While refusing to advance the hearing to an earlier date, the court, “in the interest of justice”, listed the main petition for August 29.The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued contempt notice against an advocate, Ravneet Kaur, form making “scandalous remarks” and “per se contemptuous” allegations against the sitting high court judges and a trial court judge in her application seeking early hearing her pending case.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while dictating the order in open court, took a stern view of the language used in Ravneet Kaur’s plea, and held that it not only cast aspersions on the integrity of the judicial system but also attempted to browbeat the judges entrusted with the adjudication of her matter. “The reckless allegations made by the petitioner were intended to bring disrepute to the justice administration system. The act of the petitioner is an attempt at intimidating the adjudicatory authority which prima facie amounts to interference in the judicial process,” the judge observed while issuing a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to the petitioner advocate.Ravneet Kaur, who argued her case in person, had moved an application seeking advancement of the hearing in her main petition that is listed for October 31.In her plea, she claimed she was being harassed by the deliberate delay in her matter and warned that if it was not taken up “at the earliest date” she would be “left with only option to implead Justice Sh. Sandeep Moudgill, Justice Sh. Harpreet Singh Brar and Sh. Baljinder Singh ASJ (Additional Sessions Judge) as party to file SLP (Special Leave Petition) before Hon’ble Supreme Court… because deliberately and intentionally justice has been denied… delaying the present applications and main petition just to cause harassment… to put the petitioner under pressure to withdraw the present complaints against IPS Gurpreet Singh Bhullar”.The court reproduced the statement in full in its order and held that such “scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism” could not be justified. “Not only has she failed to indicate how she has been intentionally victimized in the matter at hand, she has also made scandalous remarks attacking the integrity of the justice dispensation mechanism… the pleadings of the petitioner are per se contemptuous,” Justice Brar said.The judge noted that Ravneet Kaur, “not a layperson but a qualified Advocate”, could not claim her “unceremonious behaviour stemmed out of lack of knowledge.” Citing a Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in M.Y. Shareef vs Judges of the High Court of Nagpur (1955 SCR 757), he reiterated that “counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court… are themselves guilty of contempt of Court… his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.”The court also traced the listing history of the main case. It was consistently heard since May 29, 2024, before another bench, which later recused on May 26, 2025. The matter then came before Justice Brar on May 29, when it was adjourned at the petitioner’s request. It was heard by the Vacation Bench on June 6 and June 18 and was again listed on July 14 but could not be taken up because of a “heavy cause list of 191 cases inclusive of matters listed specially under the Mediation of Nation Drive.”Story continues below this adOn July 22, when around 245 cases were listed, Ravneet Kaur pressed for an early hearing, but the bench found “no justifiable reasons” to grant her prayer. The court even offered her the assistance of the High Court Legal Aid Services, which she declined.Issuing the contempt notice, the bench said the allegations amounted to “an unwarranted and unjustified challenge to the authority of the courts” that “undermines the dignity of the rule of law” and “have the potential of shaking the very edifice of the judicial system which would inevitably shake the faith of the public in the institution.”While refusing to advance the hearing to an earlier date, the court, “in the interest of justice”, listed the main petition for August 29. Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd