In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal contempt petition filed by Advocate Arun Mishra against Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sunita Agrawal, the current Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, formerly a Puisne Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The court, presided by a Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I, termed the petition as “frivolous” and “vexatious,” stating that the application did not warrant judicial consideration.
Background of the Case
The case stems from Advocate Arun Mishra’s dissatisfaction with a previous judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Sunita Agrawal. The judgment in question was from Writ-C No. 20930 of 2020 (Satish Chandra and Another vs. Union of India and 4 Others), where the petition was dismissed on December 7, 2020 with a cost of ₹15,000 imposed on the petitioner.
Mishra, appearing in person, alleged that the judgment was delivered without giving him an opportunity to fully present his arguments and that the imposition of costs was unjustified. He further claimed that Justice Agrawal’s conduct in presiding over the case amounted to criminal contempt under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Key Legal Issues
1. Scope of Criminal Contempt: The primary legal issue involved was whether a judicial decision, made in good faith and within judicial discretion, could amount to criminal contempt.
2. Jurisdiction Under Section 15(1)(b): The petitioner’s application relied on Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which requires written consent from the Advocate General to initiate contempt proceedings. The court examined whether the petition was properly constituted under this provision.
3. Frivolous Litigation and Abuse of Process: The case also raised concerns about the misuse of legal processes by filing frivolous and vexatious petitions, which waste valuable court time.
Court’s Decision
Upon reviewing the petition and hearing arguments, the Bench delivered a scathing rebuke to the applicant, stating that the petition had “no substance whatsoever” and was a clear misuse of the court’s contempt jurisdiction. The court underscored that judicial discretion exercised by Justice Agrawal in dismissing the petition and imposing costs did not, in any manner, amount to criminal contempt.
The judgment clarified the definition of criminal contempt, referring to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which outlines criminal contempt as any act that scandalizes or tends to scandalize a court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice. The court found no merit in the allegations against Justice Agrawal, stating that her judicial conduct fell well within the bounds of law.
The Bench observed:
“Criminal contempt is primarily a matter between the court and the contemner, not between a private individual and the contemner. It is not an avenue for personal vendetta or the settling of personal scores.”
The court further emphasized that the written consent of the Advocate General was not obtained, and Mishra’s earlier application for such consent had been rejected by the Advocate General on May 7, 2024. This rejection was also upheld by the Allahabad High Court when Mishra challenged it in Writ-C No. 17851 of 2024.
The court strongly condemned the filing of frivolous contempt petitions, particularly by advocates who should act with a certain degree of responsibility. It noted that such petitions hamper the proper functioning of the judicial system and waste precious judicial resources. The judgment stated:
“This court has no hesitation in holding that the present criminal contempt application is not only frivolous but also vexatious. Such applications should be discouraged by all means, especially when filed by advocates, who are officers of the court.”
Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt petition outright, calling it “wholly misconceived, irresponsible, and meritless”. The court’s ruling reinforces the importance of preventing the misuse of contempt proceedings and upholding the integrity of the judiciary.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Arun Mishra vs. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sunita Agrawal
– Case Number: Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 17 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I
– Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:153945-DB
