On Monday, the Delhi High Court declined to issue a gag order in a case of criminal contempt that was initiated against a litigant. This litigant had called for the imposition of the death penalty on a sitting judge who had rejected his pleas.

The State's counsel had requested that the proceedings regarding this matter be conducted privately, in-camera, and that any resulting orders should not be disclosed to the public, to which Justice Mridul stated, “the institution of judiciary has reached a stage where everything that transpires in the courtroom is streamed live. We have nothing to hide. If someone criticizes us justly, so be it. If someone criticizes us unjustly, there is a proceeding for it. We will deal with it.”

During today's hearing, the Bench made the following remark: “We are not passing any gag orders…no gag orders. He has freedom of speech. If he transgresses the boundaries, there are proceedings in law. Proceedings have been initiated against him. But for us to say that the orders or in-camera hearing, we won’t do it in camera…The very purpose is transparency. We are an open court. We are going to be transparent.”

The division bench, also including Justice Anish Dayal, had taken the initiative last month to initiate contempt proceedings Suo motu, after Naresh Sharma had made unfounded and objectionable allegations against the judge, government officials, and the Supreme Court of India. Sharma asserted that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his case before the coordinating bench. He further stated that if he is proven wrong, he is prepared to accept any punishment, even the death penalty. However, the bench informed him that the penalty imposed upon an individual’s conviction is determined by the nature of offence committed.

The bench also made a request to both Sharma and the State, urging them not to utilize these proceedings as a platform for expressing their personal opinions but to confine their discussions to the specific matter before the court.

Sharma had received a show-cause notice for criminal contempt from the bench during the hearing of his appeals, which were challenging the single judge's order issued on July 20, that had dismissed his pleas and imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000 for each plea.

Naresh Sharma who is an alumnus of IIT, asserted that numerous government institutions, including prestigious ones like IIT, AIIMS, and IIMs, could be deemed "criminally seditious" due to their classification as Societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He suggested that these organizations possess a "legal recourse" to defy the government and can potentially collaborate against it.

Sharma had claimed before a single judge that his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is being violated. He contends that Article 21 encompasses the right to ensure that public institutions are not originated criminally. In his appeal before the bench, Sharma requested that the single bench be held accountable with criminal charges. He argued that the single bench's judgment was not only unfounded but also defamatory, containing what he alleged to be false statements.

From the excerpt of Sharma's appeals as presented by the Court, Sharma requested that the Single Bench be criminally charged for what he deemed a baseless, defamatory, criminal, and seditious judgment on a significant matter. He cited several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including 124A, 166A(b), 167, 192, 193, 217, 405, 409, 499, and 500, as well as Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971). He went so far as to suggest the death penalty for the judge, arguing that such actions amounted to a severe violation of fundamental rights within the Constitution of India.

The matter is now scheduled to be heard on October 1st.

Case: Naresh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.