High Court Finds 81-Year-Old Guilty of Contempt
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently adjudicated an 81-year-old litigant, Ram Niwas Aggarwal, as guilty of criminal contempt. This verdict arose following Aggarwal’s disparaging remarks against sitting judges of both the High Court and district courts, subsequent to receiving unfavorable interim orders. The case, titled Court in its own motion v. Ram Niwas Aggarwal, was presided over by a Division Bench comprising Justices Vinod S Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur.
Court’s Rejection of Defense
The court firmly dismissed Aggarwal’s defenses of truth and fair criticism. Justice Bhardwaj observed, “Imaginative belief spun out of thin air, fortified by repeated thought and senseless action, cannot partake the character of truth. A lie hammered and clamoured again and again does not acquire the character of truth.” The judges articulated that Aggarwal’s actions did not meet the standards of truth or fair criticism as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Background of the Case
This legal battle traces back to a 1976 dispute concerning a petrol pump partnership in Hansi, District Hisar. Aggarwal contended that he was unjustly ousted through a fraudulent dissolution deed in 1988, implicating a former MLA and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) officials. In August 2019, after the High Court issued interim orders that exempted the accused from personal appearances and stayed trial proceedings, Aggarwal sought arrest warrants from the sub-divisional judicial magistrate (SDJM). His application was accompanied by self-authored “show cause notices” accusing judicial officers of corruption and conspiracy.
Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings
Subsequently, the SDJM referred the matter to the High Court, prompting it to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against Aggarwal. During virtual hearings, Aggarwal reiterated his accusations, maintaining they were “truth in public interest” under Section 13(b) and “fair criticism” under Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Judgment and Future Proceedings
The court clarified that Section 5 pertains only to final decisions, not ongoing cases. It elaborated, “The distinction between an objective and fair criticism of a judgment and criticism and vilification of a Judge are two different acts…the respondent-contemnor has indulged in vilification of the Judges and has indulged in a systematic attack on judicial system by repeatedly attributing motives to each and every person.” The Bench concluded that Aggarwal’s conduct was aimed at intimidating judges for recusals or favorable rulings.
More Read
Consequently, the court found Aggarwal guilty of contempt and issued bailable warrants for his appearance on October 12, 2026, to deliberate on sentencing. Advocate Gurfateh Singh Khosa appeared as amicus curiae in this matter.
