Allahabad High Court Holds Firm on Contempt, Accepts Apology Without Discharge

Contemnor's Apology Acknowledged, Yet Court Retains Discretion on Punishment for Grave Contempt

In a noteworthy decision, the Allahabad High Court, under the adjudication of Justice Siddharth, addressed the intricate dynamics of contempt proceedings against Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant, who faced allegations of criminal contempt. Despite the contemnor’s unqualified apology, the court chose not to discharge him, highlighting the discretionary power retained by courts in such matters.

The proceedings began with Haribhan, also referred to as the contemnor, filing a controversial written submission on May 17, 2025, which was deemed to contain scandalous allegations against the judiciary. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Division Bench for criminal contempt matters on May 28, 2025, as well as to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to assess the contemnor’s adherence to legal conduct codes.

In response, Haribhan filed a recall application seeking withdrawal of the contentious submission and the recall of the referral order. During the hearing, the contemnor expressed profound respect for the judiciary and tendered an unqualified apology. However, Justice Siddharth ruled that mere acceptance of an apology does not automatically purge the contemnor of contempt, especially in cases involving grave allegations that undermine the judiciary's integrity.

Justice Siddharth emphasized the court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge or mitigate punishment, as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court decided to accept the apology but maintained the referral to the contempt Bench, stressing the gravity of the contemnor's actions and their implications on judicial integrity.

Referring to precedents, the judgment underscored that while apologies might mitigate punishment, they do not automatically cleanse contempt, especially when the contemnor’s actions pose a public wrong by attacking the judiciary's credibility. The court underscored that maintaining judicial authority is paramount, not only for the dignity of the court but for the stability of the nation.

Ultimately, the court partly allowed the recall application to the extent of acknowledging the apology, but left the decision on purging the contemnor to the designated contempt court. This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding its authority and integrity, even in the face of apologies, ensuring that grave contempt does not go unpunished.

Bottom Line:

Criminal Contempt - Acceptance of apology does not necessarily purge contemnor of contempt - Acceptance of apology is a matter of discretion for the court and does not preclude punishment depending on the gravity of the contempt.

Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 12

Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2806652