Gujarat High Court Orders Contempt Action Against Suspended District Judge Over Remarks On HC Judge

In Giriishkumar Rameshchandra Soni v High Court Gujarat Through Registrar General, the Gujarat High Court has recommended initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against suspended Additional District Judge GR Soni over remarks made against a senior High Court judge. The Court also dismissed Soni’s plea seeking quashing of the departmental inquiry initiated against him.

A Division Bench of Justice NS Sanjay Gowda and Justice JL Odedra passed the order while hearing Soni’s challenge to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Soni has been under suspension since December 2024.

The inquiry against the judicial officer relates to allegations that he developed an intimate relationship with an outsourced clerk and extended financial assistance to her. He also faces accusations of blocking a CCTV camera and failing to hold court proceedings regularly.

During the hearing, the Bench took serious objection to certain written submissions filed by Soni. In those submissions, Soni claimed that a senior judge of the High Court exercised influence and control over junior judges and various branches of the High Court.

The Court observed that such statements directly attacked the credibility and independence of the judiciary. According to the Bench, the allegations suggested that judicial proceedings and judicial officers were being controlled improperly by a senior judge.

The judges noted that the statements made by Soni amounted to scandalising the court and lowering its authority in the eyes of the public. The Bench further observed that the remarks had the tendency to interfere with judicial proceedings and obstruct the administration of justice.

Calling the assertions a clear case of criminal contempt, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate Division Bench dealing with contempt matters. Soni has been ordered to personally remain present before that Bench on June 15.

During the proceedings, counsel representing Soni clarified that the written submissions had been filed by Soni himself without instructions or legal advice from his lawyers.

On the departmental inquiry, Soni argued that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer could begin only if there was a formal written complaint supported by an affidavit and verifiable material. He relied on existing guidelines relating to complaints against judicial officers.

However, the High Court rejected this contention. The Bench held that such procedural requirements apply mainly to complaints made by litigants and not where the disciplinary authority itself forms an opinion that action is necessary.

The Court emphasised that the disciplinary authority for judicial officers is the High Court headed by the Chief Justice. It said that once the authority forms a valid opinion regarding misconduct, an inquiry can be initiated without requiring an external complaint supported by affidavits.

The Bench also refused to entertain Soni’s argument that the charges against him were vague. It observed that the inquiry was already underway and such objections could not be examined at this stage.

Earlier, Soni had approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the inquiry outside the Gujarat High Court. However, that plea was later withdrawn.