INTRODUCTION
Recently the Delhi High Court started criminal contempt proceedings against the case of Gunjan Kumar & Anr. v. Vedant. It was against the Vedant, who was an active lawyer and appeared personally, that constant and scandalous accusations of corruption of the judiciary were made. The court established that his repeated actions constituted the crime of criminal contempt that is established by Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The case reflects the very thin line between fair criticism and what amounts to scandalizing or degrading the authority of the court.
BACKGROUND
The issue started with a petition of contempt filed by Gunjan Kumar and other petitioners in Section 2(b) and then Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Articles 215 and 226 of the constitution of India. The petition requested that Vedant be punished with simple imprisonment of six months or fine of Rs. 2000/-, due to deliberate wilful disobedience and violation of an order in the case Canara Bank Vs Vedant (CS No. 1240/2018).
The case history of the proceedings is characterized by the series of apology and then increased contemptuous behaviour of the respondent:
Vedant appeared in person during the first date of hearing on 20.12.2023 and made an apology before the court, an unconditional one, that he would never make such allegations against Judicial Officers.
Prima Facie Finding and Show Cause Notice: The court, though, despite the apology, attracted attention to allegations that Vedant had made in a Contempt Petition (No. 7/2023) he had filed in the sub-ordinate court. On 19.01.2024, the Predecessor Bench prima facie that Vedant had committed the contempt of court, and said that the respect and dignity of the judicial system must be secured. Contempt was the subject of a show cause notice.
Aggravated Contempt: It was later reviewed on the application seeking the imposition of very strong measures against aggravated contempt, on the basis that Vedant was in violation of the order of 19.01.2024 and still made scandalous imputations. The court has pointed out an E-mail dated 21.01.2024, which had libellous content and other scandalous, contumacious and contemptuous allegations. Moreover, the court also paid attention to a earlier E-mail dated 19.11.2020 that included absurd and unfounded bribery and corruption allegations in the courts.
Reply to notice: On 30.01.2024, Vedant replied to the Notice and proceeded to defend his statements, and went ahead to make further provocative statements against the judiciary.
KEYPOINTS
The prima facie criminal contempt was found by the High Court as squarely on the definition as described in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Definition Criminal Contempt: Criminal contempt is defined as the publication (in words, spoken or written, or otherwise) or the commission of any act whatsoever which:
- scandalises or has the tendency to scandalise, or diminishes or has the tendency to diminish, the authority of, any court.
- biases, or intrudes or is inclined to intrude in the due process of any judicial action.
- is disruptive or is likely disruptive, or hinders or is likely to hinder, the application of justice in any other way.
The court held that the statements made by Vedant were careless, scornful, haughty and scandalous. Examples include:
- Bribery and Corruption: It claimed that the judges had been bribed more than [?]50 crore to postpone justice.
- Derogatory Terms: Talking of members of the judiciary as being prostitutes filled with corruption.
- Systemic Failures: Blaming the system that he has been treated as a second-class citizen because of his caste status.
- Scandalous Claims: Further imputations of the judiciary of judicial terrorism, judicial emergency, judicial corruption and judicial collective conspiracy.
- The Defence of Corruption: It states that he wasted 10 good years of his youth, and that the corrupted judiciary is trying to make him forget everything. He too wrote that the corrupt judiciary system, through orders, will turn the goat into the lion and the lion into the goat in India.
- Conspiracy: Claiming that the contempt petition brought against him was a sponsored petition merely to place to fill the lacna of corruption occurred in last 10 years by the corrupt judges.
Significance of Judicial Dignity and Professional ethics.
The High Court regarded the case with enormous seriousness and emphasized that the dignity and honour of the judicial system should not be compromised and no litigant could made irresponsible statements based on that of the judiciary. The seriousness of the matter was increased by the fact that the respondent is a lawyer, and he should represent the majesty of the law. It is essential that the duty to punish the contemnor exists in order to maintain the course of the proceedings of the courts uninterred with and to maintain the streams of justice unpolluted.
Difference between Professional Misconduct and distinction.
The professional misconduct should be differentiated with the problem of contempt of court although the problem is quite serious. The Supreme Court has already decided that a court may penalties to an advocate, on the ground of contempt of court, but cannot in its jurisdiction (under either Article 129 or 142) suspend or revoke the licence of an advocate to practise, since this is the prerogative of the disciplinary committees of the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. But the court may also bar a contemnor advocate to appear before it till, he purges himself of the contempt.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT
Justice Amit Sharma gave his verdict on September 19, 2025, when he concluded that he had reviewed the material, a prima facie case of criminal contempt was established against Vedant.
It was a procedural direction that was given by court to proceed with the case:
Division Bench Referred: The case was referred to the learned Division/Roster Bench on November 19, 2025. This is in accordance with the procedural provision that, most cases of criminal contempt (except when committed in the presence of the court), shall be heard and decided by a Bench of at least two judges (a Division Bench).
Personal Appearance: Vedant was ordered to go and appear before the Division/Roster Bench on the following date.
Special Assistance: The court asked Senior Counsel Mohit Mathur, the President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, to appear and help the court in the case given the gravity of the case at hand.
CONCLUSION
The move by the Delhi High Court in the case of Gunjan Kumar and Anr. v. Vedant supports the idea that, although the right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 19(1)(a)). The right is also subject to reasonable restrictions, as is the case with the law on contempt of court.
The case is a stern warning to both the Bar and litigants. By what is called criminal contempt, a contempt that is punishable, the line between criticism that is legitimate and that which is reckless, contumacious and scandalous is crossed. In the case of lawyers, in particular, the decision highlights that they are official court officers who have a duty to exercise professionalism and protect the dignity of the court, despite their internal resentments about the delivery of justice.
The case is awaiting the Division Bench in November 2025 that will determine the next step of the case in terms of conviction and possible punishment. Simple imprisonment of up to six months or fine of up to 2000 rupees or both can be imposed as the penalty of criminal contempt.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Manisha Kunwar
