Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent, who had raised allegations against the impartiality of the Presiding Officer during a long-running trial. The Court, acknowledging the respondent’s frustration over the decades-long delay in the case, disposed of the criminal contempt reference. However, it cautioned the respondent to ensure that such behavior is not repeated in the future.
Facts
- Origin of the Case:
- The case arose from a Sessions Case (02/2019) concerning the alleged disappearance and killings of the respondent’s family members, including his brother, brother-in-law, and their driver.
- These alleged acts occurred when Sumedh Singh Saini was serving as the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in Punjab, along with other police officials.
- Transfer of Trial:
- Initially, the case was registered and proceeded in Punjab.
- The respondent filed a transfer petition, leading to the trial being moved to Delhi.
- Significant Delay:
- The charges were framed as far back as 6th December 2006.
- Despite earlier court orders (dated 29th September 2010 and 9th September 2011) directing evidence recording on a day-to-day basis, the trial has not concluded.
- Judicial Changes and Complaints:
- The trial was being heard in Rouse Avenue Courts by a Presiding Officer who had substantially heard the arguments between 11th March 2024 and 18th March 2024. However, due to the officer’s transfer, a new Presiding Officer took over.
- Dissatisfied, the respondent filed a transfer petition seeking the case to be heard by the previous Presiding Officer. This petition was rejected by the High Court on 22nd April 2024, observing that the new Presiding Officer could conclude the trial impartially and efficiently.
- Recusal of Presiding Officer:
- Despite the transfer petition being rejected, the respondent again raised allegations against the impartiality of the current Presiding Officer.
- On 18th May 2024, the Presiding Officer recused herself, citing the serious doubts raised about her fairness. The matter was referred to the Principal District & Sessions Judge.
- Rejection of Transfer and Recusal Requests:
- On 22nd July 2024, the Principal District & Sessions Judge rejected both the respondent’s request for transferring the case and the Presiding Officer’s recusal.
- The Court noted that the respondent’s allegations lacked logical or substantial grounds and emphasized that judicial officers should not be maligned without justifiable reasons. The case was referred back to the same Presiding Officer.
- Criminal Contempt Reference:
- On 25th July 2024, during proceedings before the same Presiding Officer, the respondent again raised allegations of bias, prompting the matter to be referred to the Delhi High Court for criminal contempt proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the respondent’s repeated allegations against the Presiding Officer amounted to criminal contempt of court?
- Whether the respondent’s frustration and emotional distress over the prolonged delay in the case warranted leniency?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner (CBI) argued that the respondent’s repeated allegations against the Presiding Officer undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
- It was contended that such behavior amounted to criminal contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The respondent tendered an unconditional apology, stating that the allegations were not made with malafide intent.
- He submitted that his frustration stemmed from the 30-year delay in concluding the trial and the lack of closure in the disappearance of his family members.
- His counsel emphasized that the apology was sincere and urged the Court to show compassion.
Analysis of the Law
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
- The Act defines criminal contempt as behavior that “scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court” or “interferes with judicial proceedings.”
- Allegations against judicial officers without substantial grounds are treated seriously, as they undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
- Judicial Precedents:
- The courts have consistently held that unconditional apologies can be accepted when they appear genuine and stem from personal frustration rather than malafide intent.
- It is essential to balance the judiciary’s need to protect its authority with empathy for litigants facing exceptional circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning
- Frustration Over Delay:
- The Court recognized that the respondent’s actions arose from sheer frustration due to the prolonged 30-year delay in the trial.
- The emotional toll of not knowing the whereabouts of his family members contributed to his behavior.
- Unconditional Apology:
- The Court observed that the respondent tendered his unconditional apology at the outset and expressed sincere remorse.
- Judicial Integrity:
- While protecting judicial integrity is paramount, the Court acknowledged that this case presented exceptional circumstances warranting leniency.
- Balance of Justice:
- The Court emphasized the importance of concluding the trial at the earliest and directed the respondent to refrain from repeating such conduct in the future.
Conclusion
The High Court accepted the respondent’s unconditional apology and disposed of the criminal contempt reference. It cautioned the respondent against making baseless allegations in the future while underscoring the need for the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Implications
- Judicial Authority: The judgment reaffirms that allegations against judges cannot be taken lightly, as they undermine public trust in the judiciary.
- Empathy Toward Litigants: Courts may consider emotional distress and frustration caused by prolonged delays as mitigating factors when adjudicating contempt cases.
- Need for Expeditious Trials: The judgment highlights the importance of concluding long-pending trials promptly to ensure justice and prevent further distress to litigants.
