Bombay High Court sets aside contempt conviction against Pune man, slams lower court for flouting due process | File Photo
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has set aside a conviction against a Pune-based man, observing that his arrest and immediate conviction in a contempt of court proceeding by the Civil Judge, Junior Division (CJJD), were illegal and contrary to procedural law.
HC Sets Aside Contempt Conviction, Cites Legal Irregularities
Justice S. M. Modak, while delivering the judgment, held that in contempt cases, there are specific procedural requirements, including limitations on the exercise of judicial power. The judge noted that since the Civil Judge, who was personally involved in the alleged contempt, passed the conviction without recusing himself, the order could not be sustained in law.
Judge Personally Involved, Should Have Referred Case to Magistrate: HC
The High Court observed: “Instead of convicting the contemnor himself, the Judge ought to have referred the matter to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Section 391 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This was not done. Section 385 of the BNSS provides for a separate punishment of seven days’ simple imprisonment, but such a conviction in this case cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It needs to be set aside.”
According to the defence, 34-year-old Suraj Shukla was arrested by Shivaji Nagar police for allegedly attempting to damage a statue of Mahatma Gandhi near Pune railway station. Shukla was produced before the CJJD for police custody in a case related to destruction of public property.
Contemnor Was Not Given Fair Trial, Claims Defence
However, advocate Premkumar Mishra, who appeared for Shukla along with advocates Kumar Subeshwar and Anirudh Yadav, claimed that when the accused was asked his name in court, he allegedly responded arrogantly and made remarks against the judge. Instead of deciding the remand plea in the property damage case, the judge initiated contempt proceedings and convicted Shukla within three hours—before the court rose for the day.
“Even though the accused admitted to his behavior, the judge neither gave him a fair opportunity to respond nor followed proper procedure,” Mishra stated. “He was sentenced to seven days of simple imprisonment and fined without any reasonable time or trial.”
Following this summary conviction, the defence team promptly moved the High Court by filing a writ petition.
“As per law, if a judicial officer finds himself personally involved in a matter before him, he is expected to recuse himself from the proceedings. Ideally, in this case, an FIR should have been registered first, and then the matter should have been heard by a different judge. That did not happen, which is why we sought relief from the High Court,” advocate Mishra added.
‘Justice Must Follow Due Process,’ Say Legal Experts
Meanwhile while giving an expert comments on the issue Akshat Khetan, Founder of AU Corporate Advisory & Legal Services, “Justice is not merely about punishing the wrongdoer, it is about upholding the process that defines fairness. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, even a moment of contempt must be dealt with in accordance with procedure. When the court itself bypasses the statutory safeguards laid down, the conviction, however justified in spirit, becomes vulnerable in law. The strength of our legal system lies not just in punishing misconduct but in ensuring no one’s rights are trampled in the process. For justice to command respect, it must walk the path of law, not convenience because in the eyes of the Constitution, due process is not a formality, It is the very foundation of liberty.”
