New Delhi: Delhi govt’s additional standing counsel (criminal) Amol Sinha has granted consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the legal head of Cockroach Janata Party, Ratna Singh, over her social media posts against a Delhi court’s judicial officer.“The said expressions prima facie suggest that the judicial officer was acting under the instructions of an external authority rather than independently exercising judicial discretion in accordance with law,” Sinha said, adding that the imputations questioned the “independence and impartiality” of the judicial process and could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.The consent followed a representation by advocate Kausik Chatterjee, who sought initiation of contempt proceedings against Singh through a letter dated Oct 14 and a supplementary representation on Oct 28.The matter relates to Singh’s posts on X expressing dissatisfaction with an order passed by chief judicial magistrate Abhinav Pandey of the Saket courts on Oct 10. The magistrate had rejected her plea seeking an FIR against Delhi Police personnel and release from alleged detention outside her Jangpura Extension residence, where she was stopped from joining a lawyers’ protest against chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision exercise.Chatterjee contended that Singh’s statements went beyond criticism of a judicial order and questioned the independence and impartiality of the presiding officer.In a letter dated Nov 2, Sinha granted consent for taking appropriate steps to initiate proceedings against Singh under the Contempt of Courts Act. He said the specific imputations against the magistrate prima facie attracted the definition of criminal contempt and disclosed sufficient grounds for invoking the Delhi High Court’s criminal contempt jurisdiction.Distinguishing between criticism of a judicial decision and allegations against the judicial officer, Sinha said, “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. However, 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.”
