The Allahabad High Court has framed criminal contempt charges against Krishna Kumar Pandey for publishing a scandalous WhatsApp message that allegedly targeted a presiding judicial officer and attempted to lower the authority of the court.
The bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, while hearing Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 14 of 2024, held that Pandey’s post on a lawyers’ WhatsApp group in Basti constituted “criminal contempt of court” under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a reference dated August 10, 2023, by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Basti. The judge reported that Pandey had posted a Hindi message on a WhatsApp group of Basti advocates, accusing the judge of writing “fake, forged, and fabricated order sheets,” acting against Supreme Court and High Court orders, and alleging corruption and “anti-national” activities.
The message went viral and was deemed “calculated to deliberately scandalise and lower the authority of the Court.”
After reviewing the reference, the Administrative Judge noted that the act was “contemptuous” and had “brought down the image of the court and undermined its authority.”
Key Observations of the Court
The court rejected two pre-charge applications filed by the contemnor. In the first, Pandey argued that prior permission from the Advocate General was necessary to initiate contempt proceedings. Dismissing the plea, the bench observed:
“There is absolutely no warrant under the law for seeking permission of the learned Advocate General before proceeding in the matter. This Court is always free to take cognizance of a criminal contempt even on an application, without permission of the learned Advocate General.”
In his second application, Pandey sought the transfer of proceedings to the Chief Justice, citing an “in-house procedure” for complaints against judges via WhatsApp. The court firmly turned down the request, stating:
“There is absolutely no mechanism of an in-house procedure for inquiring complaints against Judges of the Subordinate Courts… The allegation that there is an in-house procedure… is absolutely one that is based on no existing law.”
Proceedings and Legal Aid
Despite being offered legal aid multiple times—including representation by Senior Advocates Vinay Saran and Gajendra Pratap through the High Court Legal Services Committee—Pandey repeatedly declined counsel, choosing to represent himself.
The court also issued notices to seven Bar Associations in Basti to inquire how Pandey, a non-advocate, gained access to their WhatsApp groups. The associations dissociated themselves from the message and assured the court they would regulate social media groups to include only practicing advocates.
Charge Framed
After hearing Pandey in person, the court concluded that a prima facie case was made out and framed the following charge:
“That you, Krishna Kumar Pandey… by your act in publishing the following post on the WhatsApp Group… committed an act which scandalises and lowers the authority of the Court… and thereby committed criminal contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
Pandey pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The court has scheduled the next hearing for October 9, 2025.
FAQ
1. What exactly did Krishna Kumar Pandey do to be charged with contempt?
He posted a lengthy message in Hindi on a WhatsApp group for advocates in Basti. In the message, he made serious allegations against the Additional District Judge of Basti, accusing the judge of writing “fake, forged, and fabricated order sheets,” acting against the orders of the Supreme Court and High Court, and engaging in corruption and “anti-national” activities. The court found that this act was intended to scandalize the court and lower its authority in the public eye, which constitutes criminal contempt.
2. Why did the court reject his argument that the Advocate General’s permission was needed?
The court firmly stated that there is no legal requirement to seek the Advocate General’s permission for the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings. The bench clarified that “This Court is always free to take cognizance of a criminal contempt even on an application, without permission of the learned Advocate General,” dismissing this argument as having “absolutely no warrant under the law.”
3. He is not a lawyer, so how was he able to post on an advocates’ WhatsApp group?
This was a key question for the court as well. The court issued notices to seven Bar Associations in Basti to investigate this very issue. The associations informed the court that they did not endorse Pandey’s message. The court has given them time to conduct internal inquiries and take “corrective action” to ensure that such social media groups are restricted to practicing advocates who are members of these associations, thereby preventing unauthorized individuals from joining and posting content.