High Court of Karnataka v. Sri S Anand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 3 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, REP BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, BENGALURU 560 001. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. JAGADISH, SPP FOR COMPLAINANT)

AND:

SRI. S ANAND, FOUNDER OF VISHWA KANNADA SAMAJA NO.9, 8TH CROSS, I MAIN, VEERABHADRANAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU 560 085. …RESPONDENT (ACCUSED-S.ANAND-SERVED(PRESENT))

THIS CRL.CCC FILED U/S 15(1)(B) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO INITIATE (SUO-MOTU) CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN - SRI S.ANAND, FOUNDER OF VISHWA KANNADA SAMAJA, NO.2, 8TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, VEERABHADRANAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU-560085, UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND TO PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

by MALA K N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present criminal contempt has been registered as suo motu, for which the Memorandum of Criminal Contempt case under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Registrar General of this High Court.

¶2The allegation against the accused/contemnor is that he has addressed a letter to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, praying to transfer cases in C.C.No.20423/2016, C.C.No.28766/2018 and C.C.No.9424/2019 pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, to some other Court.

¶3The contents of the letter produced at Annexure-B1 to the Contempt Petition would read thus: "The above organization has been formed under Article 19(c) of the Indian Constitution and a person under Section 3(40) of Samanya Khandagala Adhiniyama and working for implementation of right to information in state level and corrupt official who are obstruction for its implementation are filing false cases against such activists. The above referred cases are similar three cases.

These three cases were before concerned court on 5.11.2024. When the accused, as a party in person, before Court, Presiding Officer insisted the accused to address him as "Sir". The said behaviour amounts to contempt of abolition of titles under Article 18 of Indian Constitution.

Further, the accused was also asked to stand in accused box. Rule 4 in Chapter VII of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 contemplates the witness to give evidence in standing position and considering his age and health, the evidence may be given by sitting. However, there is no requirement of giving it only in the (witness/accused) box. Further, as per Order in (1982) 1 SCC 438, directs to hold the trial by allowing the accused persons to sit. In spite of the same, how far it is correct to direct the accused persons to stand in the accused box?

Further, the accused has been harassed by adjourning the above three cases to different dates i.e, 26.12.2024, 30.12.2024 and

31.12.2024 and wrongly noted accused as "absent" though he was present in CC No. 28766/2018.

The above aspects would indicate and confirm that the Presiding Officer has either no mental balance or lost it. The parties would not get justice from such persons. Therefore withdraw the concerned (Presiding Officer) from the above cases or transfer those cases to some other court."

¶4On notice, the contemnor is present before the Court. He submits that he has been asked to give evidence and not to defend the contempt proceedings. We are asking him, whether he stands by his letter at Annexure-B1 dated 6.11.2024, but he did not reply nor deny the contents of the said letter, which would suggest that he has no regret and remorse in writing the letter, which has tendencies to scandalize the Court and bring disrepute to the court proceedings. Calling the Presiding Officer as having mental imbalance or loss of mental stability, certainly amounts to criminal contempt, which

comes within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶5Even before this Court, the accused/contemnor has shown belligerence without any respect to the Court proceedings. Such person has to be dealt with iron hands to maintain the dignity, decorum and integrity of the court proceedings. We, therefore, convict him for committing the criminal contempt of the court by writing letter dated

06.11.2024 as per Annexure-B wherein he has addressed the Presiding Officer that he has either no mental balance or lost it.

¶6Considering the misconduct and his demeanor before the Court, we sentence the accused/contemnor to simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused/contemnor shall be taken to custody forthwith to serve the sentence.

Registrar (Judicial) shall issue conviction warrant against the accused as per Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. Registry shall furnish a free copy of this order to the accused/contemnor, immediately.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE

KNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56