Context:

• The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the plea of a trial court's woman judge, seeking the initiation of contempt proceeding against an advocate.
• The woman judge’s plea for the initiation of contempt proceeding was over the advocate’s resentment in a Facebook post that he was left chasing dates but got no justice from her court.

Key Points:

• A bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana dismissed the Pali ACJM's plea.
• The bench reiterated the statutory provision that mere criticism of a judicial order or delay in its delivery without imputing any motive to the judge does not constitute an act of contempt against the court.
• Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sojat in Rajasthan's Pali district had moved the high court seeking the contempt proceeding against an advocate for writing a critical Facebook post against her.
• The advocate in his Facebook post had said his plea to the magisterial court for a direction to the police for lodging an FIR on his client's complaint got 25 adjournments but no decision by it.
• The Facebook post had triggered a string of criticism against the ACJM after which she had moved the high court for hauling up the advocate.
• The high court, however, dismissed the trial court judge's plea, saying the advocate's act did not amount to the contempt of court in any manner under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• The bench said that the remarks of the respondent were in the nature of stating that a particular proceeding had lingered on before the court for an unduly long period. That by itself in isolation cannot be seen as contemptuous.
• In her plea, the ACJM had also asserted that "in relation to a criminal case which was pending before her, the respondent advocate had made highly objectionable comments on his Facebook page. Several people responded to this comment, which was also objectionable and contemptuous."
• The bench, however, said that the reference to the remarks of several other people in response to this post which may be highly objectionable would not render the action of the present respondent contemptuous unless a specific design or plan is shown to be in existence.
  
   

 Contempt of Court:

• Contempt of court is the power of the court to protect its own majesty and respect.
• The power is regulated by but not restricted in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• The expression ‘contempt of court’ has not been defined by the Constitution.
• Article 129 of the Constitution has conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines both civil and criminal contempt.
• Civil contempt refers to wilful disobedience to any judgment of the court.
• Criminal contempt can be invoked if an act:
  • Tends to scandalise or lower the authority of the court.
  • Tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding.
  • Obstruct the administration of justice.