Man Accuses Basti Judge of Corruption on WhatsApp, Faces Contempt Charges from Allahabad HC

A reference was made on August 10, 2023, by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Basti, who reported that Pandey had posted a message on a WhatsApp group of advocates, accusing Judge Vijay Kumar Katiyar of accepting bribes and preparing fake order sheets in several pending cases. The message, which soon went viral among lawyers and others, further called upon “honourable advocates” to help expose alleged offences under the IPC, Contempt of Courts Act, and even the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Taking note of the message’s contents, the Administrative Judge found that Pandey’s conduct “scandalized and terrorized the court”, bringing the judiciary into public disrepute. Acting on this reference, the Chief Justice of the High Court directed the matter to be placed before the bench holding the contempt roster.

Notices were issued to Pandey in July 2024. He appeared in person and was offered multiple opportunities to defend himself, including legal assistance from senior counsels Vinay Saran and Gajendra Pratap through the High Court Legal Services Committee. However, Pandey declined representation, insisting that he was competent to argue on his own.

During the hearings, court discovered that Pandey was not an enrolled advocate, though he was part of WhatsApp groups created for members of various Bar Associations in Basti. Court therefore directed notices to seven Bar Associations, including Civil, District, Young, and Harraiya Tehsil Bar Associations, to verify his membership status. The associations collectively confirmed that Pandey was not a member of the Bar and distanced themselves from his conduct. They also undertook to regulate membership of their WhatsApp groups to prevent misuse.

Pandey subsequently filed two applications before the court, first, seeking to halt proceedings on the ground that the Advocate General’s consent was mandatory for initiating contempt, and second, demanding that the matter be transferred to the Chief Justice under an alleged “in-house” procedure for dealing with complaints against subordinate judges. Both applications were dismissed as misconceived.

The bench clarified that the High Court does not require the Advocate General’s permission to take cognizance of criminal contempt, and no law provides for an in-house inquiry into subordinate judicial officers.

After rejecting his objections, the bench proceeded to frame formal charges against Pandey on September 18, 2025, holding that his WhatsApp message was “deliberately intended to scandalize and lower the authority of the court".

Court noted that the post carried serious, unfounded allegations that damaged public confidence in the judiciary.

Pandey pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 12 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and claimed trial.

Court directed that a copy of the charge and relevant papers be served upon him through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

The matter has been scheduled for hearing on October 9, 2025, when the court will proceed with the trial.

Case Title: In Re vs Krishna Kumar Pandey

Order Date: September 18, 2025

Bench: Justices J.J. Munir and Pramod Kumar Srivastava