On Monday, September 2, the Supreme Court of India passed a sentence in a contempt case involving a police officer and a judicial magistrate from Gujarat. The case arose from the illegal arrest and remand of an accused person, despite an earlier court order granting him interim anticipatory bail.
The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the judicial magistrate, citing her 14-year unblemished service record and the prevailing erroneous practice in Gujarat courts. Consequently, no further action was taken against her.
However, the police officer, R.Y. Raval was fined ₹25,000. On August 7, the Court had found both the officer and the magistrate guilty of contempt and had ordered their appearance in court to determine sentencing.
During the hearing, Senior Advocates K Parameshwar and Manish Singhvi, representing the police officer and the judicial officer, respectively, urged the Court to consider mitigating factors. They emphasised the officers’ exemplary careers and the fact that ongoing departmental proceedings were addressing other allegations against the police officer.
Justice Gavai, however, criticised the police officer for alleged misconduct, including the fabrication of CCTV evidence and misuse of criminal procedures. The Court found that the officer’s actions had significantly interfered with the due course of justice, violating Section 13(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act. This section stipulates that a contempt sentence should only be imposed when the contempt has a substantial impact on the course of justice.
Justice Mehta expressed concern over the officer’s lack of remorse and questioned the sincerity of the apology presented in court. He further noted that the officer’s remand application was found to be blatantly malafide, which undermined the rule of law.
While the Court imposed a fine on Raval, it accepted the judicial magistrate’s apology, considering her clean record and the widespread practice in Gujarat courts of allowing police to seek remand despite the grant of anticipatory bail. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the Court to expunge the conviction of the judicial officer, but Justice Mehta clarified that the Court would not review the conviction order. However, the Court did agree to remove specific findings against the judicial officer from its previous order.
