Gujarat High Court Issues Contempt Notice to Party-in-Person for Remarks Against Judiciary

The Gujarat High Court has issued a contempt notice to a party-in-person petitioner for making remarks that the court said were aimed at lowering the dignity of the judiciary.

Justice M R Mengdey passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Surat-based Vishwas Bhamburkar. The petitioner had repeatedly approached the High Court alleging illegal construction of buildings near the Surat airport and failure of police authorities to register an FIR.

Why Did the Court Issue the Contempt Notice?

The court noted that during hearings and in his applications, the petitioner made serious allegations against the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, the Gujarat High Court, and Magistrate courts. These remarks were made after courts had directed him to follow alternative legal remedies available under law.

According to the judgment, such statements reflected a clear intention to undermine the dignity and authority of the judicial institution. The court observed that a litigant who fails to obtain favourable orders cannot be allowed to defame courts or question their competence.

Remarks Against Magistrate and Judiciary

The petitioner had gone to the extent of requesting that the Magistrate who passed the impugned order be sent for training, claiming that the Magistrate was unaware of the law and relied on outdated judgments. The High Court described this conduct as highly improper and bordering on contempt.

The court also stated that the petitioner appeared to have assumed an “advisory jurisdiction” over the judiciary and misinterpreted directions issued by higher courts.

Petition on Buildings Near Surat Airport

The petition was based on allegations that builders had obtained No Objection Certificates by submitting false documents and then constructed buildings at locations different from those approved. The petitioner alleged large deviations in building locations around the Surat airport.

However, the affidavit filed by the Airports Authority of India did not support claims of forged documents. The court also noted that a private complaint filed by the petitioner was already pending before the Magistrate.

Abuse of Legal Process, Says Court

The High Court held that the petition was misconceived and an abuse of the legal process, especially since similar pleas had earlier been dismissed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. Instead of participating in the inquiry ordered by the Magistrate, the petitioner chose to file repetitive petitions before the High Court.

The Registry has now been directed to issue a contempt notice and attach the video recording of the hearing with the judgment.