Delhi Government Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Amol Sinha has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) legal head Ratna Singh over social media posts concerning Saket Courts Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey.
The development follows representations by advocate Kausik Chatterjee dated October 14 and October 28, seeking action over Singh’s posts alleging that the judge was “serving the master” and “following order from master”. Sinha said the remarks prima facie went beyond criticism of a judicial order and questioned the judge’s independence and impartiality. However, his opinion is not a finding of contempt, and the Delhi High Court will independently decide whether the allegations warrant proceedings.
Consent For Action
Sinha gave his consent in an opinion dated November 2, allowing appropriate steps to be taken to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The request was made by advocate Kausik Chatterjee, who argued that Singh’s public remarks had gone beyond disagreement with a court order and cast doubt on the independence of a judicial officer.
Sinha said the allegations could prima facie fall within Section 2(c)(i) of the Act, which covers publications that scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower, the authority of a court. The consent now enables the complainant to approach the Delhi High Court with a contempt petition.
Posts Under Scrutiny
The controversy arose after Singh approached the Saket Court on October 10 over what she alleged was her wrongful detention by Delhi Police. She sought registration of an FIR against police personnel and relief from the alleged detention, but the court declined her plea.
The proceedings were before CJM Abhinav Pandey of the South-East District, Saket Courts. Following the hearing, Singh posted on X: “Judge serving the master. Went for break/meeting 4 times during entire hearing. Order without any application of law.” In another post, she wrote that the Delhi Police and the judge were “following order from master”.
Why Remarks Matter
Sinha distinguished between challenging the correctness of a judicial order and alleging that a judge was acting on instructions from an unidentified outside authority. According to his opinion, Singh’s statements were not limited to questioning the legal reasoning or conduct of the hearing. Instead, they prima facie suggested that the judicial officer was not exercising independent judicial discretion.
Sinha said such allegations could affect public confidence in the administration of justice because they directly concern the independence and impartiality of the judicial process.
Later Criticism Excluded
Chatterjee’s supplementary representation also referred to Singh’s subsequent comments concerning the Delhi Police and the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system, including proceedings involving CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. However, Sinha specifically distinguished those remarks from the allegations against the Saket CJM.
He said strong criticism of the police or the Special Executive Magistrate system could not, by itself, amount to criminal contempt. The consent to initiate proceedings therefore rests independently on Singh’s earlier posts alleging that the CJM was acting under an unidentified “master”.
High Court To Decide
The latest development does not mean Singh has been found guilty of contempt or that the Delhi High Court has already initiated proceedings against her. Sinha expressly stated that his opinion was confined to the prima facie nature of the allegations.
The complainant can now use the consent to move the Delhi High Court, which will independently examine the matter and determine whether the legal requirements for criminal contempt are met.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Democratic institutions must remain open to criticism, and people should be able to question judicial decisions through lawful channels. At the same time, criticism of a judgment is different from making unsupported allegations about a judge’s independence or motives.
The matter should now be allowed to follow due process, with neither public criticism nor judicial authority being treated casually. How can we protect the right to question institutions while ensuring that criticism remains responsible and evidence-based?
Also Read: Ravinder Singh Leads India’s Double Podium Finish With Gold And Silver At ISSF World Championships
