The Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over the growing trend of litigants making scandalous allegations against judges and judicial officers, attributing it to the judiciary’s increasing reluctance to invoke its contempt powers. In a strongly worded judgment delivered by Justice J.J. Munir in Writ – B No. 1570 of 2025 (Jai Singh vs State of U.P. and Others), the Court imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the petitioner for leveling baseless and defamatory accusations against the Presiding Officer of the revenue court.
Background
The case involved a challenge to an order of the Board of Revenue which had rejected a transfer application filed under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner, Jai Singh, sought the transfer of Revision No. 791 of 2021 (Ganeshanuj Das vs Gopal Ram and Others) from the court of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) 3rd, Bareilly, to another competent court within the same Commissionerate. The transfer plea alleged bias and political influence affecting the impartiality of the presiding authority.
Petitioner’s Allegations
Advocate Umesh Chandra Tiwari, representing the petitioner, contended that the Board’s rejection order was cryptic and lacked reasoning. The petitioner alleged that the Presiding Officer had avoided deciding an interim application dated 25.05.2023 and had been deliberately adjourning hearings, indirectly favouring the opposite party. It was further claimed that respondent no. 4, who was politically well-connected, was exerting influence on the judicial process, and that the Presiding Officer was colluding with him.
Court’s Analysis
Justice J.J. Munir acknowledged that the Board’s impugned order was indeed devoid of reasons, but clarified that setting aside the order would not alter the legal position due to the frivolous nature of the transfer plea.
In a scathing assessment of the allegations, the Court stated:
“The allegations in the transfer application are absolutely unsupported, either by tangible material or circumstances that may compel the Court to conclude that the Presiding Officer is not fair towards the parties or biased.”
Referring to the claim of political interference, the Court noted:
“The names of politically powerful persons or those in political power, have not been mentioned to test the veracity of the allegations, let alone any material annexed to show the connections claimed for the 4th respondent.”
The Court viewed the accusation of connivance between the respondent and the Presiding Officer as bordering on criminal contempt and issued a warning against the unchecked liberty some litigants exercise in targeting judicial officers.
In a broader observation, Justice Munir remarked:
“It is unfortunate that in contemporary times, litigants have turned aggressive because for one reason or the other, the Courts are eschewing invocation of their power of criminal contempt. The restraint or the hesitation comes from honoring the citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression… This does not mean that any kind of scandalous allegations without basis can be hurled at the Court and got away with.”
He emphasised that allegations against judicial officers must be made with “the highest sense of responsibility and material of sterling quality.”
Final Order
The writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹5,000, which the petitioner was directed to deposit with the Registrar General within 15 days. Failure to deposit the amount would lead to recovery as arrears of land revenue. The amount, once recovered, would be remitted to the High Court Legal Services Authority.
