The court passed the order on July 7, and Justice DK Singh pointed out that the Facebook post amounted to ex facie criminal contempt as it scandalised the Court and interfered with judicial proceedings. The judge noted that Rajesh’s allegation was that the judiciary was aligned with the Sangh Parivar, a term used for describing the network of organizations affiliated with the Hindutva body Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliated organizations.

Read Also: Supreme Court Starts Contempt Proceedings Against NCLAT Members

On July 5, Rajesh shared an FB post accusing the bench hearing university-related cases of being supporters of Sangh Parivar, flagging his concern about whether justice would be served or whether decisions would be influenced by ideological partialities.

While ordering the contempt case, the judge highlighted that the former MLA had not criticized the judgments, but criticized the judges heading the bench hearing educational matters in the language, adding that the act amounts to scandalizing the Court and maligning the reputation of the judges. It also noted that Rajesh also suggested that judicial decisions were politically colored, by stating, “Did the goddess of justice or the woman carrying the saffron flag win here?”

Read Also: ADR Petitions Supreme Court For Contempt Action Against SBI In Electoral Bonds Case

The unsubstantiated and wild allegations by a public figure lowered the dignity and authority of the Court in the eyes of the public, the judge pointed out, while cautioning that no individual, regardless of their public standing was above the law, that every person was bound to uphold the rule of law.

The case emerged against the backdrop of the University Registrar suspension case. In the case, Dr KS Anil Kumar had challenged his suspension by the Vice Chancellor but later withdrew the petition after the University Syndicate, of which Rajesh is a member, reinstated him. In his FB post, Rajesh alleged the Court failed to act against the alleged illegality due to ideological leanings.

After passing the contempt order, the court stressed that it was not acting out of personal grievance but in fulfillment of its constitutional responsibility to protect the integrity, independence and majesty of the judiciary.