While dismissing a plea challenging the re-appointment of Justice (Retd) KS Ahluwalia as Chairperson of Railway Claims Tribunal, the Delhi High Court in a notable judgment titled Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow vs Union of India & Ors in W.P.(C) 11835/2022 and CM APPL. 35298/2022 that was pronounced as recently as on March 3, 2023 and corrected and uploaded on March 10, 2023 has held in no uncertain terms that any attempt to vilify Judges without any reasonable basis cannot be permitted.

The Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Ms Justice Pratibha M Singh rejected the plea moved by Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow seeking direction on Central Government to lay down a fair and transparent selection procedure for appointment of Chairman, Vice Chairman (Judicial), Vice Chairman (Technical), Member (Judicial) and Members (Technical) in Railway Claims Tribunal. Not just this, the Court even further went to the extent of ordering that the cost of Rs 50,000 shall be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks as the Court was of the firm view that wild allegations are made by the petitioner without verification of facts or law.

At the very outset, this learned judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Ms Justice Pratibha M Singh of Delhi High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

While stating the purpose of the petition, the Bench states in para 2 that:
The present petition has been filed by the Rail Dawa Bar Association, Lucknow, through its Secretary against the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 i.e., Union of India, Railway Board, and the present incumbent/Chairman Railways Claims Tribunal, respectively.

The petition seeks the following prayers:

1. A writ of certiorari calling the entire official records from Respondents leading to the decision to again appoint Mr. Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia (Respondent No. 3) as the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, New Delhi.
    
2. An appropriate writ, order, direction and/or declaration in the nature of certiorari/mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned decision to again appoint Mr. Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia(Respondent No. 3) as the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, New Delhi;
    
3. writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to immediately frame, rules/regulations laying down a fair and transparent selection procedure for appointment to the posts of Chairman, Vice Chairman (Judicial), Vice Chairman (Technical), Member (Judicial) and Members (Technical) in Railway Claims Tribunal i.e.., which are posts of public importance in a quasi judicial authority.
    
4. An appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the Respondent from again offering appointment to Mr. Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia (Respondent No. 3) to the post of Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi;
    
5. Any other writ, order or direction which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 19 that:
A perusal of the counter affidavit shows that the Search-Cum-Selection Committee was duly constituted in accordance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court as also the applicable Act and Rules. However, the language used in the rejoinder clearly shows that the intention is to simply raise baseless and scandalous allegations. The rejoinder smacks of sensationalism which uses completely unbecoming language. Wild allegations are made by the Petitioner without verification of facts or law. The intention appears to be simply to besmirch various individuals for some inexplicable reason, rather than to raise grounds within the confines of law. The entire process which has been explained in the counter affidavit shows that all the requisite safeguards have been followed and the appointment process has been done in accordance with the applicable Act and Rules.

Do also note, the Bench clearly notes in para 20 that:
After having perused the counter affidavit and the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, this Court has noted that the present writ petition, in fact, is a mala fide attempt to throw mud on the reputation of the incumbent and is a gross abuse of process. Unnecessary and scandalous allegations have been made in the rejoinder which this Court does not condone. The process of appointment has been explained in the counter affidavit and has been perused by the Court. None of the grounds which have been raised in this writ petition are made out for setting aside of the said appointment/reappointment.

Most remarkably, the Bench while citing the most relevant case law hastens to add in para 21 propounding that:
In the overall facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the petition and the pleadings filed by the Petitioner are nothing but an attempt towards undermining the dignity of the current Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal and impede in the functioning of the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Supreme Court, in the judgement of In Re: Roshan Lal Ahuja, 1993 Supp(4) SCC 446, while dealing with a case of Contempt of Court also ruled aspersions and allegations raised against Judges in the discharge of their judicial functions has an effect of scandalising the Court. The relevant extract of the said judgement is extracted as under:

15. The aspersions and allegations made by the contemnor in the offending documents, including the ‘note for directions’ undoubtedly have the effect of scandalising the court in relation to its judicial functioning and undermining its dignity. They are an affront to the majesty of law. He has permitted himself the liberty of casting aspersions, wholly unjustified and uncalled for, on the integrity and fairness of the Judges of this Court in the discharge of their judicial functions. He has, thereby, attempted to interfere with the administration of justice.

The contemnor appears to be addicted to using contemptuous language so as to browbeat the court. We find, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the contemnor guilty of having committed a gross criminal contempt of this Court. 16. If a person committing such gross contempt of court were to get the impression that he will get off lightly it would be a most unfortunate state of affairs. Sympathy in such a case would be totally misplaced - mercy has no meaning. His action calls for deterrent punishment so that it also serves as an example to others and there is no repetition of such a contempt by any other person.

Adding more to it, the Bench then adds in para 22 that:
This view was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the judgement dated 31st August, 2020 in In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Ors., (2021) 3 SCC 160. The relevant extract of the said judgement is extracted as under:

42. Roshan Lal Ahuja, In Re:, (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 446, it was held that pleadings made had the effect on scandalizing and lowering the authority of the Court in relation to the judicial matters but also had the effect of substantial interference with obstructing the administration of justice. Unfounded and unwarranted aspersions had the tendency to undermine the authority of the Court and would create distrust in the mind of the public and on the capacity to impart fearless justice.

While citing a very recent and relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 23 that:
Recently, a ld. Single Judge of this Court, in order dated 14th July, 2022 in Crl. A. 107/2022 titled M. Victim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. held that vilification of judges has a direct effect on the administration of justice. The relevant extracts from the said order are extracted as under:

8. A bare perusal of the averments made hereinabove show that they are scandalous and aimed at lowering the dignity and majesty of this Court. They have been made malafidely and interfere with administration of justice and amount to contempt. The allegations made in the petition are intrinsically contemptuous in nature and fall within the definition of Criminal Contempt of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 under Section 2(c)(i).

9. There is a direct attack on the reputation and functioning of not only one Judge, but several Judges of this Court. This vilification of Judges can affect the administration of justice as it becomes a form of public mischief. An unwarranted attack on a Judge, citing and unscrupulous administration cannot be ignored by this Court.

10. For a healthy democracy, there must be impartial Judiciary, however, it cannot be impaired by vindictive criticism. The Judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when the criticism is based on distorted facts or gross misrepresentation of material averments, to intentionally lower the dignity and respect of this Court, it must be taken cognizance of.

It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 24 that:
This Court notices that there have been apprehensions expressed in the past relating to false claims filed before Railway Tribunals. During the course of submissions in this petition it was stated that several cases were transferred from the Lucknow Bench. Thus, the petition appears to have been filed due to some oblique motives.

Most significantly and also most forthrightly, the Bench then minces no words to hold in para 25 that:
In the opinion of this Court, the entire attempt in this petition on behalf of the lawyers’ association is to raise aspersions against the duly constituted Tribunal. Accordingly, considering the nature of submissions made in Court and in the pleadings, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that any attempt to vilify Judges, without any reasonable basis, be it Judges of Constitutional Courts, Trial Courts or judges presiding over Quasi-Judicial bodies cannot be permitted.

In addition, the Bench then directs in para 26 that:
In the facts and circumstances of this case, costs of Rs.50,000/- are imposed upon the Petitioner. The same shall be paid by the Petitioner, to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today.

Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in para 27 that:
With these observations, the present petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of.

In sum, we thus see that the Delhi High Court while taking a very strong stand has made it absolutely clear that any attempt to vilify Judges without any reasonable basis can’t be permitted. We thus see that Rs 50,000/- cost is imposed as a fine by the Delhi High Court on the petitioners which is a lawyers body for having the temerity to level wild allegations without any proof to substantiate them! Undoubtedly, this will definitely send the loud and clear message that if wild allegations are levelled without anything concrete to substantiate it then those who dare to do so even if they are lawyers body would be strictly punished by way of imposing fine on them as we see in this leading case also!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh