Judges of subordinate courts here should have a “broad mindset” and not take “hasty decisions” while dealing with matters, Delhi High Court today said while hearing a plea for contempt action against some CBI officials for allegedly intimidating a trial court judge.
The trial court judge had written to the high court to initiate contempt action against some CBI officials as he was offended by some paragraphs of a judgement cited by the agency during arguments in a corruption case against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s principal secretary Rajendra Kumar and others.
During hearing of the contempt plea, CBI claimed before Justice Manmohan that it was doing its job and in no manner had its officers tried to intimidate or threaten the special judge.
“We won’t be able to work as an investigating agency under these circumstances,” CBI’s counsel, senior advocate Maninder Singh, said.
Considering the CBI’s contentions, Justice Manmohan said “the judge, who is hearing a matter, should have a broad mindset. The judge should not be handling matters in such a hasty manner.”
CBI also said “the judges should not be so thin skinned (sic) that they get agitated by the submissions of the parties.”
It said the paragraphs from the judgement were only cited to put one’s case and if that is taken against the investigators, “how will we investigate the case”.
Singh also said that “this should not be a judicial temperament or the judicial officers’ conduct”.
On April 8, Special CBI Judge Ajay Kumar Jain had sent a reference to Delhi High court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against CBI’s Deputy Superintendent of Police Jayant Kashmiri and other agency officials for allegedly intimidating him and trying to interfere in judicial work.
Taking suo motu cognisance of the matter, the high court had appointed an amicus curiae in the matter to assist it.
During the hearing today, the amicus told the court that action of the special court was not warranted and it could have restrained itself from asking for contempt proceedings against the official.
“In no manner the investigating agency or its officials’ act was contemptuous,” the amicus submitted.
( Source – PTI )