HC sentences man to 7-day jail for contempt of court

The Delhi High Court today awarded seven-day jail term to a man for contempt of court for casting aspersions on the professional integrity of advocates representing a government department, saying his conduct betrayed "a wanton disregard" of court procedure.
The high court said the man indulged in wastage of precious judicial time and his status was that of a "busy body interloper" in the matter pending before it.
It, however, suspended his sentence for two months to enable him file an appeal against the judgement.
The man's "conduct betrays a wanton disregard of court procedure and an indulgence in wastage of previous judicial time, especially in view of his repeated resiling from withdrawing the allegations against lawyers assisting the Court and offering an unconditional apology," Justices Siddharth Mridul and Nazmi Waziri said.

The court said criminal contempt of court includes publication in writing or of doing of any other act whatsoever, which prejudices or tends to interfere or obstruct in any manner, the course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice.
It noted that contemnor Rakesh Kumar Gupta had made allegations of impropriety and cast aspersions on the professional integrity of the revenue department counsel, who were assisting the court in the administration of justice.

The bench, which also imposed a fine of Rs 2000 on the man, said the amount be deposited in the court within a week, failing which he will have to undergo further simple imprisonment for seven days.

"If the order is not modified, the same shall come into effect after 60 days from today and the contemnor shall be taken into custody and sent to Tihar Jail to undergo the sentence imposed," it said.
The bench noted that on various occasions, Gupta had agreed to withdraw the allegations but each time he resiled from honouring it and even the amicus curaie, appointed for him, had withdrawn from the case in view of his resiling from filing an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology.
"He fully understands the import of these proceedings and is open to the consequences of the same. ... He would, therefore, have to be held responsible for the same.

"The court is of the view that the conduct of the respondent, insofar as he has leveled baseless allegations against counsel who appeared and assisted the court and as well as for the other reasons specified in the show cause notice, tantamount to substantial interference in the administration of justice," the bench said.
It said despite giving ample opportunity to the man, he has not shown anything to justify the allegations to be true.