the instructions of a “master”.

The representation acknowledges that judicial orders are open to criticism, including robust criticism of their legality, reasoning and correctness, provided such criticism is made in good faith and within the permissible limits of law.

Significantly, the representation states that Singh publicly represents herself as a lawyer and a person professing such legal background and professional responsibilities may reasonably be expected to appreciate the distinction between permissible criticism of a judicial order and imputations questioning the independence and impartiality of a Judicial Officer.

"Her statements therefore warrant examination in the context of her publicly represented professional standing and the responsibility accompanying it" the representation states.

Representation Invokes Contempt Of Courts Act

The advocate has invoked Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt to include publications that scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower, the authority of any court.

The representation also refers to Section 10 of the Act, which confers jurisdiction on the High Court in respect of contempt of subordinate courts, and Section 13, which prescribes the statutory threshold of substantial interference, or a tendency substantially to interfere, with the due course of justice.

It contends that the nature of the imputations, their public dissemination and the circumstances surrounding their publication warrant examination by the competent authority.

However, the advocate has stated that the representation does not prejudge whether the statements satisfy the statutory requirements for criminal contempt.

The representation relies on Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, concerning the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings relating to subordinate courts through a motion made by the designated Law Officer.

Chatterjee has requested the Standing Counsel (Criminal) to examine the enclosed material and, if satisfied that the statutory requirements are fulfilled, take appropriate steps to initiate proceedings before the Delhi High Court.

The representation encloses copies of the relevant X publications, their URLs and supporting material concerning the social media posts and the judicial proceedings. It also includes a screenshot of Singh’s public profile, which describes her as a lawyer and the legal affairs head of CJP.