1

Reserved

Contempt Application (Crl.) No. 13 of 2008

IN RE

Rajvir Singh Tyagi Advocate Civil Courts, Meerut......Contemnor.

Hon. Imtiyaz Murtaza J.

Hon. S.S.Tiwari, J.

(Delivered by Hon. Imtiyaz Murtaza J.)

Impugned herein is the notice of contempt issued against the

contemnor vide order dated 1.9.2008 passed by Division Bench of this

Court.

The contempt proceeding has its genesis in the complaint

addressed to Hon. Chief Justice and copies addressed to Administrative

Judge, D.I.G. (Police) Meerut, District Judge Meerut, District Magistrate

Meerut, S.S.P. Meerut, and S.O P.S. Lalkurti Meerut. The complaint inter-

alia centres round the fact that in Criminal case No. 61 of 96 the accused

a police constable was involved in offences under section 323/342/392 IP

C and section 7/13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act P.S.

Goverdhan District Mathura in which the Special Judge had rejected the

application for bail. Subsequently, the High Court admitted the accused

to bail for the aforesaid offences. It is imputed in the complaint that on

27.9.2006, bail bonds were accepted by the court concerned and release

order was issued but the release order was returned by the Jail

authorities alongwith custody warrant stating that in the release order

section 161 IPC was not mentioned while section 161 IPC was

enumerated in the custody warrant. On 28.9.2006, the matter was

placed before Sri V.P.Srivastava who was link officer of that court to

rectify the mistake but the officer refused to do the needful on the

ground that the same cannot be deleted and let the accused be

continued in custody in the aforesaid section. It is further alleged that

the courts thereafter were closed between 29.9.2006 to 2.10.2006 and

on 3.10.2006 the matter was placed before the presiding officer who

Neutral Citation No. - 2010:AHC:170784-DB

2

rectified the mistake. The question was posed in the complaint as to why

the link officer did not rectify the mistake while it was well known that

section 161 IPC stood deleted from the IPC. Subsequently, it was

lamented in the complaint that several complaints were made by several

advocates to the Hon. Court regarding the unbecoming conduct and

behaviour of the officer towards senior Advocates and the contemnor was

one of the complainant and that the officer deliberately did not rectify the

mistake as a result of which the accused remained in incarceration

without any valid reason between 28.9.2006 to 3.10.2006 for which the

officer was to be blamed. It is further stated that the officer has

committed offence under section 342 IPC and therefore besides initiating

departmental action against him, F.I.R be also lodged against him under

section 342 IPC. It is further alleged in the complaint that it would

transpire from the above facts that the officer had fragmentary

knowledge of law and as a seasoned judicial officer, he must be aware

that section 161 IPC had already been deleted from the penal code.

In the second complaint dated 24.5.2006 in which it would appear

that the contemnor was seemingly aggrieved by the criticism of the court

about the delay in passing the order, the allegations are that in S.T. No.

912 of 2004, State v. Asif pending in the court of Fast Track Court no.3

Meerut presided over by Sri V.P.Srivastava, on an application moved on

behalf of accused Asif claiming to be juvenile , the aforesaid court

proceeded leisurely and for 13 months, the accused who was a juvenile

remained incarcerated in jail instead of Juvenile jail and was treated as

one of the hardened criminal. It is further alleged that the office of the

said court took more than a month to submit the report that there was

juvenile court functioning in Meerut. It is further stated that on

15.2.2006, the court passed the order that it was necessary to refer the

matter to Medical Board for ascertaining the correct age of the accused

and in consequence, the matter was referred to C.M.O. Meerut who took

two months to submit the report dated 20.4.2006. It is also stated that

the court in the meantime did not take any tangible steps upon the

report and the juvenile continued to be treated as an ordinary prisoner in

jail. In the complaint, the contemnor also refers to Juvenile Act which

according to him postulated that the enquiry as to age has to be taken to

completion within four months and that such juvenile accused could not

3

be kept alongwith hardened criminal. It is also stated that subsequently,

the report of the Medical Board was discountenanced. He also refers to

transfer application made in this regard seeking appropriate order to

transfer the matter to juvenile court upon which the District Judge

directed the concerned court to complete the enquiry within 20 days. It

is stated that annoyed by the transfer application, the presiding officer

passed the order criticizing the conduct of the contemnor. In the end, the

contemnor posed the question that when the F.T.C works at such a snail's

pace, what fate awaits such Judges. It is also prayed that this Court

should initiate appropriate action against such Judges posted in Meerut.

The third complaint which has been taken note of for contempt

purposes is dated 15.9.2006 addressed to District Judge in which the

contemnor has cited instances of misbehaviour of the officer towards

senior Advocates particularly the instance of misbehaviour with Brahma

Singh Senior Advocate when the said Advocate expressed his displeasure

over resuming court work after 4.30 p.m. It is stated that after the

officer had misbehaved with Sri Brahma Dutta, he left the court but since

contemnor was present he could not brook the insult and disrespect

shown to Sri Brahma Singh, and took up cudgel on his behalf for the

affront done to Sri Brahma Singh. It is also alleged that he made a

written complaint against the behaviour of the officer to the Bar

Association. Citing another instance, he referred to occurrence that one

day when he was passing through the corridor he saw a group of

lawyers. This aroused curiosity in him and he went to the lawyers and

enquired about what actually happened upon which the lawyers informed

him that the misbehaviour of Sri V.P.Srivastava towards the lawyers had

become intolerable. It is stated that at the time Secretary of the Bar

Association was present and when he called upon him to take decisive

action against misbehaviour of the officer. The contemnor further

mentions that when he left, the Secretary Bar Association called him but

he did not stop. He further states that he was a Brahimin by caste and a

Brahim could not be compelled to compromise the matter either under

duress or otherwise and a true Brahmin was always ready for facing

battle. He also made a menacing comments to the effect “Please make

today i.e. 13

th

Sept 2006 a marker because it is this district from where

the disciplinary proceeding has to be commenced.” On page 4, in

4

connection with the case of Sulkh Chand Tomar alias Titu who had

engaged the contemnor, it is stated that in the N.D.P.S.Act, hearing was

virtually complete and the case was likely to be decided when Sri

S.C.Batra, Special Judge N.D.P.S Act stood transferred and till posting of

some officer, the charge of that court was entrusted to the referring

officer. It is alleged that the accused moved an application for transfer

from the court of Sri V.P.Srivastava on the ground that he did not expect

justice from the court of Sri V.P. Srivastava. When aforesaid accused

came to know that there was hostility between Sri V.P.Srivastava and the

contemnor, the accused took away his brief from the chamber of

contemner and engaged Dinesh Kumar Tyagi. Sri Dinesh Kumar Tyagi it

is further alleged, had about 10 to 15 cases under the N.D.P.S Act

pending in the said court and when Sri Dinesh Kumar Tyagi was engaged,

the court started fixing day to day dates in the case. On 13

th

September

it is alleged, the said court summoned the accused and at about 6 p.m,

when the court was dictating application and affidavit to the accused

against the contemnor, he (contemnor) brought this fact to the notice of

the Secretary Bar Association namely Ravikant Bhardwarj and 10 to 15

other Advocates reached the court and asked the officer why he was

holding the court at 6.15 p.m. Upon which Sri Srivastava replied that he

was doing some urgent official work. Upon which Sri Bhardwaj conveyed

to the officer that here in Meerut, the lawyers become boisterous after 4

p.m and if any untoward happening takes place with the officer, the Bar

would not be held responsible for the same. In the last para i.e. at page

6, it is stated that Sir (addressed to the District Judge), my humble

request is this that he is permanent resident of Meerut and his parental

village has a population of about 10 thousand people and each person of

the village would be ready to lay down his life for his cause and at least

150 juniors always keep company with him. He further states that he

means to say that he has a large army of people to abide by his call

while Sri Srivastava (referring officer is all alone).

Upon the complaint being put up before Administrative Judge,

namely Hon. V.M.Sahai, the order 9.10.2006 was passed directing

District Judge to enquire and report at the earliest.

The District Judge by means of letter dated 24

th

Nov 2006 after

5

delving into the entire matter, reported that Sri V.P. Srivastava, Addl.

District Judge on that particular date, was the link officer; that section

161 IPC was erroneously mentioned in custody warrant and not in

release order and hence the link officer it is mentioned, could not correct

the mistake and next day when Presiding officer resumed the duties, he

rectified the mistake. The District Judge also reported that the contemnor

had used a phraseology in his complaint which was contemptuous to the

officer attended with expression that he had no legal knowledge and that

the F.I.R be lodged against the officer under section 342 IPC. The District

Judge also reported that the contemnor conceded before the Link Officer

that the accused had not been admitted to bail under section 13 (2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 IPC and by this

reckoning he inveigled the court in order to make out a ground for

making complaint against him attended with further facts that in the

complaint made against the officer on 15.9.2006, he extended veiled

threat stating that he was a native of a village which is populated by 10

thousand people and each and every persons of that village would rally

behind him to shed his blood in case situation so warrants while the

officer would find none to come to his rescue.

Pursuant to the report of District Judge, the then Administrative

Meerut on 7.12.2007 expressed the opinion in the following words.

“The letters of Sri Rajveer Singh Tyagi Advocate

dated 24.5.2006 and 15.9.2006 are not only

threatening but also contemptuous and amount

to obstructing and scandalizing the

administration of justice. Let the file be placed

before Hon. The Chief Justice to draw contempt

proceeding (Crl.) against him.”

On 7.8.2008, the Chief Justice appended approval for placing the

matter before appropriate Bench.

Sri K.K.Srivastava learned counsel appeared for the contemnor

and pleaded for merciful view in the matter. On being called upon to

argue the case on merit of the case, he referred to unqualified apology

stating that the contemnor has already tendered the unqualified apology

and prayed for discharge taking a lenient view further urging that that

6

the contemnor was fairly senior and had been practising for the last 30

years attended with further submission that he can not be said to be

addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks

nor was there any previous instance of his showing disrespect to any of

the court and whatever had happened in Court was in a spontaneity.

Ultimately, he stated that he should be given a chance to expiate his

conduct if adjudged to be unbecoming of an Advocate.

We are pained that we have to deal with a case involving a lawyer

again under the Contempt of Court Act. We however indicate to ourselves

the piece of advice that the Court while dealing with contempt matter

should not be over or hypersensitive and should not exercise this

jurisdiction on any exaggerated notion of the dignity of the Judges and

must act taking a dispassionate view of the entire matter. It is the settled

principles that the rule of contempt is not to be lightly invoked and is not

to be used as a cloak to cow down somebody into submission on the

basis of fancied claim. It is intended to offer protection to the court itself

or to a party in judicial proceeding whose interest may be affected or the

authority of the court is lowered and the confidence of the people in the

administration of justice is weakened. At the same time, it should be

borne in mind that the Court is the protector of public justice and it has a

stake in the dignity and protection of those who man the court.

We would also not flinch from saying that the apology is not to be

used as a weapon of defence forged always to be used as a shield to

protect the contemnor as a last resort. It is intended to be evidence of

real contriteness. The apology, in order to dilute the gravity of the

offence, it has repeatedly been ruled in catena of decisions, should be

voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and real contrition and

it should be tendered at the earliest opportunity. We have to administer

caution to ourselves that we should not be inveigled into accepting

apology from those who are addicted to using contemptuous language

and making scurrilous attacks and have to their discredit, earlier instance

of misfeasance. It is well enunciated by catena of decisions that if the

veiled object is disgrace, humiliate or cause harassment to the officers

the Court must put an end to the mischief.

7

In the affidavit filed by the contemnor alongwith application which

is titled as unconditional apology, the contemnor in para 2 has stated

that he has been practising for the last 30 years in the civil courts at

Meerut. In para 3, it is averred that he is one of the most respectable

member of Meerut Bar Association and has always been active

participation in all its function. In para 4, it is averred that no complaint

was ever made by any of the presiding officer against the conduct of the

applicant nor he was ever proceeded against and that he has got

absolutely clean and unblemished record all through. He has also

annexed a certified issued by secretary Meerut Bar Association as

Annexure no.1. In para 5, it is averred that it is for the first time in the

last three decades of his legal career that he has been proceeded against

for criminal contempt for which he sincerely regrets and tenders his

“mis-conditional apology” (Perhaps he means unconditional apology.). In

para 6 it is averred that the applicant assures that he would never repeat

the action nor indulge any such activity which tends to bring the judicial

authority to contempt in any manner.

The vexed question now is whether the complaint made to Chief

Justice constitutes criminal contempt under the provisions of Contempt

of Courts Act or not. The first question that requires consideration is

whether in making the allegations which the contemnor did against the

judicial officer, the contemnor exceeded the limits of fair and legitimate

criticism and whether the attack as contained in the complaints is

couched in indecent, wild and intemperate language. As stated supra,

there were three complaints as referred to above made against the

officer two to the Chief Justice and the third one to the District Judge.

The relevant remarks made against the judicial officer in the complaint

dated 4.10.2006 may be excerpted below.

“Uprokta Samasta Ghatnakram Se Yeh Bhi Pratham Dristiya

Pratit Hai Ki Sri V.P. Srivastava, Upper Zila Judge Meerut Ko

Kanoon Ki Bhi Jankari Nahin Hai Kyonki Yadi Unhe Kanoon Ki

Jankari Hoti To Unhe Yeh Maloom Hona Chahiye Tha Ki

Dhara 161 I>P.C. Delete Ki JaChuki Hai Parantu Unke

Dinank 28.9.2006 Ko Parit Adesh Se Ispashtya Pratit Hai Ki

Unhe Vakai 161 IPC Ke Samapta Ho Jane Ki Kanoon Gyan

8

Nahin Tha Jo Ki Unhe Hona Chahiya.

In the last paragraph of the said complaint, the remarks made are

as under:

“ Ateh Shrimanji Se Prarthana Hai Ki Sri V.P.Srivastava

Upper Zila Judge Court no. 6 Meerut Ke Virudh Dhara 342

IPC Ka Mukadma Sambandhit Thane Me Darj Karne Ke

Adesh Parit Kar Unke Virudh Alag Se Niyayik Istar Par

Prashashinik Evam Anushashinatmak Karyavahi Kiye Jane Ke

Adesh Parit Karne Ki Kripa Ki Jaye.”

In the complaint made to District Judge on15.9.2006, the

contemnor made the following remarks.

“Kyonki Vakeelo Ke Hit Me Kisi Niyaik Adhkari Se Faisala Ya

Samjhota Karne Ka Prashna Us Vakil Ke Liye Utpanna Hi

Nahin Hota Hai Jo Zara Sa Bhi Swabhimani Ho Aur Me To

Vaise Bhi Jati Se Brahman Hoon. Ateh Dabkar Ya Lalchvash

Athva Vivash Hokar Brahmin Kabhi Kisi Se Samjhota Ya

Faisla Nahi Karta Veh Yudh Ke Liye Hamesha Tayyar Rahta

Hai. Dinank 13

th

Sept 2006 Kripya Ise Lal Kalam Se

Rekhankit Karne Ka Kashta Karen Kyonki Yahan Se Ukta

Adhikari Ke Virudh Apke Dwara Anushasnatmak Karyawahi

Shuru Honi Hai. Yadi Meri Bat Satya Hai To.”

At page 4 of the complaint, the portion marked is abstracted

below.

“Shri Narottam Garg Ke Soochna Pakar Ravi Kant Bhardwaj

Sahit 10-15 Adhivakta Turant Sri V.P.Srivastava Ke Niyayaley

Mai Pahunche Vaha Ki Sawa Chhey Baje Tak Sri

V.P.Srivastava Apni Niyayik Kursi Par Vidyaman The. Is Par

Ravikant Bhardwaj Ne Niyayale Kaksha Me Hi Ukta Niyayaley

Sri V.P.Srivastava Se Kaha Ki Aap Chhey Baje Tak Niyayale

Kaksha Main Kyo Virajman Hai To Is Par Sri Srivastava Ne

Javab Diya Ki Mai Kuchcha Sarkari Karya Kar Raha Hoon. Is

Par Sri Ravikant Bhardwaj Ne Kaha Ki Aap Sawa Chhey Baje

9

Tak Sarkari Karya Kar Rahi Hain Yaha Kutchery Me Sade 4

Baje Sham Ke Baad Vakil Lok Hurdangi Ho Jate Hai Ateh Ese

Me Yadi Kisi Vakeel Ne Aapke Saath Kisi Prakar Ki Koi

Badtamazi Athawa Galat Harkat Kar Di To Meerut Bar

Association Iske Liye Zimmedar Nahin Hogi.....”

At page 5, the remarks made in the complaint read as under:

'Mene Dinak 15.9.2006 Ko Subeh Hi Ukta Dhanesh Babu Ke

Acharan Ke Sambandh Mai Unki Union Ke Adhyaksha Se

Baat Ki Aur Kaha Ki Jhagrah Mere va V.P.Srivastava Ke

Beech Hai Dhanesh Babu Anavashyak Roop Se Kyo

Pakshakar Ban Raha Hai . Use Bulakar Samjhao Kahin Esa

Na Ho Ki Mera Dakrao Dhanesh Babu Se Ho Jaye Aur

Karamchariyon Mai Yeh Sandesh Jaye Ki Sri Rajveer Singh

Tyagi Ki Jaji Ke Karamchariyon Ke Prati Amariyadit Byavhar

Karne Lage Hai.......”

At page 6 of the complaint, the contemnor made following

remarks.

“Manyavar, Mera Nivedan Apse Yeh Hai Ki Me Isthaniye Zila

Meerut Ka Niwasi Hoon Mere Apne Patrik Gaon Me 10 Hazar

Ki Abadi Hai Mere Gaon Ka Bacha Bacha Mere Liye Mar

Mitne Ke Liye Tayyar Hamesha Raha Hai. Kam Se Kam 150

junior Mere Saath Se Anubhav Grahan Karke Isi Kutcheri Mai

Vakalat Kar Rahe Hai. Tatparya Yeh Hai Ki Isthaniye Hone Ke

Nate Mere Paas Ek Fauj Hai Evam Sri V.P.Srivastava Ekmatra

Akele hai. Chunki Niyayik Adhikari Hai Niyayik Adhikari Ka

Samman Amjan Ko Karne Chahiye. Isi Bhavna Ke Tahat 13

th

Sept 2006 Vali Ghatna Se Abhi Tak Me Sri V.P.Srivastava Ke

Prati Uttejit Nahin Hua Yadi Aapne Is Mamle Me Swayam

Dakhal Nahi Diya To Anartha Ho Jaye Ga.”

As observed by the Apex Court in Brahma Prakash Sharma and

others v. state of U.P 1954 AIR p. 10, i n regards to matters of

contempt, the members of a Bar Association do not occupy any

10

privileged or higher position than ordinary citizens . It brooks no

dispute that the complaint dated 15.9.2006 made by the contemnor was

addressed to the District Judge, while the complaints dated 4.10.2006

and 24.5.2006 were addressed to Chief Justice and copies thereof were

endorsed to Administrative Judge, D.I.G. Police Meerut, District Judge

Meerut, District Magistrate Meerut, Sr. Supdt of Police Meerut and Station

officer P.S.Lal Kurti Meerut. The Chief Justice and the District Judge

Meerut, indubitably, were the official superiors of the officer concerned

but copies thereof were also endorsed to other executive authorities as

stated supra and therefore, it would transpire that the allegations made

against the officer were widely publicized by the contemnor beyond those

who were the official superiors of the officer bringing disgrace to the

officer. The question now is whether such action of the contemnor would

be counted as a defamatory attack on the judicial officer occasioning

injury to the public and tending to create an apprehension in the minds

of the people regarding the ability or fairness of the judge or to deter

actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the

court's administration of justice and it was likely to cause embarrassment

in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties

and whether the conduct of the contemnor brought them within the

purview of the law of contempt.

At the risk of repetition, the summary of what has been remarked

by the contemnors in the two complaints may be reproduced here. It is

imputed in the complaint dated 4.10.2006 that on 27.9.2006, bail bonds

were accepted by the court concerned and release order was issued but

the release order was returned by the Jail authorities alongwith custody

warrant stating that in the release order section 161 IPC was not

mentioned while section 161 IPC was enumerated in the custody

warrant. On 28.9.2006, the matter was placed before Sri V.P.Srivastava

who was link officer of that court to rectify the mistake but the officer

refused to do the needful on the ground that the same cannot be deleted

and let the accused be continued in custody in the aforesaid section. It is

further alleged that the courts thereafter were closed between 29.9.2006

to 2.10.2006 and on 3.10.2006 the matter was placed before the

presiding officer who rectified the mistake. The question was posed in

the complaint as to why the link officer did not rectify the mistake while

11

it was well known that section 161 IPC stood deleted from the IPC.

Subsequently, it was lamented in the complaint that several complaints

were made by several advocates to the Hon. Court regarding the

unbecoming conduct and behaviour of the officer towards senior

Advocates and the contemnor was one of the complainant and that the

officer deliberately did not rectify the mistake as a result of which the

accused remained in incarceration without any valid reason between

28.9.2006 to 3.10.2006 for which the officer was to be blamed. It is

further stated that the officer has committed offence under section 342

IPC and therefore besides initiating departmental action against him,

F.I.R be also lodged against him under section 342 IPC. It is further

alleged in the complaint that it would transpire from the above facts that

the officer had fragmentary or no knowledge of law and as a seasoned

judicial officer, he must be aware that section 161 IPC had already been

deleted from the penal code. There is also reference to second complaint

dated 15.9.2006 addressed to District Judge in which he has cited

instances of misbehaviour of the officer towards senior Advocates

particularly the instance of misbehaviour with Brahma Singh Senior

Advocate when the said Advocate expressed his displeasure over

resuming court work after 4.30 p.m. It is stated that after the officer had

misbehaved with Sri Brahma Dutta, he left the court but since contemnor

was present he could not brook the insult and disrespect shown to Sri

Brahma Singh, and took up cudgel on his behalf for the affront done to

Sri Brahma Singh. It is also alleged that he made a written complaint

against the behaviour of the officer to the Bar Association. Citing another

instance, he referred to occurrence without mentioning the date that one

day when he was passing through the corridor he saw a group of

lawyers. This aroused curiosity in him and he went to the lawyers and

enquired about what actually happened upon which the lawyers informed

him that the misbehaviour of Sri V.P.Srivastava towards the lawyers had

become intolerable. It is stated that at the time Secretary of the Bar

Association was present and when he called upon him to take decisive

action against misbehaviour of the officer. The contemnor further

mentions that when he left, the Secretary Bar Association called him but

he did not stop. He further states that he was a Brahimin by caste and a

Brahmin could not be compelled to compromise the matter either under

duress or otherwise and a true Brahmin was always ready for facing

12

battle. He also made a menacing comments to the effect “Please make

today i.e. 13

th

Sept 2006 a marker because it is this district from where

the disciplinary proceeding has to be commenced.” On page 4, in

connection with the case of Sulkh Chand Tomar alias Titu who had

engaged the contemnor, it is stated that in the N.D.P.S.Act, hearing was

virtually complete and the case was likely to be decided when Sri

S.C.Batra, Special Judge N.D.P.S Act stood transferred and till posting of

some officer, the charge of that court was entrusted to the referring

officer. It is alleged that the accused moved an application for transfer

from the court of Sri V.P.Srivastava on the ground that he did not expect

justice from the court of Sri V.P. Srivastava. When aforesaid accused

came to know that there was hostility between Sri V.P.Srivastava and the

contemnor, the accused took away his brief from the chamber of

contemner and engaged Dinesh Kumar Tyagi. Sri Dinesh Kumar Tyagi it

is further alleged, had about 10 to 15 cases under the N.D.P.S Act

pending in the said court and when Sri Dinesh Kumar Tyagi was engaged,

the court started fixing day to day dates in the case. On 13

th

September

it is alleged, the said court summoned the accused and at about 6 p.m,

when the court was dictating application and affidavit to the accused

against the contemnor, he (contemnor) brought this fact to the notice of

the Secretary Bar Association namely Ravikant Bhardwarj and 10 to 15

other Advocates reached the court and asked the officer why he was

holding the court at 6.15 p.m. Upon which Sri Srivastava replied that he

was doing some urgent official work. Upon which Sri Bhardwaj conveyed

to the officer that here in Meerut, the lawyers become boisterous after 4

p.m and if any untoward happening takes place with the officer, the Bar

would not be held responsible for the same. In the last para i.e. at page

6, it is stated that Sir (addressed to the District Judge), “my humble

request is this that he is permanent resident of Meerut and his parental

village has a population of about 10 thousand people and each person of

the village would be ready to lay down his life for his cause and at least

150 juniors always keep company with him. He further states that he

means to say that he has a large army of people to abide by his call

while Sri Srivastava is alone”.

As observed by the Apex Court in Brahma Prakash Sharma and

another (supra), there are indeed innumerable ways by which attempts

13

can be made to hinder obstruct the due administration of justice in

courts. One type of such interference is found in cases where there is an

act or publication which amounts to scandalizing the court itself. It is

further observed that this scandalizing might manifest itself in various

ways but in substance, it is an attack on individual Judges or the court as

a whole with or without reference to particular cases, casting

unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character or ability of

the judges. Such conduct is punished as contempt for this reason that it

tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of

the people in the courts which are of prime importance to the litigants in

the protection of their rights and liberties.

In the light of the above principles, now we proceed to scrutinize

the allegations contained in the three complaints made by the

contemnor. Having delved into the allegations the excerpts of which have

been cited above, we find that excepting certain remarks contained in

the two complaints, the allegations made by the contemnors may be

taken to be in general terms. The allegations are to the effect that the

officer has been discourteous to the lawyers etc and he has been biased

towards him; that the officer caused delay and subsequently annoyed by

transfer application, he passed orders criticising his conduct. But in so far

as other allegations as referred to above which carried threats and

demanded action against the officer failing which it would spell disaster

for the particular officer and that the officer was thoroughly incompetent

in law and that he had fragmentary knowledge of law and that in case no

action was initiated against him he could collect a mob and each and

every person of his village besides 150 junior lawyers would rally behind

him and would lay down their lives for his cause and that the officer

concerned is all alone, and further that the officer has committed offence

under section 342 IPC and therefore besides initiating departmental

action against him, F.I.R be also lodged against him under section 342

IPC that the officer had fragmentary knowledge of law and as a seasoned

judicial officer he must be aware that section 161 IPC had already been

deleted from the penal code and further remarks that He was a Brahmin

by caste and a Brahmin could not be compelled to compromise the

matter either under duress or otherwise and a true Brahmin was always

ready for facing battle, are certainly such as would tend to obstruct or

14

interfere with the course of justice or the due administration of law and

further tend to create an apprehension in the minds of the people

regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the officer or to deter actual

and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court's

administrative of justice besides causing embarrassment in the mind of

the officer himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. The allegations

are no doubt sweeping nature and can scarcely be justified. Regard being

had to the nature of allegations and veiled threat as embodied therein,

and considering all the surrounding facts and circumstances under which

the allegations were made and also taking into consideration the publicity

given to the matter by endorsing copies to those authorities other than

the official superiors of the officer, we have no hesitation to hold that the

remarks against the officer were not only disrespectful, threatening and

overawing, but contained veiled insinuation and the language used was ill

chosen, sarcastic and pungent and by this reckoning, they were

calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the capacity or

integrity of the officer and the same is likely to deflect the court itself

from a strict and unhesitant performance of its duties.

Before we proceed further, we would like to quip here that if the

judiciary has to perform its function in a fair and free manner, the dignity

and authority of the court and those manning the courts have to be

respected by all concerned failing which the very constitutional scheme

and public faith in the judiciary would run the risk of being eroded. Since

the contemnor is an Advocate, the matter requires to be considered with

a little more seriousness. An Advocate, we feel called to say, is not

exempt from ordinary disability which the law imposes and his position is

not inviolable and his privileges cannot extend to interfere with the

administration of justice. On the other hand he is expected to help in

sub-serving the course of justice and not impede it in any manner. A

legal practitioner has no doubt his duties towards his client but at the

same time he has equally important duty and obligation upon him to

cooperate with the court in the orderly and pure administration of justice.

Any departure would be construed to be violative and neglecting his

duties and obligations. A lawyer is a person educated and trained in law.

The use of language has to be balanced and in fitness of things within

the framework of the law of the land. He cannot and should not be

15

reckless in the use of language. There are barriers which must be known

to a lawyer and it should not be crossed. He should not overstep the

limits of decency and ethics in the matter of his behavior towards the

court.

In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujrat, (1991) 4

SCC 406, the Apex Court held as under.

“ The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to

include any act by a person which would tend to interfere

with the administration of justice or which would lower the

authority of court. The public have a vital stake in effective

and orderly administration of justice . The Court has the

duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due

administration of justice and so, it is entrusted with the

power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the

dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but to protect

and vindicate the right of the public so that the

administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced,

obstructed or interfered with.”

In N.B.Sanghvi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (1991) 3 SCC

600 the Apex Court observed as under:

“The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial

Officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the

desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is

nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession

resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating

the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When

there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize which would

shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system,

the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the

concerned judge but also to the fair name of the judiciary.

Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful

language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the

present one are often designedly employed with a view to

taming a Judge into submission to secure a desired order.

Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of

not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. The

foundation of our system which is based on the

independence and impartiality of those who man it will be

shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made

against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. It is

high time that we realise that the much cherished judicial

independence has to be protected not only from the

executive or the legislature but also from those who are an

integral part of the system. An independent judiciary is of

vital importance to any free society. Judicial independence

was not achieved overnight. Since we have inherited this

16

concept from the British, it would not be out of place to

mention the struggle strong-willed judges like Sir Edward

Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and many others

had to put up with the Crown as well as the Parliament at

considerable personal risk. And when a member of the

profession like the appellant who should know better so

lightly trifles with the much endeared concept of judicial

independence to secure small gains it only betrays a lack of

respect for the martyrs of judicial independence and for the

institution itself. Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not

jealous to protect the fair name of the judiciary from

unwarranted attacks on its independence.”

The foundation of judicial system which is founded on the

independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if

disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding

judicial officers with impurity, the much cherished judicial independence

which is of vital significance to any free society has to be protected not

only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an

integral part of the system. The tendency of browbeating the judicial

officers into submission is on the increase and when there is deliberate

attempt to scandalise, it not only shakes the confidence of the litigating

public in the system but causes damages to the reputation of the

presiding judge and brings disgrace to the fair name of the judiciary.

In Dr. D.C.Saxen's case (1996) AIR SCW 3082, the Apex Court has

alreadylaid down that if a Judge, on account of the proceedings

conducted by him in his Court, is threatened that he would be prosecuted

in a Court of law for the judicial act done by him, it amounts to criminal

contempt as it lowers and tends to lower the dignity of the Court.

In re: Ajay Kumar Pandey reported in AIR 1997 SC 260, the Apex

Court in para 42, observed that “We may observe that any threat of

filing a complaint against the Judge in respect of the judicial

proceedings conducted by him in his own court is a positive

attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of

justice. In order that the Judges may fearlessly and

independently act in the discharge of their judicial functions, it is

necessary that they should have full liberty to act within the

sphere of their activity. If, however, litigants and their counsel

start threatening the Judge or launch prosecution against him for

17

what he has honestly and bona fide done in his Court, the judicial

independence would vanish eroding the very edifice on which the

institution of justice stands. It would also be in violation of the

statutory protection available to the Judges and Magistrates

under the Judicial Officers (Protection) Act as also the Judges

(Protection) Act”.

A Judge or Magistrate has a duty to discharge his judicial functions

and he passes order in the manner as he likes fit to the best of his

capability in the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts cannot

be intimidated to seek favourable orders or to make the court run on his

dictate. In the present case, the conduct of the contemnor amounts to

intimidating the court and lowering the authority and it clearly amounts

to interference with due course of judicial proceedings which were being

conducted by the Presiding officer. The power of the High Court of

superintendence and control over the subordinate judiciary under Article

235 of the Constitution includes within its ambit the duty protect

members of the subordinate courts. In the above conspectus, the charge

related to criminal contempt framed against the contemnor is fully

established.

In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation to say that the

charges of criminal contempt established against a practising lawyer

cannot be taken lightly who carries the trapping of an officer of the Court

whose duty is to assist the Court and uphold the majesty of law and

dignity of the person manning the court. No judicial system can tolerate

such ignoble act and conduct of a practising Advocate. The crucial

question that remains is what would be the appropriate punishment to

the contemnor.

In connection with whether the apology commends itself for

acceptance or not, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in

Preetam Pal v. High Court M.P. 1993 (1) SCC 529 in which the Apex

Court observed as under:

“To punish an advocate for contempt of court, no doubt

must be regarded as an extreme measure, but to preserve

18

the proceedings of the courts from being deflected or

interfered with, and to keep the streams of justice pure,

serene and undefiled, it becomes the duty of the court

though painful to punish the contemnor in order to preserve

its dignity. No one can claim immunity from the operation of

the law of contempt if his act or conduct in relation to court

or court proceedings interferes with is calculated to obstruct

the due course of justice.”

As held above, it leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the

remarks made against the officer were calculated to undermine the

confidence of the public in the capacity or integrity of the Judge and were

likely to deflect the court itself from a strict and unhesitant performance

of its duties. It is in this conspectus, we feel compelled to say that the

apology submitted by him does not seem to inspire a real contriteness on

his part but is used as a device to screen himself from the rigours of law.

The Apex in the aforesaid judgment in M.S.Singhvi has rightly observed

that the incidence of contempt is ever on the increase. There is a felt

need to curb such incidence. To cap it all, the majesty and dignity of the

court has to be preserved. It should not be forgotten that frequent

attacks on the dignity of the courts would shake the very foundation of

the judiciary. The courts have to perform judicial functions in responsible

yet disagreeable ambiance and they require utmost protection. The

attack made on presiding officers disparaging in character and

derogatory to his/her dignity would vitally shake the confidence of the

public in him/her. The vitriolic attacks made on the officer were much

more than mere insult and in effect they scandalized the court in such a

way as to create distrust in the popular mind and impair confidence of

the people in court. The administration of justice must remain

independent, clean, fearless and impartial. If an Advocate uses the vile of

browbeating the Presiding officer by his toxic vitriolic attack, it is indeed

disquieting and should not be viewed with equanimity.

In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., [ 1984] Cr.L.J 993, the Apex Court

in para 6 observed as under:

“We do not think that merely because the appellant has

tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and

allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person

wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest

imputations against him has to do, is to go ahead and

scandalize him and later on tender a formal empty apology

19

which costs him practically nothing. If such an apology were

to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would

in fact be virtually issuing a 'licence' to scandalize Courts

and commit contempt of Court with impunity. It will be

rather difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care for

their self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected

to pay such a price for it. And no sitting Judge will feel free

to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on

account of the fear of being scandalized and persecuted by

an Advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations

if the Judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were,

to be countenanced, advocates who can cow down the

Judges, and make them fall in line with their wishes, by

threats of character assassination and persecution, will be

preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful

of professional ethics and believe, in maintaining the

decorum of Courts.”

Like wise, the Apex Court in para 7 describing the apology as a 'paper

apology refused to accept it in the following words:

“7. We have yet to come across a Judge who can take a

decision which does not displease one side or the other. By

the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against

one or other of the parties. If the fact that he renders a

decision which is resented to by a litigant or his lawyer were

to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death knell of

the institution. A line has therefore to be drawn somewhere,

some day, by some one. That is why the Court is impelled to

act (rather than merely sermonize) much as the Court

dislikes imposing punishment whilst exercising the contempt

jurisdiction, which no doubt has to be exercised very

sparingly and with circumspection. We do not think that we

can adopt an attitude of unmerited leniency at the cost of

principle and at the expense of the Judge who has been

scandalized. We are fully aware that it is not very difficult to

show magnanimity when some one else is the victim rather

than when oneself is the victim. To pursue a populist line of

showing indulgence is not very difficult in fact it is more

difficult to resist the temptation, to do so rather than to

adhere to the nail-studded path of duty. Institutional

perspective demands that considerations of populism are

not allowed to obstruct the path of duty. We, therefore,

cannot take a lenient or indulgent view of this matter. We

dread the day when a Judge cannot work with independence

by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar

can publicly humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with

impunity, if any of his orders, or the decision rendered by

him, displeases any of the Advocates appearing in the

matter.”

In the above conspectus, the apology offered does not commend

20

to us for acceptance and it is turned down.

As a result of foregoing discussion, the reference made to this

Court is allowed and the contemnor is held guilty of criminal contempt.

We accordingly convict him for contempt of court and sentence

him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine

of Rs.20,000/-. In default, it may be prescribed, contemnor shall

undergo further simple imprisonment for two weeks. However, the

punishment so imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a period of sixty

days so as to enable the contemnor to approach the Apex Court if so

advised. It needs hardly be said that immediately after expiry of sixty

days in case no stay order is furnished by the contemnor, he would be

taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence immediately.

The matter shall be listed before this Court in the second week of

May 2010 for ensuring compliance.

MH

Feb...5...2010