Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court on September 21, 2024, dismissed a contempt application filed by Advocate Arun Mishra against Justice Sunita Agarwal, currently serving as the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, labeling the plea as "frivolous and vexatious".

Adv Mishra had sought criminal contempt proceedings against Justice Agarwal who was then sitting at the Allahabad High Court, alleging that a series of orders passed by her bench were biased and amounted to contempt of court. He claimed that the orders were made with improper motives and were designed to damage his professional standing

However, the high court unequivocally rejected these assertions, stating that none of the orders in question fell within the scope of "criminal contempt" as defined by law.

The contempt petition pertained to a writ petition Adv Mishra had filed in 2020, which was dismissed by a division bench comprising Justice Agarwal and another judge with a Rs. 15,000 cost imposed on the petitioner.

Adv Mishra contended that the bench had not given him an opportunity to fully present his arguments before delivering its judgment. He further accused the judge of consistently passing orders dismissing cases in which he was the counsel, citing several instances where his petitions were rejected while other, similar cases were merely adjourned.

Adv Mishra's argument was that Justice Agarwal's conduct in court was not only prejudicial but also constituted contempt of her own court.

Adv Mishra had initially sought the consent of the Advocate General to proceed with the contempt application but was denied. Undeterred, he approached the court directly, leading to the present proceedings.

The division bench comprising Justices Rajiv Gupta and Surendra Singh thoroughly examined the sequence of events and orders passed by Justice Agarwal. It highlighted that each of the cited orders was made in the exercise of judicial discretion based on the facts of the respective cases.

The division bench ruled that judicial decisions made in good faith, even if adverse, do not amount to contempt.

Court also pointed out the rigorous procedural safeguards embedded in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly Section 15, which necessitates the written consent of the Advocate General for a criminal contempt petition to proceed.

Court reiterated that the power to initiate contempt proceedings is not a tool for private vendetta or personal prestige, but a mechanism to uphold the dignity and majesty of the judiciary.

It stated, “The present criminal contempt application is not only frivolous but is also vexatious. In the interest of proper functioning of this Institution, such applications should be discouraged by all means. More so, when the litigant happens to be an Advocate from whom the Court is entitled to except certain degree of responsibility and restraint".

Court further warned against the misuse of contempt jurisdiction, cautioning that such behavior from officers of the court undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Accordingly, court rejected Adv Mishra's petition for being "wholly misconceived, frivolous, irresponsible and merit-less".

Case Title: Arun Mishra vs. Honble Mrs Justice Sunita Agrawal, The Then Puine Judge Of This High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad