Judges are not superhumans, can err, says Punjab and Haryana HC
The accused in hand had filed a plea in the high court seeking early disposal of the case with averments that a judicial magistrate is not inclined to pass an order but is only inclined to give adjournments and the respondent is being harassed.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcomed by the judiciary.
“The judgments of the court are in public domain and open to discussions and critical analysis. Judges are not superhumans and do commit mistakes. Dialogue and debate are the hallmark of a democracy governed by rule of law. Suggestions towards improvement in the administration of justice should always be taken with gratitude,” the bench of justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and justice Kirti Singh observed while dropping criminal court proceedings against a person.
The accused in hand had filed a plea in the high court seeking early disposal of the case with averments that a judicial magistrate is not inclined to pass an order but is only inclined to give adjournments and the respondent is being harassed.
Taking a serious view of submissions in the petition, a single judge bench had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against him.
The person in question, Surjeet Singh, had argued that he had had legitimately sought recourse to judicial remedy and his pleadings would not amount to criminal contempt and had also termed unconditional apology.
The court noted that his plea was primarily due to a delay in the disposal of his case and to expedite the same he approached the high court.
The court said that as per the lower court record, his counsel was seeking adjournments and that could be the reason for the initiation of contempt proceedings.
“It is true that the respondent ought to have been more circumspect while approaching this court and pleaded the factual matrix in consonance with the record. He ought not to have casually stated something which is not borne out from the record or is factually incorrect. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent is one among many citizens who have approached the court seeking redressal of their grievances,” the bench said adding that the dockets of the courts are clogged and often cases are not decided speedily or as speedily as expected by the litigant.
“The respondent appears to be a hapless citizen who is awaiting justice at the portals of the district court and in these circumstances he appears to have transgressed by not setting out the correct factual backdrop,” it added recording that his action would not amount to contempt of court.
The court further said that the pleadings could have been better worded but it can’t be said that it was malafide
“If we were to be oversensitive to the pleadings it would deter an ordinary citizen to approach the court for redressal of his grievance. The increase in litigation in recent times indicates that not only people are more aware of their rights but they have enormous faith in the justice delivery system,” it said adding that the contempt jurisdiction should not be exercised lightly at the “drop of a hat” and ought to be invoked only in “rare or exceptional cases” where someone is trying to scandalize the court. The courts ought to encourage the citizens to knock on its doors to ventilate their grievances and seek justice which would be in consonance with its endeavour towards “inclusive justice”, the bench added dropping proceedings against him.