‘Judge Serving the Master’: Delhi Govt Counsel Consents to Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against CJP Member Ratna Singh For X Posts

Delhi Government's Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha has given his consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) legal affairs head Ratna Singh over her social media posts accusing a Saket Court judge of “serving” and “following order” from “master”. 

Singh had posted on X after hearing in her 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.

In a communication dated November 2, 2026, addressed to advocate Kausik Chatterjee, Sinha said the statements prima facie attracted Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which deals with publications that scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower, the authority of a court.

The consent follows two representations submitted by Chatterjee on October 14 and October 28, seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Singh over her posts on X and statements.

The first representation concerned judicial proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey of the South-East District, Saket Courts, relating to Singh's alleged detention by Delhi Police. According to the representation, Pandey passed an order on October 10, 2026, declining the relief sought against her alleged detention.

Following the proceedings, Singh published two X posts expressing dissatisfaction with the judicial order and questioning the judge's conduct.

In one post, she stated, "Judge serving the master. Went for break/meeting 4 times during entire hearing. Order without any application of law".

In another post, referring to her alleged detention and the conduct of Delhi Police, she stated, "@DelhiPolice is following order from master. Judge is following order from master".

The representation contended that the statements went beyond criticism of the judicial order and questioned the independence and impartiality of the presiding judicial officer.

Considering the allegations, Sinha observed that there was a clear distinction between questioning the correctness of a judicial decision and attributing extraneous influences or improper motives to the judge who passed it.

He said the expressions "serving the master" and "following order from master" were not confined to the merits of the order or the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. Instead, they prima facie suggested that the judicial officer was acting under instructions from an external authority rather than independently exercising judicial discretion in accordance with law.

"Such imputations, in my opinion, strike at the independence and impartiality of the judicial process," Sinha said.

He further observed that an allegation that a judicial officer acted at the instance of an external authority, without any supporting factual foundation being disclosed, could create an impression that judicial decisions were influenced by considerations unrelated to the merits of a case.

According to Sinha, such allegations, when made publicly against an identifiable judicial officer in connection with proceedings conducted by him, could lower the authority of the court and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

He also noted that the statements were made on a publicly accessible social media platform and received considerable public attention. While their circulation alone could not constitute criminal contempt, it was a relevant circumstance in assessing their potential impact on public confidence in the judiciary.

Sinha referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in P.N. Duda v. V.P. Shiv Shankar and Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to distinguish permissible criticism of judicial functioning from allegations that could scandalise the court.

Separately, Sinha declined to treat Singh's criticism of Delhi Police and the Special Executive Magistrate system as contempt.

The supplementary representation had raised objections to Singh's subsequent publications concerning preventive proceedings involving Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka before Special Executive Magistrate Ritu Raj.

It referred to an X post dated October 16, a Press Trust of India report dated October 19, an order passed by the Special Executive Magistrate on October 21 and another X post dated October 22. The complaint alleged that these publications reflected repeated allegations questioning the independence of adjudicatory authorities.

However, Sinha said these subsequent publications were principally directed against the conduct of the Delhi Police and the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system. He said they must be distinguished from the specific allegations against the Chief Judicial Magistrate and could not be treated as criminal contempt merely because they expressed strong criticism of those authorities. He also clarified that the October 21 order did not record any personal apology or undertaking by Singh, nor did it contain any finding of contempt against her.

Sinha consented to taking appropriate steps for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Singh under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, through a motion by the competent Law Officer.

He clarified that his opinion was confined to the prima facie nature of the allegations and would not amount to a final determination of criminal contempt, which would remain subject to the independent consideration of the Delhi High Court.