Allahabad High Court Rejects Contempt Plea Against Justice Sunita Agrawal

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition accusing Justice Sunita Agrawal of biased judicial decisions. Advocate Arun Mishra's plea, alleging criminal contempt, was deemed frivolous and without merit. The court emphasized the necessity of discouraging such petitions, especially from legal professionals expected to exhibit responsibility and restraint.


Devdiscourse News Desk | Prayagraj | Updated: 24-09-2024 21:20 IST | Created: 24-09-2024 21:20 IST
Allahabad High Court Rejects Contempt Plea Against Justice Sunita Agrawal
This image is AI-generated and does not depict any real-life event or location. It is a fictional representation created for illustrative purposes only.
  • Country:
  • India

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition that sought criminal contempt proceedings against Justice Sunita Agrawal, the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court.

Advocate Arun Mishra, who filed the petition, alleged that Justice Agrawal had issued orders in his cases with a 'biased' intent to 'harass and damage' him.

A two-judge bench, consisting of Justices Rajiv Gupta and Surendra Singh, labeled the plea as entirely misconceived, frivolous, and without merit.

They stated, 'We have no hesitation to hold that the present criminal contempt application is not only frivolous but is also vexatious.'

The court highlighted the need to discourage such petitions to ensure the proper functioning of the institution, especially when the claimant is an advocate expected to display responsibility and restraint.

Mishra's allegations stemmed from a writ petition dismissed in December 2020 by a division bench including Justice Agrawal, without allowing him to present his arguments, and another case dismissed in February 2021 for want of prosecution.

The court clarified that Justice Agrawal's decisions were based on judicial discretion and the specifics of each case, rejecting Mishra's claim of contempt.

In its September 21, 2024, judgment, the court also noted that the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh had not consented to the contempt proceedings, as required under Section 15(1) of the Contempt Act.

(With inputs from agencies.)

Give Feedback