Imputing Motives to Judges Is Contempt: P&H High Court

Imputing Motives to Judges Is Not Fair Criticism: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Litigant Guilty of Contempt

Published: 16 September 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held a litigant guilty of criminal contempt for scurrilous, uncorroborated allegations against High Court judges and judicial officers who dealt with his criminal complaint (paras 42, 51). Filing the material in court was publication, the reference was within time, fair comment under Section 5 needs a finally decided case, and truth under Section 13(b) was not proved (paras 37, 41, 45, 49). Sentence is to be heard on 12.10.2026 (para 53).

Key holdings

Contempt proceedings are initiated when the Magistrate sends the reference; later administrative delay does not attract the one-year bar in Section 20 (paras 36-37).

Filing an application with annexures before a court satisfies publication under Section 2(c); mens rea need not be proved (para 41).

Fair comment under Section 5 covers only a case heard and finally decided, and never vilification of Judges (paras 39-40, 45).

The onus of proving truth under Section 13(b) lies on the contemnor; an uncorroborated belief is not truth (para 49).

Threatening to hold the High Court responsible for any harm to him formed part of the contempt (para 51).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The contemnor's dispute over a petrol-pump partnership goes back to 1987; his private criminal complaint of 2007 against eight persons, including a partner and six BPCL officers, was pending (paras 2-3). On 08.08.2019 he applied to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, for arrest warrants against the accused, annexing his own show cause notices alleging that named High Court judges and judicial officers had "got involved" with the accused and passed illegal orders (para 4). The Magistrate dismissed the application and sent a reference; after administrative processing, notice of motion issued on 21.02.2022 (paras 4, 9-13). He declined legal aid, appeared in person and repeated his allegations; an Amicus Curiae assisted the Court (paras 14-16, 24).

Court's Findings

The Court asked whether the contemnor's words stayed within fair criticism of an order or imputed dishonest or improper motives to the Judge; once that line is crossed, Article 19(1)(a) offers no shelter (para 25). He placed no material to support his allegations and owned and repeated them at the hearing (paras 24, 27). On limitation under Section 20, proceedings are initiated when the Magistrate sends the reference, not when the Division Bench takes cognizance, so departmental processing lasting over a year did not bar them (paras 32-37). Filing an application with annexures in court is publication; once scandalising material is found, the contemnor must bring it within Section 5 or Section 13(b), and mens rea need not be proved (para 41). Section 5 did not help him, as the material vilified the Judges and the case was not finally decided (paras 40, 45). For truth under Section 13(b) the onus is on the contemnor, and "An uncorroborated belief cannot be perceived either as a truth in fact or in law" (paras 48-49). Applying Vijay Kurle and Prashant Bhushan, the Court found a sustained campaign without remorse (paras 44, 52).

Legal Principle

A litigant may fairly criticise the reasoning of an order, but imputing dishonest or improper motives to the Judge is criminal contempt. Filing such material in court is publication, fair comment under Section 5 needs a finally decided case, and the contemnor must prove justification by truth under Section 13(b) (paras 25, 41, 45, 49).

Precedents Relied Upon

S.K. Sundaram, In Re Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 2000 (Supreme Court)
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 22, 25
Criminal contempt need not involve publication: the residuary limb, the doing of any other act whatsoever, is wide enough that no act scandalising a court escapes it.
Court on its own motion v. Raju Das and Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 8853
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 22, 25
A litigant may fairly criticise a judicial order under Article 19(1)(a), but may not launch a scurrilous attack on the Judge or impute improper or dishonest motive to him (Calcutta High Court).
Advocate General v. Abrahim George 1976 (Crl. L.J.) 158
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 40
The Section 5 defence needs a fair comment on the merits of a finally decided case, made without casting aspersions on Judges or scandalising the courts.

View all precedents (6)

In Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2019 (Supreme Court)
Applied Discussed at ¶ 44
Complaints with scurrilous allegations against sitting Judges, sent without remorse to intimidate them, were contempt; the High Court found the parallel direct.
In Re: Prashant Bhushan Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020 (Supreme Court)
Applied Discussed at ¶ 44
Dissatisfaction with a judicial order, however genuine, cannot translate into an imputation of corrupt or mala fide motive against the Judge who passed it.
Indirect Tax Practitioners' Assn. v. R.K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 50
Under the substituted Section 13, truth may be allowed as a defence if it is in the public interest and the request is bona fide, unless it is a camouflage for a deliberate attempt to scandalise the court; quoted where the allegations were found untrue.