Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Police Officers
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed by an additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM) against seven police personnel, including an additional superintendent of police (ASP) and a station house officer (SHO). The court ruled that statements made in a case diary during an official investigation do not constitute criminal contempt.
Court's Emphasis on Freedom of Speech
A division bench comprising Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit delivered the reportable judgment on March 23, discharging the police officers from contempt proceedings. In its ruling, the court underscored the importance of freedom of speech, stating, "Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it, for there is something far more important at stake: it is no less than freedom of speech itself."
Background of the Case
The case originated in July 2019 from an FIR registered at the Mandalgarh police station in Bhilwara district, involving serious penal charges. During the investigation, statements of police officials were recorded in the case diary by a senior officer in compliance with court directions. These statements included remarks on the conduct of the ACJM, with officials alleging discourteous behaviour and suggesting the officer appeared personally aggrieved.
The judicial officer took exception to these remarks, viewing them as an affront to the dignity of the institution, and referred the matter to the high court for initiation of contempt proceedings.
Legal Reasoning for Dismissal
Rejecting the plea, the bench held that the essential ingredients of criminal contempt were not established. The court emphasised that contempt requires a real tendency or intent to interfere with the administration of justice or to lower the authority of the court. It clarified that statements recorded as part of an official inquiry, without publication or intent to scandalise the court, would not attract contempt jurisdiction.
The judgment highlights the judiciary's commitment to protecting freedom of expression while maintaining the integrity of legal processes. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing that internal investigative documents are not grounds for contempt unless they demonstrably undermine judicial authority.
