The Delhi High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against a lawyer for making scandalous allegations against the judiciary, including claims of massive bribery and corruption. The Court observed that the lawyer’s conduct amounted to scandalising the institution, lowering its authority, and obstructing the administration of justice.
The ruling came in the case of Gunjan Kumar & Anr v. Vedant, decided on September 19, 2025 by Justice Amit Sharma.
Background of the Case
The controversy began when Vedant, a practicing lawyer, made reckless allegations against judges and members of the judiciary. Despite earlier warnings and even an unconditional apology tendered in January 2024, Vedant continued to make derogatory and inflammatory statements about judicial officers.
In one email, he alleged that judges had accepted ₹50 crore in bribes to delay justice. He also used derogatory expressions to describe members of the judiciary and went as far as accusing judges and opposing counsel of collusion and corruption in his written submissions.
The remarks were not isolated. Even in his reply to a show cause notice, Vedant doubled down on his accusations, using provocative terms such as:
- “Judicial terrorism”
- “Judicial emergency”
- “Judicial corruption”
- “Judicial collective conspiracy”
He even made bizarre claims, saying the judiciary had “transformed goats into lions and lions into goats.”
Court’s Observations
Justice Amit Sharma noted that Vedant’s repeated conduct crossed the line from criticism into criminal contempt.
Quoting from the order:
“The same tantamount to scandalising and lowering the authority of Court. It further tends to interfere with judicial proceedings and administration of justice.”
The Court found that Vedant’s statements were “contemptuous, contumacious and scandalous in nature” and thus squarely fell within the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Civil Contempt Case Background
Interestingly, the present order was passed during proceedings in a civil contempt petition filed against Vedant. The petitioners had alleged that he had disobeyed an earlier civil court order and had filed vexatious and inflammatory pleadings in connected proceedings.
During the hearing, his submissions and past conduct were placed before the High Court, which led Justice Sharma to conclude that a prima facie case of criminal contempt had been made out.
The matter has now been listed before the roster bench on November 19, 2025, for further proceedings.
Legal Framework: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 classifies contempt into two categories:
- Civil Contempt (Section 2(b)) – Willful disobedience of court orders or judgments.
- Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c)) – Acts that:
- scandalize or lower the authority of the Court,
- prejudice or interfere with judicial proceedings, or
- obstruct the administration of justice.
In this case, Vedant’s remarks were held to scandalize the institution and obstruct the judicial process.
Previous Apology and Repeat Offence
What makes this case particularly significant is that Vedant had previously faced proceedings for similar allegations in January 2024, where he had tendered an unconditional apology.
However, despite the apology, he repeated the same conduct, escalating his attacks against the judiciary. This pattern of behaviour convinced the Court that his acts were deliberate, willful, and not an outcome of mere frustration or ignorance.
Representation of Parties
- Petitioners: Represented by Advocates Sumitra Choudhary, MK Raghav Raman, Nitya Sharma, Jasmine Sheikh, and Mansi Aggarwal.
- Respondent (Vedant): Appeared in person.
Why This Matters: Significance of the Ruling
This order holds wide significance for the legal community, judicial institutions, and the rule of law in India.
1. Judiciary’s Authority Cannot Be Undermined
The judiciary is one of the three pillars of democracy. Allegations of large-scale corruption without evidence not only erode public trust but also undermine the constitutional role of courts.
2. Freedom of Speech vs. Contempt of Court
While Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute. Under Article 19(2), it is subject to reasonable restrictions, including contempt of court. This case reinforces the principle that criticism must be fair and constructive, not reckless or scandalous.
3. Balancing Accountability and Respect
Judges and courts are open to scrutiny and criticism. However, unsubstantiated allegations of bribery and corruption can delegitimize the justice system and interfere with the administration of justice.
4. Deterrent for Lawyers and Litigants
By initiating criminal contempt proceedings, the Delhi High Court has sent a strong deterrent message to the Bar and litigants. Professional criticism and legal arguments are welcome, but personal attacks and scandalous accusations will not be tolerated.
Precedents on Criminal Contempt
Indian courts have consistently held that attacks on the integrity of the judiciary amount to criminal contempt.
- Arundhati Roy (2002) – The Supreme Court punished author Arundhati Roy for making statements scandalizing the Court.
- In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020) – The Supreme Court held lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt for tweets that scandalized the judiciary.
- C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) – The Court emphasized that while complaints against judges can be made through proper legal channels, public scandalization is impermissible.
The Vedant case falls squarely within this established line of jurisprudence.
Implications for the Legal Profession
For members of the Bar, this case is a reminder of professional ethics. Lawyers are expected to:
- Uphold the dignity of the Court.
- Criticize judgments constructively, based on legal reasoning.
- Avoid personal attacks on judges and judicial institutions.
The ruling signals that lawyers cannot use their platform to spread unverified allegations under the garb of free speech.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order in Gunjan Kumar & Anr v. Vedant is a powerful reaffirmation of the principle that judicial dignity and authority must be protected. While courts are not immune to criticism, the line is crossed when allegations become reckless, scandalous, and obstructive to justice.
By initiating criminal contempt, Justice Amit Sharma has highlighted the judiciary’s duty to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The matter, now listed for November 19, 2025, will be closely watched as it may set another precedent on the limits of criticism and the scope of contempt jurisdiction in India.
For lawyers, litigants, and citizens alike, the message is clear: constructive criticism is welcome, but contemptuous scandalization is punishable.
Also Read
Delhi High Court: Senior Citizens Can Cancel Gift Deeds If Maintenance Is Denied
