The Delhi High Court has handed down a six-month prison sentence to an individual for showing contempt of court by using disrespectful language towards a sitting judge who had previously rejected his petition.

 A panel led by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has not only sentenced Naresh Sharma to a six-month prison term for contempt of court but has also fined him Rs 2,000. The bench expressed profound astonishment at the statements made by Sharma in his ongoing case before the high court.

The court emphasized that as a responsible citizen, it was anticipated that the person in contempt would express his complaints in a civilized manner, upholding the dignity of both the court and the legal process.

The court found the individual guilty of contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As a result, the court sentenced him to serve six months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000. In the event that he fails to pay the fine, he will be required to serve an additional seven days in simple imprisonment. The court issued this order on October 31, and it also directed HC Vinod (Naib Court) to take the contemnor into custody, who will then be handed over to Tihar Jail in Delhi.

The contempt case originated from a petition filed by the individual in contempt, who resides in Pathankot, Punjab. In his petition, he sought the immediate initiation of criminal prosecution against various entities, including the Union of India, Delhi Police, Mumbai Police, Bengaluru Police, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Government Ministries, Departments, and others. He alleged that these entities were responsible for "extreme crimes" committed against him and the general population of India.

The single judge dismissed the petition and also imposed costs on the petitioner. 

Following the dismissal of his petition, the individual in contempt proceeded to file an appeal before a division bench. In this appeal, he sought the imposition of the death penalty for the judge who had made what he considered to be a "defamatory" and "seditious" decision. Additionally, he also filed a police complaint, requesting the prosecution of the judge.

In August, the division bench handling his appeal issued a show-cause notice to the individual, asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. This notice was issued in response to his unsubstantiated and frivolous allegations against a high court judge, as well as his inappropriate comparison of her to a devil.

The division bench stated that the current appeal included baseless and fanciful accusations of criminal wrongdoing by the learned single judge. These allegations sought the extreme punishment of a death penalty and also involved an inappropriate comparison of the judge to the devil. Such language and accusations were deemed distasteful and unacceptable by the bench.

In its recent sentencing order, the court observed that the individual in contempt had made allegations not against a specific sitting judge but rather against the entire Delhi High Court, suggesting that the court in the national capital was contributing to the complexity of the criminal situation by committing multiple crimes.

The court highlighted that the individual in contempt had requested criminal action against the learned single judge, arguing that Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibited the mixing of unrelated matters. As a result, he suggested that the single bench should face criminal charges. Furthermore, the individual had also made derogatory allegations against the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had even advocated for the imposition of the death penalty as punishment.

The court noted that the individual in contempt had used extremely derogatory language in reference to the learned single judge, going as far as to call the judge a "thief" and claiming to have conclusive evidence to support this accusation.

The court further stated that during the proceedings, the individual in contempt remained steadfast in his allegations against the single judge, as well as government officers and the judiciary. It was noted that he displayed no remorse or regret for his behavior and actions.

The court pointed out that the individual in contempt, who claimed to have received education in engineering and science from prestigious institutions like the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, Bombay, and in the USA, was anticipated to hold the Constitution of India in high regard and have faith in the legal system. As a responsible citizen of the country, he was expected to express his grievances in a civilized manner while upholding the dignity of the court and the judicial process of law.