Isabella Mariam

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh adjudicated on criminal contempt proceedings instituted against Devendra Kumar Dixit for making baseless allegations against sitting Judges of the High Court. The court found the contemnor guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and imposed a monetary fine of Rs.2,000 to be paid within one month, failing which a simple imprisonment of one week would follow.

The court, while acknowledging the severity of the offence, noted that it was the contemnor's first instance of such conduct and considered his old age before determining the penalty.

Also Read: “Letting the Appellant Face Trial Would Be an Abuse of the Process”: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case, Notes Woman “Willingly Accompanied Accused to Hotel Room Thrice”

The criminal contempt proceedings were initiated based on a complaint dated 30.04.2016 filed by Devendra Kumar Dixit, alleging corruption against Judges of the High Court in relation to Writ Petition No. 7137 (M/B) of 2016. The Acting Chief Justice took cognizance of the complaint on 09.06.2016 and referred the matter for appropriate proceedings. Consequently, a contempt notice was issued on 19.10.2016.

The contemnor appeared before the court and sought time to file a reply. Subsequently, he raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the proceedings through an affidavit dated 18.01.2017. This objection was rejected by the court on 12.10.2022, citing the contemnor's admission to having authored and signed the complaint.

On 08.12.2024, the contemnor submitted a reply in response to the court’s order dated 04.12.2024. The court examined the reply and on 16.01.2025, framed a formal charge against the contemnor, quoting the contents of his communication dated 30.04.2016:

"You, Devendra Kumar Dixit, had made communication/ complaint dated 30.04.2016, describing therein that while deciding writ petition No. 7137 (M/B) of 2016 filed by him, Hon’ble Judges dealt with corrupt, dishonest and traitor culprit officials through Mr. Jaydeep Narayan Mathur and taken money for dismissing writ petition No. 7137 (M/B) of 2016 and as per deal with the corrupts, dishonest and traitor, the writ petition no. 7137 (M/B) of 2016 has been dismissed with cost very first day of the hearing of the case?, which scandalizes or tends to scandalize, lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court and are contemptuous coupled with your demeanour in levelling such allegations in writing that have been reduced in the form of communication dated 30.04.2016 by you, amounts to a clear contemptuous behaviour as envisaged under Section 2 (c) (i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defining criminal contempt that makes you liable to be punished."

The contemnor was directed to file his reply to the framed charge by 30.01.2025. On the said date, the contemnor appeared and filed an affidavit dated 27.01.2025. He was heard in person on 05.03.2025.

A recurring submission from the contemnor was his demand for the covering letter or forwarding letter from Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi, which he claimed was necessary to establish his case. The court rejected this submission, stating that the proceedings were based solely on the contents of the complaint, and not the forwarding mechanism.

The Bench recorded:

"We find that this contempt proceeding has been instituted against the Contemnor on the basis of the communication dated 30.04.2016 sent by him, in which the Contemnor made averments against sitting Judges, which prima facie scandalizes or tends to scandalize, lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court."

The court further noted that the forwarding letter "has no concern with the contempt proceeding whatsoever."

The court referred to several precedents while analysing the conduct of the contemnor, including judgments of the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (1996) 7 SCC 99, and T. Deen Dayal v. High Court of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 535.

In Shamsher Singh Bedi, the Supreme Court had stated:

"These remarks against the Magistrate who refused to grant bail are definitely scandalous and are definitely with reference to the discharge of his judicial function. It is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law."

In T. Deen Dayal, it was observed:

"We are satisfied they are ex facie contumacious and the scurrilous attack was intended to scandalise the court within the meaning of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act. Such attack as seen above, is punishable as contempt for the reason that it tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impairs confidence of the people in courts."

Further reliance was placed on Prashant Bhushan and another In Re, (2021) 1 SCC 745. The court quoted:

"The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law and is the central pillar of the democratic State. The dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society."

The court also observed:

"When the authority of this Court is itself under attack, the Court would not be a onlooker. The word ‘authority’... does not mean the coercive power of the judges, but a deference and respect which is paid to them and their acts, from an opinion of their justice and integrity."

Also Read: “No Provision of the Arbitration Act Would Apply”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Award Passed Under Cooperative Societies Act

The Division Bench noted that no affidavit of apology or request for leniency was filed by the contemnor at any stage.

Upon finding the contemnor guilty under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Division Bench passed the following order:

"We hold contemnor-Devendra Kumar Dixit... guilty of having committed criminal contempt of this Court... but looking to his old age and the fact that this is his first offence, we impose only a fine of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited by him before the Senior Registrar, High Court, Lucknow within a period of one month from today, failing which he will undergo simple imprisonment of one week."

The court directed the Senior Registrar to ensure compliance with the judgment.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Applicant: Government Advocate.

For the Opposite Party: Indra Bhusan Singh

Case Title: State of U.P. v. Devendra Kumar Dixit

Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:16744-DB

Case Number: Contempt Application (Criminal) No.1202 of 2016

Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary, Justice Brij Raj Singh

[Read/Download order]