VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The contemner, an Advocate is convicted of the criminal contempt , for obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten and overawe the Court by using insulting and disrespectful language and issuing notices and also launching criminal prosecution against two Hon ble Judges of the Supreme Court and is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. 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.
3. The legal profession has the inherent right to express itself in the best manner possible in uninhibited language, but the right to express also carries with it the duty to be dignified in the use of expression and to maintain decorum and peace in the court proceedings.

Headnote:(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -Section 2(c)-Criminal contempt-Any threat of filing a complaint against the Judge in respect of judicial proceedings conducted by him in his own court-Attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice-Contemner, an Advocate issued notice to two Judges of Supreme Court demanding apology and compensation-Subsequent complaint filed by him in court of ACMM, Delhi-Notice relating to proceedings of this Court on 15-12-1995-It was stated that both the Judges hurled upon him with highly derogatory, insulting, offending and contemptuous remarks-Notice also mentions his application to President of India for sanction-Contemner held guilty of criminal contempt-Apology tendered withdrawing all objectionable remarks not accepted-Sentence of six months imprisonment-On serving two weeks sentence, remaining sentence shall stand suspended for a period of two years.
       Held : This Court, as the highest court of the land, has not only the right to protect itself from being denigrated, but has also the right, jurisdiction and authority to protect the High Courts and the subordinate courts from being insulted, abused or in any other way denigrated. All the courts, be they the lower or the highest, function for the noble cause of dispensing justice. Since they have to decide litigation between two contesting parties, it is obvious that they have to have full freedom and independence in settling the litigation. The Presiding Officers who run the courts and conduct the proceedings therein have to act fearlessly. Any action on the part of any person or litigant or lawyer, which tends to interfere or obstruct the process of justice, has to be deprecated so that the proceedings may be held in an orderly fashion and everyone who participates in those proceedings may have the feeling of liberty to address the court for proper adjudication of his case. (Para 31)
       Further held : An Advocate, as a citizen of this country, has the fundamental right of freedom of expression and speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. This right is also guaranteed to him under the Advocates Act. Apart from that, the legal profession has the inherent right to express itself in the best manner possible in uninhibited language, but the right to express also carries with it the duty to be dignified in the use of expression and to maintain decorum and peace in the court proceedings. (Para 32)
       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 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. (Para 42)
       The Court, however, is not bound to accept the apology unless there is real feeling of repentance in the contemner. The contemner had already been given an opportunity at the initial stage by both the learned Judges to withdraw his remarks against a Judge of the Allahabad High Court and other officers of the lower judiciary, but he insisted to proceed with the case. He even initiated contempt proceedings against both the Hon ble Judges. (Para 44)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Art. 129-Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 129 is independent of Contempt of Courts Act-Power under Art. 129 cannot be denuded, restricted or limited by Contempt of Courts Act-There is no restriction or limitation on nature of punishment that this Court may award while exercising its contempt jurisdiction. (Para 45)
       (iii) LEGAL PROFESSION-Right of freedom of expression and speech -Scope of. (Para 32)
       (iv) SENTENCE-Criminal Contempt-Contemner sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months-On serving sentence for two weeks, remaining sentence shall stand suspended for a period of two years-Sentence may be activated in case contemner is convicted for any other offence of contempt of court within the said period. (Para 46)

ORDER

The contemner is a practising advocate. He filed Complaint Case No. 451 of 1994 in the Court of VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow against Shri Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms. Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow for offences under Section 499/500 IPC. Mr. Mahesh Giri, at the relevant time, was the Govt. counsel deputed to work for the prosecution in criminal cases in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow. It was alleged in the complaint (read with notice which preceded it as also contemner s statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that the accused namely, Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms. Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow had imputed sexual relations between the contemner and Ms. Saroj Bala which had defamed the contemner and, therefore, he prayed that the accused be tried for the said offences. The statement of the contemner was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 21.9.94 but it remained inconclusive. The statement was finally recorded on 26.10.94 and, thereafter, the case was adjourned for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. It was stated that the petitioner moved an application that the witnesses whom the contemner wanted to examine under Section 202 Cr.P.C. may be summoned by the Court as almost all of them were practising advocates and influential persons but the complaint itself was dismissed by the Magistrate on 16.11.94. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Criminal Revision against the aforesaid order in the High Court but it was dismissed on 15.2.95. Hon ble Virendra Saran, J. of the Allahabad High Court who disposed of the Revision observed, inter alia, as under:

"It is well settled that if the veiled object of a lame prosecution is to disgrace, humiliate or cause harassment to the accused, the High Court must put an end to the mischief by quashing such criminal proceedings. The facts of the record of the instant case give a horrendous account of a framed-up case against a responsible member of the lower judiciary holding the post of an Additional Sessions Judge at Lucknow and hence, even if the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code be not wholly justified in law, it is not a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary revisional jurisdiction. There can be no doubt that the prosecution case unfolded in the complaint and the statement of the applicant is nothing but an intricate web of perfidious fabric. It appears that the aim of the applicant is to malign the learned judge (Smt. Saroj Bala) and hold her at ransom. The applicant emphatically and repeatedly read out the lewd passages from his deposition while arguing the revision, but the palpably scurrilous, indecent and abominable recitals are not worth reproduction in the judgment. Suffice it to observe that the arguments of the applicant, so vehement and pungent, marked with sarcasm and sneer, do not impart any strength to his case which in inherently unbelievable. They are submissions directed more towards vilification than substantiation of the pivotal points of the case. I was constrained to ask the applicant not to make savage additions to the evidence and show restraint in his colloquy.

2. The contemner, thereafter, filed SLP (Crl.) Nos. 819-20 of 1996 against the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 15.2.95 of Hon ble Virendra Saran, J. in this Court in which he impleaded only State of U.P. as a proforma respondent.

3. A similar complaint under Sections 500 and 504 IPC was also filed by the contemner against (1) Shri Prakash Narayan Awasthi, Advocate (2) Shri R.P. Misra, Advocate (3) Shri Vishambhar Singh, Advocate (4) Shri T.N. Misra, Advocate (5) Shri Srikant Verma, Advocate (6) Shri Pankaj Sinha, Advocate and (7) Shri N.C. Pradhan, Advocate in which again it was alleged that similar imputations were made by the aforesaid advocates between contemner and Ms. Saroj Bala. This was registered as Complaint Case No. 101 of 1995 in which petitioner s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1853

Cases Referred (2)