CJP legal affairs Ratna Singh head faces contempt proceedings over remarks against judge

The Delhi government's Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against CJP's Ratna Singh over social media posts alleging that a Saket Court magistrate was acting under the influence of an external authority

New Delhi: The Delhi government’s Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal), Amol Sinha, has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Ratna Singh, the legal affairs head of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), over her social media posts concerning a Judicial Magistrate at the Saket Court.

Singh had alleged that the judicial officer was “serving the master” and acting on the instructions of an external authority.

---

Advocate Kaushik Chatterjee had sought the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the CJP’s legal affairs head.

The remarks made against the judge in a post on X were deemed, prima facie, to fall within the scope of criminal contempt. Consent was granted under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

“Judge is serving the master. Went for break/meeting 4 times during entire hearing. Order without any application of law,” Ratna Singh had posted on X.

In another post, she had said, “Delhi Police is following order from master. Judge is following order from master.”

In his reply, Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sinha said, “It is well settled that judicial orders are open to criticism, including criticism of their reasoning, legality and correctness. A person aggrieved by a judicial determination is entitled to question the same through remedies available under law and may also express disagreement with the decision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.N. Duda v. V.P. Shiv Shankar, (1988) 3 SCC 167, has recognised that fair criticism of judicial functioning is permissible and must be distinguished from statements which scandalise or tend to lower the authority of the Court.”

However, he said that “a clear distinction exists between questioning the correctness of a judicial decision and attributing extraneous influences or improper motives to the Judicial Officer responsible for rendering such decision”.

He added that the “present opinion is confined to the prima facie nature of the allegations and shall not be construed as a final determination of criminal contempt, which shall remain subject to the independent consideration of the Hon’ble High Court”.