Bombay High Court Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Teacher Over Bribery Allegation, Says “Intended to Scandalize the Court and Undermine Judicial Authority”
Safiya Malik
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has framed a contempt charge against an individual for making allegations of bribery against a judicial officer of the School Tribunal. The Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin W. Sambre and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi recorded that the contemnor’s conduct prima facie constituted criminal contempt under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court, in its order dated 20 March 2025, directed that the contemnor, aged 64, who appeared in person and later through Legal Aid counsel, file his response within two weeks. The charge was explained in open court, during which the contemnor reiterated his allegations against the Presiding Officer, maintaining their truth.
The proceedings stemmed from a reference sent by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contemnor, a former teacher, had filed an appeal before the School Tribunal against the Management’s decision, alleging reduction in rank. According to the contemnor, a junior was promoted to the post of Head Master while superseding him, which formed the basis of his appeal.
After the dismissal of his appeal, the contemnor filed a review application. During the course of the review proceedings, the contemnor alleged that the Presiding Officer demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 3 September 2024 for setting aside the earlier dismissal. He subsequently approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau with a complaint dated 11 September 2024, reiterating these claims.
The reference filed by the judicial officer reported the contemnor’s statements and conduct before the Tribunal as contemptuous. The Bench noted that there was no evidence substantiating the demand for any illegal gratification by the judicial officer.
Initially, the contemnor appeared in person. However, considering the seriousness of the matter and his conduct before the Court, the Bench directed the Legal Aid Services Authority to provide legal representation. Advocate D.A. Sonawane was appointed to represent the contemnor. The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor N.S. Autkar.
The Court was informed that the contemnor filed multiple applications seeking certified copies and also lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau shortly after the alleged incident. However, the Court recorded contradictions in his own submissions which raised doubt on the credibility of his allegations.
Specifically, the contemnor alleged in paragraph 23 of his complaint that the Management had paid a bribe of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Presiding Officer for securing a favourable decision. Yet, in paragraph 24, he claimed a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made from him for allowing his review application. The Bench recorded that these two claims were “not only contradictory to each other but speak of the intention of the contemnor to make false statement and baseless allegation against the Presiding Officer.”
The Bench, after considering the reference, the allegations, and the complaint made to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, concluded that the contemnor’s actions were intended to undermine the authority of the Court.
The Court recorded: “The reference under sub-section 2 of section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act categorically and in detail deals with the conduct of the contemnor, which prima facie can be inferred as contemptuous.”
In evaluating the credibility of the contemnor’s statements, the Court stated: “Both these aforesaid statements by the contemnor are not only contradictory to each other but speak of the intention of the contemnor to make false statement and baseless allegation against the Presiding Officer, which amounts to undermining the authority of the Judicial Officer/Court.”
Further, the Court noted the absence of evidence in support of the bribery allegations and stated: “Neither such demand was made by the Judicial Officer nor there is an iota of evidence to infer such demand.”
The Bench also commented on the contemnor’s persistence in standing by his allegations even after legal representation was provided. The Court stated: “The contemnor even at this stage, states that the allegations of corruption made against the Presiding Officer are correct and he still stands by the same.”
Based on the Court's prima facie satisfaction, the following charge was framed against the contemnor:
“Shrikrushna B. Thakare, aged 64 years, r/o Pawan Nagar, New Town Badnera (Rly), Taluka and District Amravati (M.S.), Pin 444701, has conducted yourself before the Presiding Officer School Tribunal in Appeal No. 10 of 2016, 39 of 2016 and 67 of 2016 in a contemptuous manner thereby making baseless and bald allegation against the Presiding Officer of demand of bribe. Such contemptuous conduct is with an intention to scandalize the Court and the Presiding Officer so as to undermine his authority. As such, you are liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as such the aforesaid charge is framed.”
The Court granted the contemnor a period of two weeks to file his written response to the charge framed. The matter has been posted for further proceedings on 3 April 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Respondents: D.A. Sonawane, Advocate; N.S. Autkar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Anand Yadnyawalkya Borkar v. Shrikrishna B. Thakare and Another
Case Number: Criminal Contempt Petition Reference Case No. 1 of 2024
Bench: Justice Nitin W. Sambre, Justice Vrushali V. Joshi
[Read/Download order]
