1998 Supreme(SC) 1037

1998(7) Supreme 473
Supreme Court of India
(From VI A.C.J.M. Court, Lucknow)
Dr. A.S. Anand & M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.
In Re : -Petitioner
versus
Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate -Respondent
Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 1996
(Under Article 129 of the Constitution of India)
In
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4114 of 1995
With
Contempt Petition (Crl.) Nos. D16199/95, D17021/95 and D17022/95
Decided on 25-9-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Santosh N. Hegde, Solicitor General.
For the Respondent : In-person.

Important Points
1. ‘Publication’ contemplated by Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act includes pleadings affidavits etc. which are filed in the Court.
2. An Advocate has no wider protection than a layman when he commits an act which amounts to contempt of Court.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -Section 2(c)-Criminal contempt -‘Publi­cation’ contemplated by Section 2(c) includes pleadings, affidavits which are filed in Court-No one can be permitted to intimidate or terrorise Judges by making scandalous unwarranted and baseless imputa­tion against them in discharging of judicial functions so as to secure orders which the litigant wants-Fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants-Liberty of expression cannot be treated as licence to scandalise Court-Even criticism of judgment has to be in dignified and temperate language-Contemner an Advocate-Language used in memorandum of petition wholly objection­able, unparliamentary and abusive-Language intemperate casting asper­sion on conduct of judicial officers attributing motives in discharg­ing judicial func­tions-Showering abuse on each of Judges who dealt with his cases at one stage or other-Time given to remove objection­able expression from memorandum of petition-Refu­sal-Adamant and defiant attitude-Show cause notice for contempt of Court-Petition to recall bristled with scandalous remarks couched in objectionable langu­age-Persis­tent attitude to undermine majesty of law and bringing administration of justice into disrepute-Held, an Advocate has no wider protection than a layman when he commits an act which amounts to contempt of Court-Contemner has committed gross contempt of Court-Action of contemner calls for deterrent punishment-Sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.

       Held : This Court being the Supreme Court of the country, has not only the right to protect itself from being scandalized or denigrated but it also has the right, juris­diction and the obligation to protect the High Courts and the Subordi­nate Courts in the country from being insulted, abused or in any other way denigrated. Any action on the part of a litigant-be he a lawyer appearing in person-which has the tendency to interfere with or obstruct the due course of justice has to be dealt with sternly and firmly to uphold the majesty of law. No one can be permitted to intim­idate or terrorise Judges by making scandalous unwarranted and baseless imputations against them in the discharge of their judicial functions so as to secure orders which the litigant ‘wants’. The subordinate judiciary forms the very backbone of administration of justice. This Court would come down with a heavy hand for prevent­ing the judges of the subordinate judiciary or the High Court from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also all such actions which inter­fere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial pro­ceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the adminis­tration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permit­ted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The judiciary is the guar­dian of the rule of law and if the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts has to be respected and protected at all costs. It is for this reason that the courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of punishing those for contempt of court who indulge in acts whether inside or outside the courts, which tend to undermine the authority of the courts and bring them in disrepute and disrespect thereby obstructing them from discharging their judicial duties with­out fear or favour. This power is exercised by the courts not to vindicate the dignity and honour of any individual Judge who is per­sonally attacked or scandalised but with a view to uphold the majesty of law and the administration of justice. The foundation of the judi­ciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice and as such no action can be permitted which may shake the very foundation itself. (Paras 16 to 18)

       The definition of Section 2(c) is self explanatory. Scandalising the Judges or the Courts tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrepute and is an affront to the majesty and dignity of law. Such acts constitute criminal contempt of court. No one can be permitted to foul the fountain of justice. If the authority of the Court is undermined or impeded by acts or publications, the fountain of justice would get sullied creating distrust and disbelief in the minds of the litigant public and the right thinking public at large. Indeed everybody is entitled to express his honest opinion about the correctness or legality of a judgment or sentence or an order of a Court. Objective criticism is permissible provided it is made with detachment in a dignified language and respectful tone. The liberty of expression cannot be treated as a licence to scandalise the court and instead of criticising the judgment to criticise the Judge who deliv­ered it. The “publication” contemplated by Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (supra) includes pleadings affidavits etc. which are filed in the Court, is no longer in doubt. (Paras 18 & 19)

       It is now settled that abuses, attribution of motives, vituperative terrorism and scurrilous and indecent attacks on the impartiality of the judges in the pleadings, applications or other documents filed in the Court or otherwise published which have the tendency to scandalise and undermine the dignity of the court and the majesty of law amounts to criminal contempt of court. While a litigant as also his lawyer have the freedom of expression and liberty to project their case forcefully, it must be remembered that they must while exercising that liberty maintain dignity, decorum and order in the court proceeding. Liberty of free expression cannot be permitted to be treated as a licence to make reckless imputations against the impartiality of the Judges deciding the case. Even criti­cism of the judgment has to be in a dignified and temperate language and without any malice. (Paras 23 & 24)

       Does the law give a lawyer, unsatisfied with the result of a case, any licence to permit himself the liberty of scandalising a court by casting unwarranted imputations against the Judge is discharge of his judicial functions? Does the lawyer enjoy any special immunity under the Contempt of Court Act, where he is found to have committed a gross contempt of court? The answer has to be an emphatic NO. (Para 26)

       In the instant case, from a perusal of the memorandum of various petitions filed by the contemner in this court and the language used therein, it is apparent that he has cast aspersions on each and every learned Judge who in the discharge of his judicial functions decided the matter not liked to by the alleged contemner at one stage or the other. The aspersions cast by him undoubtedly have the tendency to scandalise the Court. The alleged contemner has been attempting to browbeat the learned subordinate Judges as well as the learned Judge of the High Court and cause interference in the administration of justice. Even in this Court, after the Rule was issued to him, he tried to browbeat the court. He filed an application stating that since he had filed a contempt petition against the Judges constituting the Division Bench which had issued Rule against him, this Bench should transfer the case. It was an obviously motivated action on his part to intimidate the Bench. He did file the contempt petitions again both the judges constituting the Bench. Those petitions were dismissed by a Bench comprising of. The alleged contemner in this case has been making continuous attempts to subvert the course of justice in whichever court his case was. He has been acting not only as if he is above the law but as if he is law unto himself. Notwithstanding his own assessment of his ‘merit’ and ‘competence’ as stated by him in the memo of petitions, the alleged contemner appears to be blissfully ignorant of the role of lawyer and the law relating to drafting of pleadings-which must be precise and not scandalous or abusive. It is sad that by filing the applica­tions, and the petition, as a party in person, couched in very objectionable language, he has permitted himself the liberty of in­dulging in an action, which does little credit to the noble profession to which he belongs. An advocate has no wider protection than a layman when he commits an act which amounts to contempt of court. It is most unbefitting for an advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because he does not get the expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders. Only because a lawyer appears as a party in person, he does not get a license to commit contempt of the court by intimidating the Judges or scandalising the courts. He cannot use language, either in the pleadings of during arguments, which is either intemperate or unparliamentary and which has the tendency to interfere in the administration of justice and undermine the dignity of the court and the majesty of law. These safeguards are not for the protection of any Judge individually but are essential for maintaining the dignity and decorum of the Courts and for upholding the majesty of law. Judges and courts are not unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of their judgments. Fair comments, even if, out-spoken, but made without any malice and without attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith in proper language do not attract any punishment for contempt of court. However, when from the criticism a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute the courts must bitter themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law. The alleged contemner, has, undoubtedly committed contempt of the Court by the use of the objectionable and intemperate language. No system of justice can tolerate such unbridled licence on the part of a person, be he a lawyer, to permit himself the liberty of scandalising the Court by casting unwarranted, uncalled for and unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions, as it undoubtedly amounts to an interference with the due course of administration of justice. No litigant, even a lawyer appearing in person in his own cause, can be permitted to overstep the limits of fair, bona fide and reasonable criticism of the judgment and bring the courts generally into disrepute or at­tribute motives to the Judges rendering the judgment. Perversity, calculated to undermine the judicial system and the prestige of the court, cannot be permitted for otherwise the very foundation of the judicial system is bound to be undermined and weakened. Liberty of free expression is not to be confused with a licence to make unfound­ed, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the Judges or the Courts in relation to judicial matters. In the established facts of this case, we hold that the alleged contemner has committed gross contempt of court and convict him accordingly. (Para 29)

       Held further : The tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure an order which they desire or which they expect is on the increase. It is unfortunate that even some disgruntled lawyers also indulge in the same objectionable activities. No latitude can be given to a litigant who attempts to browbeat the court. In the instant case, the contemner, let alone showing any remorse or regret adopted an arrogant, defiant and contemptuous attitude. The contemner has been reckless, persistent and guilty of undermining the dignity of the courts and his action are motivated, deliberate and designed. Sympathy in a case like this would be totally misplaced. Mercy has no meaning. The action of the contemner calls for a deterrent punishment so that it also serves as an example to others and there is no repetition of such a contempt by anyone else. We, therefore, having found the contemner guilty of committing contempt of court, sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 (one thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. (Para 31)