'X' Post Targeting CJ Ashwani Mishra: Punjab & Haryana HC Lawyer Moves Criminal Contempt Plea Against CJP's Saurav Das

Advocate Nitin Garg, who practices before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, has filed a contempt petition against Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leader Saurav Das over his 'X' post targeting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra.

The plea states that the concerned 'X' post by Das alleged "roster abuse", political motivation and a purported ₹20,000-crore financial impact arising from a recent Division Bench judgment concerning Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR).

Advocate Garg, who is also the State General Secretary for Youth BJP Punjab, has approached the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The petition concerns an X post dated August 20, 2026, published under the hashtag "#StoryAlert" was in relation to a Division Bench judgment dated August 3, 2026 in LPA-1437-2026 and connected matters concerning the Punjab DA/DR dispute.

What did the post allege?

According to the petition, the 'X' post questioned the manner in which the matter had been dealt with by the High Court and made allegations including "roster abuse" and political motivation.

The post also referred to an alleged financial impact of ₹20,000 crore and questioned whether the recommendation regarding the elevation of the then Acting Chief Justice, made on August 6, 2026, was coincidental in the context of the judgment.

Garg's case is that these statements went beyond permissible criticism of a judicial decision and amounted to imputations concerning the integrity and independence of the judicial process.

The petitioner has therefore invoked the High Court's contempt jurisdiction, contending that the publication tends to scandalise the Court and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Challenge to claims about the DA/DR judgment

The petition also disputes the factual basis of several assertions made in the 'X' post. According to Garg, the Division Bench judgment dated August 3 did not create a fresh liability of ₹20,000 crore, as suggested in the post.

His case is that the Bench had affirmed the decision of the Single Judge and that the financial consequences alleged in the social media post were therefore misleadingly attributed to the Division Bench.

The petition further challenges a claim concerning the time granted for compliance. According to the petitioner, the original deadline of June 30, 2026, had already expired, and the reference in paragraph 127 of the judgment to a period of 15 days was a fresh period granted thereafter, rather than a reduction of an existing 30-day deadline to 15 days.

Another allegation concerns the functioning of the roster. The petitioner disputes the suggestion that the matter had been withdrawn from an independent Bench through roster manipulation, pointing out that allocation and listing of matters before different Benches falls within the institutional framework governing the High Court's roster.

'Promotion' reference also challenged

The contempt plea also challenges the post's reference to the Acting Chief Justice's "promotion" on August 6, 2026.

According to the petitioner, what took place on August 6 was a Collegium recommendation and not a notified appointment. The petitioner further points out that the concerned judge subsequently took the oath as Chief Justice on September 7, 2026.

Garg's case is that linking the judicial decision to the subsequent elevation, by suggesting coincidence, improperly attributes a political or extraneous motive to the judicial process.

The proceedings also seek action concerning the social media material and preservation of electronic records from X Corp, which has been impleaded as a respondent.

This development comes just hours after the Delhi High Court today pulled up Das and other CJP leaders over an AI-generated social media post allegedly attributing defamatory remarks to BJP leader and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia

The bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that “attacking like this without verifying is not correct” and suggesting that the posts against Sr. Adv. Bhatia be voluntarily taken down.

Bhatia has filed a ₹2-crore defamation suit against CJP leaders.

Court noted that while the original AI-generated post had already been taken down, subsequent posts by the defendants remained in question. It asked the defendants to consider removing those posts as well and file their replies.

Soon thereafter, Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Das and Ashutosh Ranka undertook before the Delhi High Court to delete, within 24 hours, social media posts.

The case stems from a social media post shared by Das, which allegedly portrayed Bhatia as calling Swatantra Bhardwaj a “dimagi naxal” and accusing him of having “casteist poison” in him.

Bhatia has denied making the remarks and has contended that the statements were falsely attributed to him.

During the hearing, Bhatia described the matter as one of “aggravated defamation”, arguing that the posts could not remain on the internet as the defendants have a large number of followers.

"These posts can’t be on the internet. They have millions of followers. It is causing damage to my image by every minute," Bhatia submitted.