Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court has issued a criminal contempt of court notice to an individual who filed a petition demanding the death penalty for a High Court judge. The petitioner, Naresh Sharma, also sought charges of sedition against the judge while making inflammatory comparisons. The move comes after Sharma's plea, which sought a probe into corruption by the Indian government since independence, was dismissed by a single judge on July 27, 2023.

Sharma's appeals against the initial judgment were reviewed by a Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, on August 31. The Bench examined the three appeals, which contained numerous unsubstantiated and fanciful allegations of criminal misconduct against the single judge and the Supreme Court of India.

The court noted that Sharma had even requested the death penalty by a firing squad for government officers. The Division Bench deemed such allegations as 'unacceptable' and 'distasteful,' with the clear intent of undermining the authority of the Court.

"In our opinion, the statements have been advanced with the malafide intention to interfere with the administration of justice. This Court cannot disregard vilification of this magnitude against a judge of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is a fine line of distinction that separates critique from allegations fueled by disdain and a hostile intent to scandalize the court. The pleadings in the present appeal amount to the latter category and must be taken cognizance of," the court stated in its order.

Consequently, the court issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, requiring him to explain why criminal contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him. The case is scheduled to be heard by the roster bench on September 18, 2023.

Sharma's original petition before the single judge sought drastic action against government officials, including allegations of widespread economic crimes since India's independence, some of which were purportedly committed in collusion with the Tata Group of companies. He claimed to be an alumnus of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and argued that various organizations had been criminally established, infringing upon his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had rejected Sharma's plea on July 27, 2023. In a detailed order, the Court also directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to formulate rules for regulating the conduct of litigants representing themselves in person who submit frivolous petitions.

In his appeals, Sharma insisted that criminal and defamation proceedings be initiated against the single judge, alleging violations of his fundamental rights. He argued that her judgment was not only 'baseless' but also 'defamatory,' and, as such, she should be charged with criminal defamation.

Sharma's passionate plea to "criminally charge the Single Bench" and consider the "death penalty" for the judge has ignited a legal battle that is set to test the boundaries of free speech and contempt of court in India's legal system.

Case Title: Naresh Sharma v Union of India and Ors.