Delhi govt lawyer grants consent for criminal contempt case against CJP's Ratna Singh

A Delhi government law officer has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) legal head Ratna Singh in the Delhi high court over her objectionable remarks about a Saket judge.CJP's Ratna Singh faces criminal contempt proceedings over posts against Saket court judge (PTI)In a November 2 communication to advocate Kaushik Chatterjee, the city government’s additional standing counsel, Amol Sinha, said Singh’s social media posts, flagged by the lawyer, “questioned the independence and impartiality of the judicial officer” and were “capable of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice”.The move follows Singh’s alleged statements where she expressed dissatisfaction with an order passed by chief judicial magistrate (CJM) Abhinav Pandey of Saket courts who heard her plea with regard to her alleged detention outside her house.On October 10, Singh moved a Delhi court to seek a first information report (FIR) against officials of the Delhi Police for allegedly illegally confining and preventing her from moving towards a protest organised outside the Supreme Court in connection with the protests against chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.Kaushik Chatterjee’s representation said following the court’s decision, Singh made allegations concerning the conduct of the magistrate during the proceedings.“The present opinion is confined to the prima facie nature of the allegations and shall not be construed as a final determination of criminal contempt, which shall remain subject to the independent consideration of the Hon'ble High Court,” Sinha said.According to Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, proceedings for criminal contempt of a subordinate court should have the consent of the designated law officer before the proceedings can be initiated before the high court.In his communication conveying consent, Sinha said there was a difference between fair criticism of judicial orders and allegations about a judge's independence. “A clear distinction exists between questioning the correctness of a judicial decision and attributing extraneous influences or improper motives to the Judicial Officer responsible for rendering such decision.”Sinha said the statements went beyond criticism of the judicial order and suggested that the judge was acting on instructions from an external authority rather than exercising independent judicial discretion.“Such imputations, in my opinion, strike at the independence and impartiality of the judicial process,” he said.Chatterjee’s representation also cited another statement by Singh about the special executive magistrate (SEM) who had remanded CJP co-convenors Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka to custody.In his communication, Sinha said the subsequent statements concerning the police and the SEM system had to be assessed separately from the allegations against the Saket CJM. “The additional material has therefore been considered for its context and relevance,” he said.“The opinion in favour of initiation of criminal contempt proceedings rests independently upon the earlier publications directly alleging that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was acting under the instructions of an unidentified 'master',” Sinha said.He added that the specific allegations against the Saket judge were sufficient to warrant invoking the Delhi high court’s criminal contempt jurisdiction.