Bribery allegations against judge not criminal contempt of court: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that accusing a judge of accepting illegal gratification does not amount to the offence of criminal contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act [S B Patil v Manubhai Hargovandas Patel]..The Bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said that such personal remarks of bribery against a judge will not interfere with the administration of justice or lower the authority of court. "Considering that these are personal remarks made against the concerned Judge, they do not amount to ‘causing interference’ in the administration of justice or lowering the authority of the Court, and therefore do not attract Section 15(2)(criminal contempt) of the Contempt of the Courts Act," the Bench said.Hence, it dismissed a criminal reference for contempt of court made to it by a Thane Civil Judge..The order was passed on September 3 on a reference made by 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane.The case originated from the proceedings in a civil suit for the recovery of money filed by one Manubhai Hargovandas Patel before the Thane Civil court. Patel had initially approached the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Thane, for relief. During the proceedings, Patel filed documents and requested the issuance of an ex-parte decree. However, the matter was adjourned to a later date for further argument.The case was subsequently transferred to the Court of the 4th Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane, as per an order by the District Judge. On January 4, 2024, after a change in judicial assignments, the matter was returned to the original judge. On the same day, while a time-bound matter was being heard, Patel appeared in court and requested his case be heard immediately. Since it was not possible to accommodate him at that moment, the judge informed Patel of the next available date..During this exchange, Patel made personal allegations in open court, accusing the judge of expecting illegal gratification for hearing his matter. These remarks prompted the judge to issue a show-cause notice, asking Patel to file a response. In his reply, Patel repeated the allegations and further filed an application making similar remarks, which the judge found to be scandalous.The referral judge noted that Patel had a history of making allegations against judicial officers. In this instance, the judge believed that Patel was pressuring the court to pass an order in his favor without considering the merits of the case. Due to these repeated allegations and attempts to discredit the court, the judge sought the High Court's intervention, requesting the matter be referred for contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.Lower courts do not have the power to initiate contempt action and the matter has to be referred to the High Court for the same..After reviewing the facts, the High Court found that Patel’s remarks were born out of frustration with the delays in the case, rather than an intention to interfere with the judicial process. The Court acknowledged that while the judicial officer’s decision to adjourn the case was justified, Patel’s distress over the prolonged litigation led to the personal allegations against the judge.Ultimately, the High Court concluded that Patel's remarks, although improper, did not amount to criminal contempt of court. The Bench clarified that personal grievances, even when expressed publicly, did not interfere with the administration of justice or undermine the authority of the court in this case. .Additional Public Prosecutor M M Deshmukh appeared for the State..[Read Order]