On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court handed a six-month simple imprisonment sentence to an advocate. This penalty was a result of the advocate making contemptuous allegations against the sitting judges of the High Court and the district judiciary.

The division bench, comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Shalinder Kaur, noted that Virendra Singh, the individual in contempt, was provided with the chance to offer an unconditional apology. However, despite the opportunity, he declined to do so and maintained his stance on the allegations he had previously made.

The Court highlighted that this stance indicated a lack of remorse or repentance for his behavior on the part of Virendra Singh.

`The Court, after reviewing the evidence presented and considering the subject's statements, concluded that the individual showed no signs of remorse for their behavior and actions. As a result, the Court pronounced a sentence of six months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000/-. In case of default in paying the fine, an additional seven days of simple imprisonment were ordered. The Court directed the custody transfer of the contemnor to the Superintendent of Tihar Jail, Delhi, through SI Prem (Naib Court) and the SHO of Police Station Tilak Marg.

Singh was granted permission by the Court to visit his home in order to change clothes, attend to the vehicle parked in the High Court parking, and collect necessary medications before being taken to jail.

Singh had filed a criminal appeal scheduled for a hearing before a single judge on July 14, 2022. The appeal contained multiple allegations against several judges, accusing them of arbitrary, whimsical, or biased conduct. These judges were specifically named in the petition. During the proceedings, the single judge inquired whether Singh would retract these allegations. Singh responded in the negative, indicating that he would not retract or withdraw the accusations made against the judges.

Singh defended the allegations, asserting that they were not contemptuous but factual statements. Additionally, the single judge observed that these accusations were not initiated by the victim appellant but were advised by counsel, Virendra Singh. Consequently, the single judge issued a contempt notice to Singh and directed the case to be presented before the Division Bench assigned to handle contempt cases, subject to the Chief Justice's directives.

During the hearing, the Division Bench extensively listened to Singh's arguments but ultimately rejected the assertion that the allegations were presented to establish the background and illustrate the injustice suffered by the victim, consequently leading to the acquittal of the accused individuals.