Allahabad High Court Frames Criminal Contempt Charge Over WhatsApp Message Against The Additional District Judge of Basti District.

📰 Allahabad High Court Frames Criminal Contempt Charge Over WhatsApp Message Against The Additional District Judge of Basti District.

Bench: Hon’ble Justice J.J. Munir & Hon’ble Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

🔹 Case Background

The Allahabad High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Krishna Kumar Pandey for circulating a WhatsApp message containing serious allegations of corruption against a sitting Additional District Judge, FTC-I, Basti.

The proceedings arose from a reference made on 10 August 2023 by the concerned Judge under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, reporting that Pandey’s message was deliberately scandalous and intended to undermine judicial authority.

🔹 WhatsApp Message and Allegations

Pandey allegedly posted a WhatsApp message in a group of Basti District Advocates, claiming that the presiding judge had:

• Accepted bribes,
• Written forged and fabricated order sheets, and
• Acted in violation of orders passed by the High Court and Supreme Court.

The message went viral among advocates and the public, prompting the reference for criminal contempt.

🔹 Court Proceedings

The matter was placed before the Administrative Judge, who noted that the allegations, messages, and conduct of the contemnor were:

“Calculated to scandalize and terrorize the court, insult and malign the Presiding Officer, obstruct judicial proceedings, and lower the image of the judiciary.”

The Administrative Judge recommended that the matter constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

🔹 Bench and Appearances

• Bench: Hon’ble Justice J.J. Munir & Hon’ble Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava
• Counsel for Applicant: Adv. Gaurav Kumar Shukla, Adv. Rakesh Pathak, Adv. Sudhir Mehrotra
• Counsel for Opposite Party: Adv. Ashok Kumar Yadav

🔹 Applications by the Contemnor

The contemnor, Krishna Kumar Pandey, filed two miscellaneous applications:

(a) Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2025

• Claimed that prior permission of the Advocate General was mandatory before proceeding.
• Relied on Rule 3 of Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
• Court’s Finding:

  “There is absolutely no warrant under the law for seeking permission of the learned Advocate General. The Court is always free to take cognizance of a criminal contempt even without such permission.”

• Status: Rejected.

(b) Criminal Misc. Application No. 3 of 2025

• Sought transfer of proceedings to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, claiming the matter involved an “in-house procedure” regarding complaints against subordinate judges.
• Court’s Finding:

  “There is absolutely no mechanism of an in-house procedure for subordinate judiciary. Complaints against District Judges are subject to administrative and vigilance inquiry.”

• Status: Rejected.

🔹 Key Judicial Observations

• The Court found the allegations baseless, contemptuous, and intended to scandalize the judiciary.
• The Bench emphasized that the judiciary’s reputation cannot be tarnished by unfounded public allegations.
• The contemnor was given ample opportunity to defend himself before framing of charges.

🔹 Outcome

After considering the reference, the Court held that:

• The act of circulating defamatory WhatsApp messages constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• The Court rejected all preliminary objections and proceeded to frame criminal contempt charges against Krishna Kumar Pandey.

🔹 Statutory Reference

• Act Involved: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
• Relevant Provisions:
  • Section 2(c): Definition of Criminal Contempt
  • Section 15: Cognizance of Criminal Contempt

🔹 Significance

This order reaffirms that:

• False and scandalous statements against judicial officers, even on social media, attract criminal contempt jurisdiction.
• The High Court can directly take cognizance without Advocate General’s sanction when contempt is referred by a subordinate judge.
• The judiciary’s dignity is a matter of public faith and institutional integrity.

🔖 #Hashtags

#AllahabadHighCourt #ContemptOfCourt #WhatsAppContempt #JudicialIntegrity #JusticeJJMunir #BastiDistrictCourt #IndianJudiciary #JudicialAccountability #LegalNews #LawBeat #BarAndBench #LiveLaw