P&H High Court: Saurav Das Criminal Contempt Plea Against CJ Ashwani Mishra

• Advocate Nitin Garg filed a criminal contempt plea against CJP leader Saurav Das over an 'X' post targeting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra.
• The post alleged "roster abuse," political motivation, and a ₹20,000-crore financial impact from a Division Bench judgment on DA/DR.
• Garg's petition refutes these claims, arguing they undermine judicial integrity and public confidence, and were factually incorrect regarding financial impact, compliance deadlines, and roster functioning.
• The plea, filed under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, also names X Corp as a respondent for post takedown and record preservation.
• The case highlights the strict boundaries for criticizing judicial decisions on social media and the potential for contempt proceedings against those who imply judicial impropriety.

This case serves as a critical reminder for legal professionals and public commentators regarding the stringent boundaries of permissible criticism of judicial decisions and judges, particularly on social media platforms.

A criminal contempt petition has been lodged against Saurav Das, a prominent figure in the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), at the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The plea, initiated by Advocate Nitin Garg, centers on an 'X' post authored by Das that allegedly targeted Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra. Filed on September 10, 2026, the petition contends that Das's social media activity went beyond legitimate critique, making serious and unsubstantiated accusations against the judiciary.

The contentious 'X' post, published on August 20, 2026, under the hashtag "#StoryAlert," specifically referenced a Division Bench judgment from August 3, 2026, pertaining to a dispute over Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) in Punjab (LPA-1437-2026 and related cases). According to the petition, Das's post included allegations of "roster abuse" and political motivation concerning the handling of the matter. It also suggested a purported financial impact of ₹20,000 crore stemming from the judgment and questioned the timing of a recommendation for the then Acting Chief Justice's elevation on August 6, 2026, implying a connection to the ruling.

Advocate Nitin Garg, who also serves as the State General Secretary for Youth BJP Punjab, argues that Saurav Das's statements constitute imputations against the integrity and independence of the judicial process, thereby scandalizing the Court and eroding public trust in the administration of justice. Garg's petition directly refutes several factual assertions made in the 'X' post. For instance, he contends that the Division Bench judgment of August 3 did not create a new liability of ₹20,000 crore, as suggested by Das. Instead, Garg asserts that the Bench merely affirmed a prior decision by a Single Judge, making the alleged financial consequences misleadingly attributed to the Division Bench's ruling.

Furthermore, the petition challenges Das's claims regarding the judgment's compliance period and the functioning of the roster. Garg clarifies that the 15-day period mentioned in paragraph 127 of the judgment was a fresh timeline granted after the original deadline of June 30, 2026, had already passed, rather than a reduction of an existing 30-day period. He also disputes any suggestion of roster manipulation, emphasizing that the allocation and listing of cases before different Benches fall within the High Court's established institutional framework. The contempt plea also addresses the 'X' post's reference to the Acting Chief Justice's "promotion" on August 6, 2026, clarifying that this was a Collegium recommendation, not a notified appointment, with the judge subsequently taking the oath as Chief Justice on September 7, 2026. Garg asserts that linking the judicial decision to this subsequent elevation, by suggesting coincidence, improperly attributes an extraneous or political motive to the judicial process.

The contempt proceedings have been initiated under Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, which grants High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves, read in conjunction with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This legal framework underpins the petitioner's argument that Saurav Das's 'X' post crossed the line from permissible criticism into actions that tend to scandalise the court and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Significantly, X Corp has also been named as a respondent in the plea. The petitioner seeks action concerning the social media material, specifically requesting the takedown of the offending post and the preservation of electronic records related to it. This inclusion highlights the growing trend of courts engaging with social media platforms to address content deemed contemptuous or otherwise unlawful, underscoring the platform's responsibility in managing user-generated content that impacts judicial proceedings or reputation.

This case serves as a critical reminder for legal professionals and public commentators regarding the stringent boundaries of permissible criticism of judicial decisions and judges, particularly on social media platforms. The allegations of roster abuse and political motivation against Chief Justice Ashwani Mishra, as contained in the 'X' post by Saurav Das, underscore the potential for criminal contempt proceedings when statements imply judicial impropriety or seek to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The court's power to compel social media platforms for record preservation further emphasizes the accountability of online content.

The proceedings highlight the delicate balance between freedom of speech and the imperative to protect the integrity and independence of the judicial system. The petitioner's detailed rebuttal of the factual claims made in the 'X' post demonstrates the judiciary's sensitivity to allegations that could tarnish its reputation or suggest bias. This legal action against Saurav Das for criminal contempt of CJ Ashwani Mishra is a significant development, reinforcing that public discourse, especially on platforms like X, must adhere to established legal standards when commenting on judicial matters.

This case serves as a critical reminder for legal professionals and public commentators regarding the stringent boundaries of permissible criticism of judicial decisions and judges, particularly on social media platforms. It underscores the potential for criminal contempt proceedings when allegations imply judicial impropriety or undermine public confidence in the judiciary, and highlights the court's power to compel social media platforms for record preservation.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk