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
Mint
36 minutes ago
- Mint
Gwalior news: Speeding car rams into Kanwar Yatra devotees—4 killed, 2 injured; probe underway
A speeding car rammed into devotees of Lord Shiva, killing four and injuring two in Madhya Pradesh's Gwalior. The incident happened when they were walking on Shivpuri Link road near Agra-Mumbai National Highway (NH-3) at 2 am on Wednesday, police said. After hitting the kanwariyas, the speeding car overturned as the driver lost control over the wheels, they said. One of the tyres of the speeding car burst, according to City Superintendent of Police (CSP) Hina Khan. While three Kanwariyas died on the spot, another one succumbed to his injuries in a hospital, the official stated. The deceased have been identified as Puran Banjara, Ramesh Banjara, Dinesh and Dharmendra, the police said, adding a probe was on into the incident. The car occupants were missing and the vehicle owner was identified. Efforts was on to apprehend them, the official said. Angry locals staged a protest at the accident spot and demanded arrest of the culprits. The Kanwariyas were residents of Simaria village near Ghatigaon, according to police. On July 22, the Supreme Court refused to stay the "QR" code directive for eateries along Kanwar Yatra route in UP, Uttarakhand and ordered all hotel owners along the route to show their licences and registration certificates in line with the statutory requirements. The bench hearing the case said, 'We are told that today is the last day of the yatra. In any case it is likely to come to an end in the near future. Therefore, at this stage we would only pass an order that all the respective hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and the registration certificate as per the statutory requirements.'
The Hindu
36 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court asks YouTube channel to first approach High Court in ‘Dharmasthala burials' case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) declined to hear a challenge to an 'ex-parte' and 'sweeping gag order' passed by a Bengaluru civil court restraining media outlets from publishing any defamatory material against Harshendra Kumar D., brother of Dharmasthala pattadhikari D. Veerendra Heggade, in connection with the alleged burials in the temple town. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, when the petition was mentioned orally for an early listing, advised advocate A. Velan, appearing for the YouTube channel, Third Eye, to first approach the Karnataka High Court. Also Read | Dharmasthala burials: Ashok says temple should not be tarnished while targeting individuals The petition had sought an interim stay of the civil court order of July 18, which had also directed the media to take down any content already published in connection with the issue. It argued that the civil court 'effectively imposed a sweeping gag order and mandatory content deletion on hundreds of media entities nationwide'. 'This order, secured through a calculated abuse of judicial process and material misrepresentation by the plaintiffs, directly obstructs a high-level State criminal investigation into allegations of mass burials and serious crimes linked to the influential Dharmasthala temple. It is a frontal assault on the freedom of speech and the Press (Article 19(1)(a)) and the foundational principles of natural justice and due process (Article 21),' the petition said. The Karnataka government has already constituted a Special Investigation Team to enquire into the allegations.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
SC Freezes Quick Arrests In Marriage Cruelty Cases, Bats For Two-Month ‘Cooling Period'
The Supreme Court was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer The Supreme Court, while hearing a case where a man and his father spent months in jail after the wife filed several false cases against them, has reaffirmed that no immediate arrests should be made in cases of alleged cruelty by spouses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, a mandatory two-month 'cooling-off" period will be in place before any police action is considered, upholding guidelines first framed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer. Recognising the irreparable harm suffered, the court ordered the wife to issue an unconditional public apology, calling it a measure of moral redress for the wrongful imprisonment sustained by her husband and father-in-law. According to the guidelines, after an FIR is lodged for cruelty in marriage, police authorities must wait two months before taking any coercive action, including arrest. During this period, cases must be referred to Family Welfare Committees set up in every district, which will review the complaints and try to achieve a settlement. Only cases involving offences punishable by less than 10 years' imprisonment, including 498A, will be referred to these committees. Each Family Welfare Committee will consist of at least three members and will function as an independent review body before further police intervention is permitted. These directives have their legal roots in the Allahabad High Court's 2022 judgment, which sought to address a worrying trend: the misuse of Section 498A via sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations that could result in entire families—sometimes even extended relatives—being implicated, harassed, and jailed. The Supreme Court, by endorsing these safeguards, has now clarified that such protection is vital to prevent unnecessary arrests and to ensure the criminal justice system is not weaponized in personal disputes. In the case that led to this decision, the matrimonial discord involved a series of litigations in multiple cities, with over 20 different cases related to domestic violence, maintenance, and criminal charges. The bench observed that what the accused had suffered due to the misapplication of the law 'cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner," highlighting the need for systemic procedural reform. Legal experts believe that the cooling period and welfare committee review will help to weed out frivolous and malicious complaints, protect those who may otherwise be wrongly ensnared in criminal proceedings, and focus mediation on reconciliation and fair outcomes. Meanwhile, the core protections for genuinely aggrieved women remain intact, as serious allegations supported by strong evidence can still be acted upon—after the initial review. view comments First Published: July 23, 2025, 13:27 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
