Senior advocates, academics move to CJI over remarks targeting Delhi HC judge; raise concerns on attempts to question integrity of sitting judge

In their representation, the signatories have referred to reports that former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal made allegations against a sitting woman judge and sought the transfer of his case. They have termed such conduct as deeply troubling, stating that making public allegations against a judge without substantiated material strikes at the core of judicial discipline and institutional integrity.

The representation reiterates that it is a settled principle of law that a litigant cannot choose the Bench before which a matter is listed. It emphasises that attributing bias or motives to a sitting judge without evidence risks eroding public confidence in the justice delivery system and undermining the authority of courts.

Highlighting the wider implications, the signatories have warned that if such conduct is not addressed, it could set a precedent where litigants attempt to discredit judges or exert pressure on courts whenever decisions do not go in their favour. They have urged the CJI to take cognisance of the issue and consider appropriate action, including initiation of suo motu proceedings if deemed necessary.

In a related representation, members of the Bar have specifically sought initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings in relation to allegations made against Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.

The representation underscores that the independence of the judiciary is a foundational principle of the Constitution and that public confidence depends on the perception of impartiality and integrity of judges.

Referring to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the signatories have stated that criminal contempt includes acts that scandalise or lower the authority of courts or interfere with judicial proceedings. They have also cited judgments such as In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) and the Prashant Bhushan contempt case (2020) to emphasise that baseless allegations against judges amount to interference with the administration of justice.

The representation further states that while litigants are entitled to pursue legal remedies such as appeals, reviews, and transfer petitions, such processes cannot be used as a means to publicly cast aspersions on the integrity of a sitting judge. It calls upon the Supreme Court to examine whether the statements in question attract contempt jurisdiction and to take necessary steps to preserve institutional credibility.

The signatories to the representation include Prof Sunaina Singh, Former Vice Chancellor, Nalanda University; Prof Neerja Gupta, Vice Chancellor, Gujarat University; Prof Vinay Kapoor, Former Vice Chancellor, Dr BR Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat; Nirmal Kaur (Retd. IPS), Former Director General of Police, Jharkhand; Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate; Monika Arora; Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate and Former President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association; Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate and Former Secretary of the Delhi High Court Bar Association; Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate; and Advocates Avantika Pandey, Riya, Atulesh Saran Mathur, Dinesh Bhardwaj, Ramanand Gupta, Sanjay Dewan, Anish Dewan, Gaurav Bhardwaj, Amit Acharya, Girdhar Govind, and others.

The representation concludes with a request to the CJI to take appropriate steps to reaffirm that the dignity and independence of the judiciary are inviolable, emphasising that the strength of a constitutional democracy lies in maintaining respect for its institutions. (ANI)