Allahabad High Court Fines Petitioner for Baseless Allegations, Warns Against Misuse of Free Speech to Attack Judiciary
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over the rising trend of litigants making aggressive and baseless allegations against the judiciary, attributing this to the courts’ increasing reluctance to invoke their contempt powers.
In a recent judgment, the court not only dismissed a petition lacking in evidence but also imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the petitioner for making scandalous and unfounded claims against a judicial officer.
Justice JJ Munir, who delivered the order, observed that although courts often refrain from exercising their contempt jurisdiction out of respect for citizens’ fundamental right to free speech and the right to express grievances, such freedoms should not be misused to malign the judiciary with unsubstantiated accusations.
“It is unfortunate that in present times, litigants have grown more aggressive, partly because courts hesitate to use their powers under criminal contempt,” the court noted.
“This restraint stems from a commitment to uphold citizens’ fundamental rights. However, it does not grant a license to level scandalous or defamatory allegations against judicial authorities without a shred of evidence.”
The case in question involved a petition filed by one Jai Singh, who challenged the Board of Revenue’s decision not to transfer a matter under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 from the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), 3rd Bareilly, to another court.
The petitioner alleged bias and collusion between the presiding officer and the opposing party, citing repeated adjournments and procedural delays as supposed proof.
However, upon reviewing the matter, the High Court found the allegations to be completely without merit and “utterly scandalous.” The bench emphasized that procedural errors or delays alone do not justify accusations of judicial bias.
“A wrong order or flawed procedure is not, in itself, evidence of bias. Similarly, delays in hearing a matter cannot be construed as indicative of partiality,” the court stated.
Justice Munir stressed that making serious accusations such as judicial connivance demands a high threshold of responsibility, backed by credible evidence.
Filing such petitions without any factual basis, the court held, reflects not freedom of expression but a troubling lack of discipline and propriety among litigants.
“This kind of behavior is not an exercise in democratic freedom—it represents extreme irresponsibility,” the court added.
In its judgment dated April 25, the court dismissed Jai Singh’s plea and imposed a fine of ₹5,000, marking a clear stand against what it described as an emerging culture of disrespect and baseless defamation targeting the judicial system.
