The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has framed charges of criminal contempt against an individual, Krishna Kumar Pandey, for allegedly publishing a message on a lawyers’ WhatsApp group that accused a sitting Additional District Judge of corruption and fabricating judicial orders.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava determined that a prima facie case was made out against the contemnor for acts that scandalise and lower the authority of the court. The Court rejected preliminary objections raised by the contemnor, including the argument that such proceedings required prior permission from the Advocate General, and proceeded to frame charges under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Background of the Case
The proceedings were initiated based on a reference dated August 10, 2023, from the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Basti. The reference reported that Krishna Kumar Pandey had posted a message on a WhatsApp group of advocates in the Basti district. The message, written in Hindi, accused the Presiding Officer, Shri Vijay Kumar Katiyar, of “taking a bribe” and “writing forged, fake, and fabricated order sheets” in several pending cases.
The message further alleged that the judge’s actions amounted to crushing the law and the Constitution, creating a “new jurisprudence” and attempting to “end the rule of law in India.” It concluded with an appeal to other advocates to join in demanding an investigation into the alleged corruption and sedition. The referring Judge contended that the message, which went viral, was “calculated to deliberately scandalise and lower the authority of the Court.”
The reference was examined by the Hon’ble Administrative Judge, who found substance in the complaint. In a detailed note, the Administrative Judge remarked that the contemnor’s actions were contemptuous and fell under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The note stated:
“…the aforesaid act of levelling the charges of corruption, making viral of fake video among the WhatsApp group of advocates, levelling allegation of writing fake and forged order sheet, against the Presiding Officer… insulting and maligning the image of Presiding Officer… browbeating the Judicial system, scandalizing and terrorizing the Court… is contemptuous, which has not only brought down the image of the court but also undermined the authority of the court…”
Following approval from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the matter was placed before the Division Bench for hearing.
Arguments and Preliminary Objections by the Contemnor
Before the framing of charges, the contemnor, Krishna Kumar Pandey, filed two applications raising preliminary objections.
First, he argued that under Rule 3 of Chapter XXXV-E of The Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, prior permission of the learned Advocate General was necessary to initiate criminal contempt proceedings, and the Court could not proceed without it.
Second, he moved an application requesting that the proceedings be transferred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice to be dealt with under an “in-house procedure” which he claimed was meant for handling complaints against Subordinate Court Judges made via WhatsApp messages.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court meticulously considered and rejected both preliminary objections.
On the requirement of the Advocate General’s permission, the Bench held that its power to take cognizance of criminal contempt is independent. The Court declared:
“There is absolutely no warrant under the law for seeking permission of the learned Advocate General before proceeding in the matter. This Court is always free to take cognizance of a criminal contempt even on an application, without permission of the learned Advocate General.”
Regarding the contemnor’s request for an “in-house procedure,” the Court found the claim to be without any legal basis. It clarified the established mechanism for judicial accountability, stating:
“There is absolutely no mechanism of an in-house procedure for inquiring complaints against Judges of the Subordinate Courts. Rather, Judges of the District Courts are subject to the disciplinary control of this Court. In case a complaint is laid against them, it is inquired into in the first instance administratively, and then, in a vigilance inquiry.”
The Court also noted that despite being offered legal assistance twice through the High Court Legal Services Committee, including the services of two Senior Advocates, Mr. Pandey declined the aid, stating “he was competent to defend himself.” An inquiry also revealed that the contemnor is not a practicing lawyer.
Framing of Charge
Finding sufficient material on record, the Court concluded that a prima facie case was established and proceeded to frame the formal charge against Krishna Kumar Pandey. The charge reads:
“That you, Krishna Kumar Pandey… by your act in publishing the following post on the WhatsApp Group on 14.07.2023 from your Mobile No. committed an act which scandalises and lowers the authority of the Court of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Basti by bringing the Court to disrepute on account of the insinuations made… and thereby committed criminal contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:”
After the charge was read over and explained to him, Mr. Pandey pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Court has scheduled the next hearing for October 9, 2025, and directed the contemnor to remain present in person.
