Criminal contempt from false allegations against a judge was upheld, and a belated apology was rejected.

False and scandalous allegations in a transfer application against a judicial officer, including imputations of bias, corruption, intimidation and favouritism, were treated as criminal contempt because they were false, vilificatory and capable of lowering public confidence in the administration of justice. The court held that such attacks on a judge acting in his judicial capacity fall within Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A belated apology was not accepted because it lacked genuine contrition and did not neutralise the contempt already committed. The contemners were held guilty of criminal contempt and penal consequences followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the false, scandalous and imputative allegations made in a transfer application against a judicial officer amounted to criminal contempt by scandalising the court and lowering its authority; (ii) whether the apology tendered by the contemners should be accepted.

Issue (i): Whether the false, scandalous and imputative allegations made in a transfer application against a judicial officer amounted to criminal contempt by scandalising the court and lowering its authority.

Analysis: The allegations in the transfer application did not merely express dissatisfaction with a judicial order but accused the presiding officer of bias, corruption, unfair record-making, intimidation, and favouritism. The accusations were found to be incorrect and false, and they were made in vilificatory language with the effect of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice. Such attacks on a judge in his judicial capacity were held to fall within the statutory definition of criminal contempt.

Conclusion: The allegations constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Issue (ii): Whether the apology tendered by the contemners should be accepted.

Analysis: The apology was considered belated and not genuinely reflective of contrition. The contemners had consciously participated in filing and pursuing the transfer application containing the scandalous allegations, and the subsequent withdrawal of allegations did not neutralise the contempt already committed. On the circumstances, the apology was treated as an attempt to escape liability rather than a true expression of remorse.

Conclusion: The apology was not accepted.

Final Conclusion: The contemners were held guilty of criminal contempt and penal consequences were imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: False and scandalous allegations made in a judicial proceeding against a judge in his official capacity, when intended to impute bias or corruption and to undermine the administration of justice, amount to criminal contempt, and a belated or insincere apology does not erase the contempt.

---