Additional District Judge Kamini Lau Moves To Supreme Court Against Contempt Action Initiated By Delhi High Court.

Additional District Judge (ADJ) Kamini Lau, against whom the Delhi High Court had recently initiated contempt action, has moved the Supreme Court challenging the said judgment.
The matter came up today before a Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, when Justice Khanwilkar chose to recuse from the case.
In an order on Friday, a division bench comprising Justice Valmiki J Mehta and Justice Indermeet Kaur made strong remarks against judge Lau for “unacceptable and unfounded statements” in applications she filed against the orders of a single judge. 
The division bench made the observations while disposing of four applications filed by Lau, who had sought expunction of certain adverse remarks/observations made by the judge in four separate orders.
In her applications, Lau requested the division bench that certain adverse remarks made against her by the single judge be deleted, alleging that they unfairly affected her career. The single judge had passed the orders while hearing appeals filed against orders passed by the ADJ. The division bench examined the law for instances where a judicial officer could approach a court for expunction of remarks. It held that the court was empowered to make critical remarks but clarified that these should not be personal in nature.
“We found it unbelievable and unacceptable that the applicant has crossed all norms of acceptable behaviour and made personal allegations against learned single judge of this court,” it said.It then held that the ADJ was prima facie guilty of criminal contempt of court, opining that her submissions amounted to scandalising or lowering the authority of the court.
Issuing notice to ADJ Lau, the bench directed that the matter be listed on February 16 before the bench hearing criminal contempt petitions.It further said that a copy of its judgment be placed before the committee that prepares the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of judges so that it can “take note of the conduct of the applicant/judicial officer of making unacceptable and unfounded statements in her applications”.