Asking for death penalty against ‘devil’ judge ensnares man in contempt net of Delhi High Court

Seeking death penalty for a judge of a high court and comparing the judge to a devil is “distasteful and unacceptable”. Holding this, a division Bench of the Delhi High Court has issued contempt notice to the appellant. 

THE Delhi High Court issued a show cause notice for criminal contempt to a man who sought criminal charges against a judge of the high court for dismissing his petition.

The man had alleged in his petition that the Union government is involved in “criminal activities”. The notice was issued on August 31 and released on September 6.

One Naresh Sharma had filed an appeal before the division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula against a judgment delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on July 20.

In his appeal, Naresh Sharma prayed the Bench to “criminally charge the single Bench for a meaningless, defamatory, criminal and seditious judgment … and give her [Justice Swarana] death penalty.”

In the contempt notice, the division Bench stated that the averments made by the appellant are “prima facie aimed at scandalising and lowering the authority of the court”.

The Bench has asked the appellant to show cause as to why proceedings for criminal contempt under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 (punishment for contempt of court) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against him.

‘Judgment by devil incarnate’

In his appeal against the July 20 judgment, Naresh Sharma alleges that Justice Swarana “did not apply her mind” in passing the judgment and that the judgment itself is “ambiguously worded”.

The judgment is not just baseless but also defamatory and provides reasons for strict action against the single Bench,” Naresh Sharma stated.

Naresh Sharma had filed three petitions before the high court, in which he had alleged that the Union government is “involved in criminal activities and [has] established various public organisations criminally, thereby infringing his fundamental right.”

In his petition, Naresh Sharma had sought to implead government ministries, police departments of Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru, and certain public and private social institutions.

Justice Swarana had termed the three petitions as “frivolous and devoid of merit” and imposed a total cost of ₹90,000 (₹30,000 per petition).

Justice Swarana had further stated that, by filing the said petitions, the petitioner (Naresh Sharma) had abused the process of law.

Referring to the court’s aforementioned observation, Naresh Sharma submitted “most humbly that it is the single Bench that has abused the process of law.”

It was further claimed that Justice Swarana did not give him enough time to present his case in the hearing and then inserted lies in the judgment that he was given sufficient time”.

Further, Naresh Sharma in his appeal also stated that “he cannot say without proof that the judgment was “written by the Devil, but he wonders if it could be written by anyone who is not verily the devil incarnate (sic).”

‘Whimsical allegations’

In the contempt notice, the division Bench notes that Naresh Sharma was asked to render an explanation, but “none is forthcoming”.

According to the Bench, the appeal contains “unsubstantiated and whimsical allegations of criminal acts by [the] learned single judge.”

The Bench termed the seeking of death penalty against a high court judge and the comparison to the Devil as distasteful and unacceptable”.

In the opinion of the Bench, statements made by Naresh Sharma were advanced with the malafide intention to interfere with the administration of justice.

This court cannot disregard vilification of this magnitude against a judge of this court,” the notice firmly states.

The Bench has fixed September 18 as the date of hearing for the contempt proceedings, before which Naresh Sharma has been asked to file a reply.

The Leaflet