The Allahabad High Court has framed charges under the Contempt of Courts Act, against a person named Krishna Kumar Pandey, a Kanpur resident over a WhatsApp message accusing a judicial officer of accepting bribe and fabricating order sheets in specific cases in Basti district.
Krishna Kumar Pandey had posted a message on a lawyer’s WhatsApp group accusing a sitting Additional District Judge of corruption and fabricating judicial orders.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava stated that a prima facie case was made out against the contemnor for acts that ‘scandalise’ and lower the authority of the court. The court also dismissed Pandey’s argument that prior permission from the Advocate General is required before initiating such proceedings. The court then proceeded to frame charges under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Moreover, the court noted that Krishna Kumar Pandey is not a practicing lawyer, leading to the court to scrutinise how he became a member of a lawyer’s group on WhatsApp.
“That you, Krishna Kumar Pandey…by your act in publishing the following post on the WhatsApp Group on 14.07.2023 from your Mobile No… committed an act which scandalises and lowers the authority of the Court of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Basti by bringing the Court to disrepute on account of the insinuations made… and thereby committed criminal contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,” the court observed.
Pandey further asserted that a separate “in-house procedure” was in place to look into WhatsApp-based complaints. The court, however, rejected this argument too, stating that such disciplinary action is handled directly under administrative and vigilance procedures. Notably, in-house procedure is a 1999 self-regulatory mechanism for judicial misconduct, outside parliamentary oversight.
The Additional District Judge of Basti forwarded the case to the High Court. Legal proceedings against Krishna Kumar Pandey were initiated based on a reference dated 10th August 2023, from the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Basti. The ADJ stated that Pandey had published a WhatsApp message in the group of Basti advocates.
In his message, Pandey accused the Presiding Officer, Vijay Kumar Katiyar, of “taking a bribe” and “writing forged, fake, and fabricated order sheets” in several pending cases.
Furthermore, the message alleged that the judge’s alleged corrupt practices amounted to crushing the law and constitution. It added that such actions create a “new jurisprudence” and lead to “end of the rule of law in India”. The message also urged member lawyers to demand an investigation into the alleged corruption. The referring judge, however, opined that the viral message sent by Krishna Kumar Pandey, was “calculated to deliberately scandalise and lower the authority of the Court.”
Apparently, this case will decide how much criticism of the judiciary is too much and also which form and manner of expressing criticism is appropriate and which isn’t. The judiciary conveniently adopts the approach of a reflexive invocation of criminal contempt powers to protect itself from even informal, unproven allegations, as if judiciary is sacrosanct to criticism. One WhatsApp message, however reckless, triggered formal charges, but no inquiry was ordered against the judge whom Pandey accused of corruption.
In case of Krishna Kumar Pandey, the court rejected the in-house procedure demand, reflecting judiciary’s selective self-regulation. In the case of a former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, who became a national news in March this year, after sacks of partially burnt cash were found in the storeroom of his government-allotted Delhi residence, the Supreme Court invoked its “in-house procedure” and constituted a three-member (judges) committee.
However, the aversion in Pandey’s case stifles basic criticism including social media commentary on alleged biases, delays or corruption. Criticism becomes even more important to ensure transparency in a system plagued by 5.35 crore pending cases as per the findings of the National Judicial Data Grid. This pendency rate exceeds 40 per cent in lower courts, sparking frequent criticism. Besides pendency, cases of bribes being demanded have also surfaced further exacerbating the situation. This raises many questions. are contempt proceedings meant to merely gag whistle-blowers rather than addressing root causes? Does judicial prestige take precedence over judicial integrity?
