Headnotes
In the course of a decades-old petrol pump partnership dispute, an 81-year-old litigant repeatedly alleged that sitting and former High Court judges and Hisar district judicial officers had "got involved" with the opposing side and passed "illegal orders." The trial court forwarded the matter to the High Court, which initiated contempt proceedings.
Full Judgment Text
FACTS:
In the course of a decades-old partnership dispute concerning a petrol pump, the respondent, an 81-year-old litigant, repeatedly made allegations that sitting and former judges of the High Court and judicial officers of the Hisar district judiciary had "got involved" with the parties opposing him and had passed "illegal orders" as a result. These allegations were made while his own litigation remained pending before the courts concerned, and the trial court forwarded the matter to the High Court, which initiated suo motu contempt proceedings.
The respondent sought to defend himself by invoking the statutory protection for fair criticism of judicial functioning under Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
A Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur held that the defence of fair criticism under Section 5 is available only in respect of a case that has been finally decided, and cannot be invoked to justify scandalous allegations levelled against judges while the litigant's own case remains pending before them. The Court stated that this defence "can be availed only once a final judgment is passed."
The Bench drew a clear distinction between fair, objective criticism of the reasoning in a judicial order and personal attacks imputing dishonest or improper motives to the judge who passed it — holding that the latter crosses into criminal contempt.
On the evidentiary aspect, the Court rejected the respondent's unsubstantiated allegations, observing: "An uncorroborated belief cannot be perceived either as truth in fact or in law."
HOLDING:
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held the 81-year-old respondent guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, finding that his conduct amounted to a sustained campaign of vilification against the judiciary rather than fair criticism.
Source: LiveLaw, "'Fair Criticism' Cannot Extend To Imputing Dishonest Motives To Judges: P&H High Court Holds 81-Year-Old Guilty Of Contempt," September 7, 2026.
In the course of a decades-old partnership dispute concerning a petrol pump, the respondent, an 81-year-old litigant, repeatedly made allegations that sitting and former judges of the High Court and judicial officers of the Hisar district judiciary had "got involved" with the parties opposing him and had passed "illegal orders" as a result. These allegations were made while his own litigation remained pending before the courts concerned, and the trial court forwarded the matter to the High Court, which initiated suo motu contempt proceedings.
The respondent sought to defend himself by invoking the statutory protection for fair criticism of judicial functioning under Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
A Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur held that the defence of fair criticism under Section 5 is available only in respect of a case that has been finally decided, and cannot be invoked to justify scandalous allegations levelled against judges while the litigant's own case remains pending before them. The Court stated that this defence "can be availed only once a final judgment is passed."
The Bench drew a clear distinction between fair, objective criticism of the reasoning in a judicial order and personal attacks imputing dishonest or improper motives to the judge who passed it — holding that the latter crosses into criminal contempt.
On the evidentiary aspect, the Court rejected the respondent's unsubstantiated allegations, observing: "An uncorroborated belief cannot be perceived either as truth in fact or in law."
HOLDING:
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held the 81-year-old respondent guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, finding that his conduct amounted to a sustained campaign of vilification against the judiciary rather than fair criticism.
Source: LiveLaw, "'Fair Criticism' Cannot Extend To Imputing Dishonest Motives To Judges: P&H High Court Holds 81-Year-Old Guilty Of Contempt," September 7, 2026.