Delhi Govt Counsel Recommends Contempt Action Against CJP Leader Ratna Singh

The Delhi government’s Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) has recommended initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Ratna Singh, a leader of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), for allegedly making disparaging remarks on social media targeting a judicial officer.

The Chenab Times has learned that the opinion, issued on November 2 by Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha, suggests that Singh’s allegations, which reportedly accuse a judicial officer of acting under the direction of an unidentified “master,” prima facie undermine the independence and impartiality of the judicial process. This assessment provides sufficient grounds to invoke the criminal contempt jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

The recommendation follows representations made by advocate Kausik Chatterjee, who sought action against Singh for statements published on the social media platform X. The case is connected to proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey at Saket Courts. These proceedings relate to Singh’s alleged detention by the Delhi Police, with an earlier order on October 10 having denied her relief concerning the detention.

According to the representation, Singh subsequently posted remarks on X expressing her dissatisfaction with the court’s handling of the matter. These posts allegedly included statements such as the “Judge” was “serving the master,” and that both the Delhi Police and the judge were “following order from master.”

Sinha’s legal opinion carefully distinguishes between legitimate criticism of a judicial order and allegations that suggest a judge is acting under external influence. The opinion stated that judicial orders are subject to criticism and that aggrieved parties have legal avenues to challenge the reasoning, legality, or correctness of such orders.

However, the counsel noted that Singh’s alleged remarks appeared to transcend mere questioning of the merits of a judicial decision. Instead, they suggested that the judicial officer was not exercising independent judicial discretion, which could have serious implications for the administration of justice.

The opinion further observed that publicly attributing a judicial officer’s conduct to an external authority, without substantiating such claims with factual evidence, could foster an impression that court decisions are influenced by factors beyond the merits of the case. Such allegations, the opinion stated, are prima facie capable of diminishing the authority of the court and eroding public confidence in the judicial system.

The Additional Standing Counsel also reviewed supplementary representations concerning subsequent publications. These touched upon preventive proceedings involving other CJP leaders, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, and the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system. Despite these points, Sinha’s opinion differentiated them from the specific allegations against the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He indicated that criticism directed at the police and the magistrate system, in isolation, could not automatically be construed as criminal contempt.

Furthermore, the opinion highlighted that an order issued by the Special Executive Magistrate on October 21 did not record any personal apology or undertaking from Singh, nor did it contain any finding of contempt against her.

Consequently, Sinha granted consent for the relevant authorities to take appropriate steps under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This would be pursued through a formal motion initiated by the competent law officer.

It is emphasized that the opinions expressed in Sinha’s assessment are based solely on a prima facie evaluation of the available information and do not constitute a final determination of criminal contempt. The ultimate consideration of these allegations will rest with the Delhi High Court.

---

---

Follow us on

---

(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)