'Serving the Master': Delhi Govt Backs Criminal Contempt Case Against CJP's Ratna Singh
Delhi government counsel gives the green light for criminal contempt proceedings against CJP leader Ratna Singh over posts targeting a judge.
The Delhi government has given its official consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Ratna Singh, a leader of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), following a series of controversial social media posts. The legal action stems from allegations that Singh targeted a judicial officer, suggesting the judge was not acting independently but was instead following the directives of an unidentified "master."
The Spark: A Disputed Court Order
The tension began during proceedings at the Saket Courts before Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey. The case concerned Singh’s alleged detention by the Delhi Police. On October 10, the court passed an order declining the relief Singh had sought regarding her detention.
Following this judicial setback, Singh took to the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to voice her dissatisfaction. However, the government counsel argues that her expressions crossed the line from legal criticism to contempt of court.
'Serving the Master': The Contentious Posts
According to representations submitted by advocate Kausik Chatterjee, Singh published posts that directly questioned the integrity of the presiding officer. Specifically, the representation highlighted posts where Singh allegedly claimed that the "Judge" was "serving the master" and suggested that both the judge and the Delhi Police were "following order from master."
Amol Sinha, the Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal), provided a formal opinion on November 2, stating that these imputations prima facie attack the independence and impartiality of the judicial process. He noted that there were sufficient grounds to invoke the criminal contempt jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
Criticism vs. Contempt: Where is the Line?
In his detailed opinion, Sinha clarified the legal distinction between criticizing a judgment and attacking a judge. He emphasized that judicial orders are always open to criticism, and any aggrieved party has the right to challenge the legality or reasoning of an order through the proper legal channels.
However, the counsel argued that Singh's comments were not about the merits of the order. By suggesting the judge was acting under the instructions of an external authority, the posts allegedly implied that judicial discretion was being bypassed. Sinha observed that making such public allegations without a factual basis could lower the authority of the court and erode public confidence in the administration of justice.
What About Other CJP Leaders?
The legal scrutiny also touched upon subsequent publications regarding preventive proceedings involving other CJP leaders, namely Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. These posts contained strong criticism of the Special Executive Magistrate system and the conduct of the Delhi Police.
Interestingly, the Additional Standing Counsel distinguished these posts from those made by Ratna Singh. He concluded that while the remarks regarding the Special Executive Magistrate system were strongly critical, they were primarily directed at police conduct and systemic functioning, and therefore did not constitute criminal contempt.
The opinion further noted that an order passed by the Special Executive Magistrate on October 21 did not include any finding of contempt against Singh, nor did it record any personal apology or undertaking from her.