In a strongly worded order, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has framed charges under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against Shrikrushna B. Thakare, a retired teacher from Amravati, for making false allegations of bribery against a Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal. The Court observed that Thakare’s statements were “not only contradictory… but speak of the intention of the contemnor to make false statement and baseless allegation,” thereby “undermining the authority of the Judicial Officer/Court.”
Background of the Case:
The case arises out of Contempt Petition Reference Case No. 1 of 2024, initiated under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, on a reference made by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal.
Shrikrushna B. Thakare had earlier filed multiple appeals (Nos. 10, 39, and 67 of 2016) before the Tribunal challenging what he alleged was a reduction in rank—claiming that a junior colleague was wrongfully promoted as Headmaster. His appeals were dismissed.
On September 3, 2024, when his review application was taken up, Thakare claimed that the Presiding Officer demanded a bribe of ₹2,00,000 to allow the application. He also complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau on September 11, 2024, alleging that the school management had paid ₹5,00,000 as bribe to the same officer to secure a favorable judgment.
Legal Issues Involved:
- Contempt of Court: Whether baseless allegations of corruption against a judicial officer amount to criminal contempt under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
- Freedom of Speech vs. Integrity of Judiciary: Balancing the right to raise complaints against corruption with the requirement to protect judicial institutions from scandal and false accusations.
- Procedural Fairness: Whether the contemnor was given a fair opportunity to defend himself before the contempt proceedings.
Proceedings Before the High Court:
A division bench comprising Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi heard the matter on March 20, 2025. Advocate Mr. D.A. Sonawane represented Thakare, having been appointed by the Legal Aid Services Authority, while Mr. N.S. Autkar, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State.
The Court noted that Thakare’s complaint contained contradictory claims:
- In Para 23, he alleged the management had paid ₹5,00,000 as bribe to get a favorable verdict.
- In Para 24, he alleged a direct demand of ₹2,00,000 was made from him to allow his review application.
“These statements… speak of the intention of the contemnor to make false statement and baseless allegation against the Presiding Officer,” the Court remarked, adding that the conduct amounted to an attempt “to scandalize the Court and the Presiding Officer so as to undermine his authority.”
Court’s Decision:
The High Court framed the following formal charge against Thakare:
“You have conducted yourself before the Presiding Officer School Tribunal… in a contemptuous manner thereby making baseless and bald allegation against the Presiding Officer of demand of bribe… with an intention to scandalize the Court and the Presiding Officer.”
Despite the framing of charges, Thakare remained defiant. Even after the charge was explained to him by his counsel, he reiterated that his allegations were correct and claimed he stood by them.
The Court, however, granted Thakare two weeks’ time to file his response to the charges. The matter has been posted for further hearing on April 3, 2025.
