By PTI
JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the plea of a trial court’s woman judge, seeking the initiation of contempt proceeding against an advocate over his resentment in a Facebook post that he was left chasing dates but got no justice from her court.
A bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana dismissed the Pali ACJM’s plea, reiterating the statutory provision that mere criticism of a judicial order or delay in its delivery without imputing any motive to the judge does not constitute an act of contempt against the court.
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Garima Sauda of Sojat in Rajasthan’s Pali district had moved the high court seeking the contempt proceeding against advocate Gobardhan Singh for writing a critical Facebook post against her.
The advocate in his Facebook post had said his plea to the magisterial court for a direction to the police for lodging an FIR on his client’s complaint got 25 adjournments but no decision by it, she added in her plea.
The Facebook post had triggered a string of criticism against the ACJM after which she had moved the high court for hauling up the advocate.
The high court, however, dismissed the trial court judge’s plea, saying the advocate’s act did not amount to the contempt of court in any manner under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
“The remarks of the respondent were in the nature of stating that a particular proceeding had lingered on before the court for an unduly long period. That by itself in isolation cannot be seen as contemptuous,” the bench said.
In her plea, the ACJM had also asserted that “in relation to a criminal case which was pending before her, the respondent advocate had made highly objectionable comments on his Facebook page. Several people responded to this comment, which was also objectionable and contemptuous.”
The bench, however, said, “The reference to the remarks of several other people in response to this post which may be highly objectionable would not render the action of the present respondent contemptuous unless a specific design or plan is shown to be in existence.”
Interestingly, the matter had later been transferred to another court which immediately gave its decision and ordered police to lodge an FIR on the complaint.
