Advocate ‘warns of' taking HC judges to Supreme Court, issued contempt notice
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dictating the order in open court, took a stern view of the language used in Ravneet Kaur's plea, and held that it not only cast aspersions on the integrity of the judicial system but also attempted to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her matter. 'The reckless allegations made by the petitioner were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The act of the petitioner is an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process,' the judge observed while issuing a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the petitioner advocate.
Ravneet Kaur, who argued her case in person, had moved an application seeking advancement of the hearing in her main petition that is listed for October 31.
In her plea, she claimed she was being harassed by the deliberate delay in her matter and warned that if it was not taken up 'at the earliest date' she would be 'left with only option to implead Justice Sh. Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Sh. Harpreet Singh Brar and Sh. Baljinder Singh ASJ (Additional Sessions Judge) as party to file SLP (Special Leave Petition) before Hon'ble Supreme Court… because deliberately and intentionally justice has been denied… delaying the present applications and main petition just to cause harassment… to put the petitioner under pressure to withdraw the present complaints against IPS Gurpreet Singh Bhullar'.
The court reproduced the statement in full in its order and held that such 'scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism' could not be justified. 'Not only has she failed to indicate how she has been intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism… the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,' Justice Brar said.
The judge noted that Ravneet Kaur, 'not a layperson but a qualified Advocate', could not claim her 'unceremonious behaviour stemmed out of lack of knowledge.' Citing a Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in M.Y. Shareef vs Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (1955 SCR 757), he reiterated that 'counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court… are themselves guilty of contempt of Court… his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.'
The court also traced the listing history of the main case. It was consistently heard since May 29, 2024, before another bench, which later recused on May 26, 2025. The matter then came before Justice Brar on May 29, when it was adjourned at the petitioner's request. It was heard by the Vacation Bench on June 6 and June 18 and was again listed on July 14 but could not be taken up because of a 'heavy cause list of 191 cases inclusive of matters listed specially under the Mediation of Nation Drive.'
On July 22, when around 245 cases were listed, Ravneet Kaur pressed for an early hearing, but the bench found 'no justifiable reasons' to grant her prayer. The court even offered her the assistance of the High Court Legal Aid Services, which she declined.
Issuing the contempt notice, the bench said the allegations amounted to 'an unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the courts' that 'undermines the dignity of the rule of law' and 'have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.'
While refusing to advance the hearing to an earlier date, the court, 'in the interest of justice', listed the main petition for August 29.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Defending need for SIR in the Supreme Court, Election Commission cites parties' complaints about voter list errors
Defending its decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls in the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India pointed to the numerous complaints made by political parties about the inaccuracy of voter lists. '[I]n response, and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the electoral roll, the Commission has initiated the SIR,' it told the court in a counter-affidavit filed on July 21. The Commission even submitted copies of these complaints in an annexure to the affidavit, running into 625 pages. The annexure includes complaints made by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) before the Delhi Assembly polls, and by the Congress and its allies about alleged additions made to voter lists during the Maharashtra Assembly polls last year, as well as by the BJP, AIADMK, and Shiv Sena. '...several recognised political parties across the spectrum have raised serious concerns with the Commission regarding inaccuracies in the electoral rolls — citing the inclusion of ineligible and deceased individuals and exclusion of eligible voters. These concerns arise from the limitations of the summary revision process which does not require fresh preparation of electoral rolls,' the ECI affidavit said. On July 28, the Supreme Court will hear petitions filed by Opposition parties and activists challenging the SIR. Opposition attacks The first phase of the SIR ended on July 25, with the possibility of around 66 lakh names being struck off Bihar's draft electoral roll. Some of these names belong to deceased voters, or those who have migrated out of the State, while other voters were registered to vote in two locations or failed to complete their enumeration forms. Opposition parties, led by the Congress, have been consistently attacking the Election Commission alleging that electoral rolls were manipulated during the Maharashtra and Haryana Assembly polls. Earlier this week, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi opened a new front by claiming voter list manipulation in Karnataka as well during last year's Lok Sabha election. The poll body said that political parties across the spectrum have also voiced concerns regarding the accuracy of the electoral rolls revised through the summary revision process, regarding the wrongful inclusion of the names of deceased, migrated and non-citizen voters. In order to restore public confidence and address these concerns, it has decided to undertake the SIR, the ECI said. Unlike summary revisions, the SIR involves a complete, ground-up preparation of the electoral rolls to ensure accuracy, transparency, and inclusion. 'Foundational exercise needed' A senior ECI official told The Hindu that the Commission had also appraised the matter independent of these complaints and had come to a conclusion that an intensive revision was needed. The counter-affidavit submitted in court also reflects this stance. 'The Commission was of the considered view that the absence of any intensive revision for nearly two decades necessitated a more rigorous and foundational exercise,' it said. The poll body also informed the Supreme Court that about 1.5 lakh Booth Level Agents have been appointed by political parties to help Booth Level Officers reach out to the voters.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
West Bengal Governor to move Supreme Court over control of state universities
In another escalation of the ongoing tussle between the West Bengal government and the Raj Bhavan over higher education governance, Governor CV Ananda Bose on Saturday said he plans to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on whether ultimate authority over state universities lies with the chancellor (governor) or the state government. The move comes after a meeting between Bose and vice chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities at the Raj Bhavan, convened to address key issues in the state's higher education sector. The meeting was attended by nine VCs, with most others remaining absent. Several VCs who skipped the meeting claimed they faced obstructions from the higher education department, while others alleged they were gheraoed or faced hostile conditions on campus. Some sought appointments with the governor to explain their absence. Sources in Raj Bhavan suggest absenteeism has not been taken lightly. 'This is an issue that requires clarification. What is the role of the chancellor or the role of the government? The Supreme Court will be approached to determine who holds the ultimate authority over state universities — the chancellor (governor) or the state government,' Bose told reporters at the Raj Bhavan. The meeting had a wide-ranging agenda, from digital reforms and manpower gaps to implementation of NEP 2020 and awareness on cybersecurity and drug addiction.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose to move Supreme Court over control of state universities
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In another escalation of the ongoing tussle between the West Bengal government and the Raj Bhavan over higher education governance, Governor CV Ananda Bose on Saturday said he plans to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on whether ultimate authority over state universities lies with the chancellor (governor) or the state move comes after a meeting between Bose and vice chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities at the Raj Bhavan, convened to address key issues in the state's higher education sector. The meeting was attended by nine VCs, with most others remaining VCs who skipped the meeting claimed they faced obstructions from the higher education department, while others alleged they were gheraoed or faced hostile conditions on campus. Some sought appointments with the governor to explain their in Raj Bhavan suggest absenteeism has not been taken lightly."This is an issue that requires clarification. What is the role of the chancellor or the role of the government? The Supreme Court will be approached to determine who holds the ultimate authority over state universities - the chancellor (governor) or the state government," Bose told reporters at the Raj meeting had a wide-ranging agenda, from digital reforms and manpower gaps to implementation of NEP 2020 and awareness on cybersecurity and drug addiction.
