NEW DELHI: The Delhi government 's Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) has given consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leader Ratna Singh over her social media posts allegedly accusing a judicial officer of acting on the instructions of an unidentified "master".




The counsel said the allegations prima facie raised concerns about the independence and impartiality of the judicial process and provided sufficient grounds to invoke the criminal contempt jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court .




Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha gave the consent in an opinion dated November 2, following representations by advocate Kausik Chatterjee seeking action against Singh over statements posted on social media platform X and remarks reported by the PTI.




Ratna Singh's posts against Saket court judge under scrutiny


The controversy relates to proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey at Saket Courts concerning Singh's alleged detention by the Delhi Police.




In an order dated October 10, the magistrate had declined the relief sought by Singh in connection with the alleged detention.




According to the representation examined by the government counsel, Singh subsequently posted messages on X expressing dissatisfaction with the judicial proceedings and making allegations about the conduct of the judicial officer.




One of the posts allegedly said the "Judge" was "serving the master", while another suggested that both the Delhi Police and the judge were "following order from master".




The representation argued that the statements went beyond criticism of a judicial order and questioned the independence and impartiality of the presiding officer.




Delhi counsel distinguishes judicial criticism from criminal contempt


In his opinion, Sinha distinguished between criticism of a judicial decision, which is permissible, and allegations that a judicial officer acted under external influence or with improper motives.




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




However, the opinion said the alleged statements that the judicial officer was "serving the master" or "following order from master" were not limited to questioning the merits of the order.




It observed that such expressions prima facie suggested that the judicial officer was acting on instructions from an external authority rather than independently exercising judicial discretion in accordance with the law.




Sinha further observed that publicly accusing an identifiable judicial officer of acting at the instance of an external authority, without providing any supporting factual basis, could create an impression that judicial decisions were being influenced by considerations beyond the merits of a case.




According to the opinion, such allegations were prima facie capable of lowering the authority of the court and eroding public confidence in the administration of justice.




CJP leaders' posts on Delhi Police, Special Executive Magistrate system


The supplementary representation also referred to subsequent social media publications concerning preventive proceedings involving CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka.




These included statements about the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system.




However, Sinha distinguished these publications from the specific allegations concerning the Chief Judicial Magistrate . He observed that the later posts were primarily directed at the conduct of the Delhi Police and the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system.




He said that such statements could not be treated as criminal contempt merely because they contained strong criticism.




Delhi High Court to independently consider criminal contempt matter


Sinha accordingly accorded consent for taking appropriate steps to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Singh under the procedure prescribed by Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 .




The proceedings would be initiated through a motion moved by the competent law officer.




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




(With ANI inputs)