The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, has directed its Registry to register a criminal contempt petition against a litigant contesting in person after finding that his review application contained contemptuous language directed at a Single Judge. The Division Bench deferred the hearing on the review petition until the final disposal of the criminal contempt proceedings.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Vishram Singh, filed a review petition seeking a review of the High Court’s order dated July 9, 2026, passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 488 of 2026. In the earlier proceedings, the court had dismissed the applicant’s special appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge on the grounds that it was not maintainable. Challenging the dismissal, the applicant filed the review application in person.
Pleadings and Arguments of the Applicant
The review petition filed by the applicant in person was found to be replete with contemptuous language directed at the learned Single Judge whose judgment was appealed against. The statements cited from the review petition, presented with English translations alongside the original Hindi text in brackets, include:
“1. …nor can it usurp by laying down any law” (“1…. न ही किसी विधि का निर्धारण कर हडप सकती है”)
“2. …there are precedents that special appeals are maintainable against orders issued deceitfully, illegally, without reason or basis, and orders affecting the rights of the general public on the basis of a decision. It cannot usurp by laying down any law… it is not only illegal but passed without jurisdiction…” (“2…. धोखे से जारी आदेश और अवैध जारी आदेश और बिना कारण व आधार के जारी आदेश और एक निर्णय के आधार पर आम जनता के अधिकारो को प्रभावित करने के आदेश आदि प्रकार से जारी आदेश के विरूद्ध विशेष अपील पोषणीय होने के दृष्टान्त है। नही किसी विधि का निर्धारण कर हडप सकती है… न केवल आवैध है वल्कि बिना अधिकारिता के पास …”)
“2. …there are precedents that special appeals are maintainable against orders passed without jurisdiction, deceitfully, illegally, without reason or basis, and affecting public rights based on a decision…” (“2…. उसके पास बिना अधिकारिता के और धोखे से जारी आदेश और अवैध जारी आदेश और बिना कारण व आधार के जारी आदेश और एक निर्णय के आधार पर आम जनता के अधिकारो को प्रभावित करने के आदेश आदि प्रकार से जारी आदेश के विरूद्ध विशेष अपील पोषणीय होने के दृष्टान्त है। …”)
“3. Depriving of justice by creating a forged and conspiratorial order amounts to deceiving the appellant/petitioner. A special appeal is maintainable against such illegal and deceitful orders.” (“3. न्याय से एक कूटरचित षडयन्त्रकारी आदेश की रचना करने द्वारा वंचित करना ही अपीलार्थी/याची को धोखा देना है। ऐसे अवैध व धोखा देने वाले आदेश के खिलाफ विशेष अपील पोषणीय है।”)
“5. …Not disclosing in the statements of the order that the order was passed cleverly is akin to deceiving the applicant/petitioner; a special appeal is maintainable against such an order, making the order dated 09.07.2025 fit for review.” (“5. … आदेश के प्रकथनो मे प्रकट न करना आदेश चालाकी से पास किया आवेदक/याची को धोखा देने के समान है ऐसे आदेश के विरूद्ध विशेष अपील पोषणीय है जिसमे आदेश दिनांक ०९.०७.२०२५ की समीक्षा किए जाने योग्य है।”)
Court’s Analysis
Upon evaluating the contents of the review application, the Division Bench noted that the petition was replete with language directed against the learned Single Judge whose judgment was appealed against. The court observed that such pleadings were, on the face of it, contemptuous.
The Bench remarked: “In the circumstances of the case, wherein the petitioner in person, has attempted to lower down the dignity of this Court by use of language, as indicated hereinbefore, which amounts to criminal contempt and therefore, the Registry is directed to register the matter as a criminal contempt petition and place the same before the appropriate Bench.”
Decision of the Court
The Division Bench directed the Registry to register the matter as a criminal contempt petition and lay it before the appropriate Bench for hearing.
Regarding the pending review petition, the Court held: “So far as the review petition is concerned, the same would be taken up after disposal of the criminal contempt petition.”
Case Details
Case Title: Vishram Singh Versus Rajya Uttar Pradesh and 4 others
Case No.: Civil Misc Review Application Defective No. 231 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra
