The Delhi government’s Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) has given consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Cockroach Janta Party leader Ratna Singh over social media posts alleging that a Saket court judge was acting under the instructions of an unidentified “master”.
The consent was given in an opinion dated November 2 by Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha, following representations by advocate Kausik Chatterjee. The representations referred to posts published on X and remarks attributed to Singh in reports by the Press Trust of India.
The matter 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 considered by the government counsel, Singh subsequently published messages expressing dissatisfaction with the proceedings and questioning the conduct of the judicial officer. One post allegedly said that the “Judge” was “serving the master”, while another suggested that the Delhi Police and the judge were “following order from master”.
Sinha’s opinion distinguished between criticism of a judicial order and allegations that a judge acted under external influence. It stated that judicial orders could be criticised and that an aggrieved party could challenge the reasoning, legality or correctness of an order through remedies available under law.
However, the opinion said the alleged statements went beyond criticism of the order because they appeared to suggest that the judicial officer was acting on instructions from an external authority rather than exercising independent judicial discretion. It stated that publicly making such allegations without supporting factual material could create an impression that judicial decisions were being influenced by considerations beyond the merits of a case.
The counsel concluded that the allegations were prima facie capable of lowering the authority of the court and eroding public confidence in the administration of justice. The consent was granted for taking appropriate steps under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The supplementary representation also referred to later social media posts concerning preventive proceedings involving CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. Those posts addressed the Delhi Police and the functioning of the Special Executive Magistrate system. Sinha said such criticism could not be treated as criminal contempt merely because it was strongly worded, distinguishing it from the allegations directed at the Saket judicial officer.
The proposed proceedings would be initiated through a motion moved by the competent law officer. The opinion clarified that it was based only on a prima facie assessment and did not amount to a final finding of criminal contempt. The Delhi High Court will independently consider the matter.
