Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) legal affairs head Ratna Singh faces potential criminal contempt proceedings after the Delhi government’s Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal), Amol Sinha, formally consented to legal action under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The posts followed the magistrate’s refusal to consider Singh’s plea that the Delhi Police had taken her into custody.
Inspector posts outside influence
The controversy arose from posts on X (formerly Twitter) after the court order of October 10. Singh purportedly stated that the presiding judge was “serving the master” and that both the police and the magistrate were “following orders from master.”
Representations were filed on October 14 and 28 by Advocate Kausik Chatterjee seeking statutory consent for initiating contempt proceedings.
Key finding: On November 2, Standing Counsel Amol Sinha accepted the remarks as plausible ex parte ridicule against a court ruling.
Judiciary’s impact: According to Sinha, to accuse a particular judicial officer of complying with orders from an external authority weakens public trust and brings into question the entire judiciary’s neutrality.
Delhi Counsel distinguishes fair criticism from contempt
In his formal consent, Sinha drew a clear line between strong public criticism of executive authorities and actions that scandalise the judiciary.
While the representation also highlighted posts criticising the Delhi Police and the Special Executive Magistrate system, Sinha declined to treat those as criminal contempt, affirming that harsh criticism of executive bodies remains protected speech.
“The said expressions prima facie suggest that the judicial officer was acting under the instructions of an external authority rather than independently exercising judicial discretion in accordance with law,” Sinha stated in his opinion.
Next steps before the Delhi High Court
The consent given by the government lawyer functions as a statutory gateway, enabling a formal motion to be filed.
Sinha clarified that his opinion represents an initial assessment rather than a final finding of guilt. The Delhi High Court will independently evaluate the matter and determine whether Singh’s social media conduct warrants criminal contempt action.
