If Not Punished, Sociopaths Like The Accused Are Likely To Repeat Such Offences : Karnataka High Court Convicts Man For Criminal Contempt Over False Allegations Against CAT Members And Judges
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil has convicted the accused for criminal contempt and sentenced him to four months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000, directing that he be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence. The Court found that, in multiple proceedings and representations, he made false and unsubstantiated allegations against Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Judges of the Karnataka High Court, including statements treated as scandalous and unfounded against the judicial institution as a whole.
The criminal contempt proceedings arose from a complaint filed by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, through its Administrative Officer, seeking action against the accused for alleged criminal contempt under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Consent to initiate proceedings was granted by the Advocate General on 16.07.2023 on the basis that the accused had repeatedly made written and oral allegations against Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal and Judges of the High Court of Karnataka.
The allegations were made through pleadings, affidavits, representations, complaints, and oral submissions in multiple proceedings. These included accusations of “case fixing,” criminal conspiracy, collusion, corruption, illicit relationships, incompetence, and misuse of judicial power. Several such allegations had earlier been noticed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in suo motu contempt proceedings.
Charges were framed on 24.01.2023. The complainant examined one witness and marked eighteen documents. The accused examined himself and marked thirty-three documents. Both witnesses were cross-examined. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The statutory provisions considered included Sections 2(c), 12, 14, and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court noted that the accused did not deny authorship of the impugned statements. It recorded that “in the memorandum of objections filed by the respondent, the accused does not deny the specific allegations raised against him.”
The Bench observed that: “We have given our anxious consideration to the pleadings and the materials on record. We have also noticed the conduct of the accused before the Court. Far from expressing any remorse for the initial criminal contempt committed by him, he has attempted to justify his actions and has proceeded to make scandalous and unfounded statements against the judicial institution as a whole. His conduct can only be termed as deliberate and adamant and reveals complete apathy towards social, moral and judicial codes of conduct.”
After examining the documentary evidence, the Court stated that “the evidence placed on record would clearly show that the charges stand proved.” It further observed that the accused’s pleadings and submissions demonstrated persistence in the same conduct, recording that “he has filed several other pleadings including interlocutory applications, rejoinders and applications before this Court which also go to show that he has not denied the specific charges framed against him.”
On the impact of such conduct, the Court observed that “raising scurrilous attacks on judges and the judiciary impairs the confidence of the people in the Court.” The Bench also recorded that “the accused has committed aggravated contempt in the face of the Court by scurrilous, scandalous and baseless statements against Advocates of this Court, the Advocate General, Government Advocates and Judges of this Court.”
Regarding remorse, the Court noted that “far from expressing any remorse for the initial criminal contempt committed by him, he has attempted to justify his actions and has proceeded to make scandalous and unfounded statements against the judicial institution as a whole.” The Court concluded its assessment by stating that “the charges leveled against the accused stand proved.”
It added: “We are of the clear opinion that if conduct of this nature is not punished, sociopaths like the accused are likely to repeat such offences with impunity which would endanger the rule of law and the judicial system as a whole.”
The Court recorded that “we hold that the charges against the accused/contemnor is proved. The accused/contemnor is convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court punishable under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
“The accused/contemnor is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of four months with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.” It further directed that “the accused/contemnor shall be taken to custody forthwith, to serve the sentence.”
“The Registrar (Judicial) shall issue conviction warrant against the accused as per Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981.” Finally, it ordered that “pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Complainant: Sri Syed Kashif, Advocate for Sri Pradeep S. Sawkar; Sri B. Ravindrananth, Amicus Curiae
Case Title: Indian Institute of Astrophysics v. K. Dhananjay
Case Number: Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2018
Bench: Justice Anu Sivaraman, Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil
