New Delhi [India]: The 's Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) has accorded consent for taking steps to initiate against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leader over her social media posts allegedly suggesting that a was acting at the behest of an unidentified "master".




Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha, in his opinion dated November 2, held that the specific imputations attributed to Singh prima facie struck at the independence and impartiality of the judicial process and disclosed sufficient grounds for invoking the criminal contempt jurisdiction of the .




The consent was given on representations submitted by advocate Kausik Chatterjee seeking the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Singh in connection with certain statements published on social media platform X and remarks reported by the Press Trust of India.




The controversy stems from proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey at Saket Courts concerning Singh's alleged detention by the Delhi Police. An order passed on October 10 had declined the relief sought by her in connection with the alleged detention.




According to the representation considered by the government counsel, Singh subsequently published posts on X expressing dissatisfaction with the judicial proceedings and making allegations concerning the conduct of the judicial officer.




One of the publications allegedly stated that the "Judge" was "serving the master", while another post suggested that both the Delhi Police and the judge were "following order from master". The representation contended that the statements went beyond criticism of a judicial order and raised questions over the independence and impartiality of the presiding officer.




In his opinion, Sinha drew a distinction between permissible criticism of a judicial decision and allegations attributing extraneous influence or improper motives to a judicial officer.




"Judicial orders are open to criticism," the opinion noted, adding that an aggrieved person is entitled to challenge the reasoning, legality or correctness of an order through remedies available under law.




However, it said that the statements allegedly suggesting that the judicial officer was "serving the master" or "following order from master" were not confined to criticism of the merits of the order.




According to the opinion, such expressions prima facie suggested that the judicial officer was acting under instructions from an external authority instead of independently exercising judicial discretion in accordance with law.




The government counsel further observed that publicly making allegations that an identifiable judicial officer acted at the instance of an external authority, without disclosing any supporting factual basis, could create an impression that judicial decisions were influenced by considerations outside the merits of the case.




Such allegations, the opinion stated, were prima facie capable of lowering the authority of the court and undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.




The supplementary representation had also referred to subsequent publications concerning preventive proceedings involving CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, including statements relating to the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system.




However, the Additional Standing Counsel distinguished those statements from the specific allegations concerning the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He said the later publications were principally directed at the conduct of the Delhi Police and the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system and could not, merely because they contained strong criticism, be treated as criminal contempt.




The opinion also noted that an order passed by the Special Executive Magistrate on October 21 did not record any personal apology or undertaking by Ratna Singh, nor any finding of contempt against her. The opinion in favour of initiating criminal contempt proceedings, it said, rested independently on the earlier publications allegedly attributing the Chief Judicial Magistrate's conduct to the instructions of an unidentified "master".




Accordingly, Sinha said he accorded consent for taking appropriate steps towards initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Singh in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, through a motion by the competent law officer.




The opinion, however, clarified that the observations were only on a prima facie assessment of the allegations and did not amount to a final finding of criminal contempt. The issue will remain subject to the independent consideration of the Delhi High Court.