Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY C.J.I., D.G. PALEKAR, Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.N. BHAGWATI AND V.R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1973.
Shri Bharadakanta Mishra, Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Orissa High Court, and another, Respondents.
Criminal appeal No. 77 of 1973.
State of Orissa, Appellant
Shri Baradakanta Mishra and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 41 and 77 of 1973, D/-19-11-1973.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2, 2(c) and 13 - High Courts Act, 1861 - Section 9 - Government of India Act, 1915 - Section 106, 223 and 224 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 235, 225, 227, 19 (1) (a), 19 (2), 129 and 215 - Orissa Civil Services Rules, 1962 - Rules 726 - District Magistrate - Work was Found Unsatisfactory - Reverted to his Substantive Post - Order of Reversion - Suspended from Service – Appeal Against Conviction - Whether statements therein amount to a criminal contempt - Whether contemptuous imputations made with reference to " administrative acts" of High Court do not amount to contempt of Court - Whether imputations referred to above do or do not affect administration of justice - Whether they are regarded as superior or inferior Courts of justice - Whether vilification is of Judge as a Judge - Whether such an attack is based on what a Judge is alleged to have done in exercise of his administrative responsibilities - Whether administrative, adjudicatory or any other, necessary for administration of justice - Whether taken along with or independently of first, is that, at instance of persons interested in Calcutta Improvement Trust - Whether criticism of an administrative act of High Court or of any court could at all amount to contempt of court - Whether letter reflecting upon Judge who held inspection was contempt - Whether statements made in an appeal to Governor against an order of High Court on administrative side attracts contempt law - Whether he is fit to continue to hold that office and yet no one should be able to initiate proceedings for an enquiry by a complaint to appropriate authority by reason of a fear of being punished for contempt - Whether they are subject to appeal or not – Held, Control was, therefore, judicial and hence unbridled attack on High Court for step was punishable as contempt - A large margin must be allowed for allegations in remedial representations but extravagance forfeits protection of good faith - In this case reckless excess has vitiated what otherwise could have been legitimate grievance at least in one flagrant instance, others being less clear - One of grounds for taking disciplinary action was based on disposal of a civil appeal by contemner as Additional District Judge - He heard it, delivered judgment dismissing appeal, signed order sheet and judgment and sealed judgment - Even so, if judges have frailties - after all they are human - they need to be correct by independent criticism - If judicature has serious shortcomings which demand systemic correction through socially oriented reform initiated through constructive criticism, contempt power should not be an interdict - All this, far from undermining confidence of public in Courts, enhances it and, in last analysis, cannot be repressed by indiscriminate resort to contempt power – Court have sought to set our legal sights in line with new constitutional order and endeavoured so to draw the grey contours of contempt law that it fulfils its high purpose but not more - Facts of present case disclose that an incorrigible contemner, who had made it almost his latter-day professional occupation to cross High Courts path, has come 736 to this Court in appeal - He has been reckless, persistent and guilty of undermining High Courts authority in his intemperate averments in both petitions - But having regard to fact that he is a senior judicial officer who has at some stage in his carrer displayed zeal and industry and is now in somber evening of an official career, a punishment short of imprisonment would have met ends of justice and inspired in public mind confidence in justice administration by showing that even delinquent judges will be punished if they play with or pervert due course of justice, as contemner here has done - A heavy hand is wasted severity where a lighter sentence may serve as well - A find of Rs. 1000/- with three months imprisonment in default of payment will meet ends of justice and Court impose this sentence is substitution of infliction of imprisonment by High Court - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
PALEKAR, J. :- (For himself and on behalf of A.N. Ray, C.J. , and Y.V. Chandrachud, J.). This is (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1973) an appeal by one Baradakanta Mishra from his conviction an dsentence under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by a Full Bench of five judges of the Orissa High Court. The Judgement is reported in ILR (1973) Cut 134 (Registrar of the Orissa High Court v. Baradakanta Mishra).
2. The appellant started his career as a Munsif in 1974. His career as a Judicial Officer was far from satisfactory. In 1956 he was promoted on trial basis to the rank of a Sub-Judge with the observation that if he was found incompeternt, suitable action would be taken. In due course, he was confirmed as a Subordinate Judge. On April 2,1962 he was promoted, again on trial basis, to the rank of Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) which is a post in the cadre of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Junior Branch.) As his work was found unsatisfactory, he was reverted to his substantive post of a Sub-ordinate Judge on January 4, 1963. The order of reversion was challenged by him in a Writ Petition which was dismised by a Bench of Ahmad, C. J. and Barman, J. The case is reported in ILR (1966) Cut 503. An appeal to the SC was dismissed on February 6, 1967. While working as a Subordinate Judge after reversion, he was suspended from service from 15th May, 1964 to 9th April, 1967 during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding against him. That proceeding ended in a light punishment of two of his increments being stopped. From the above order of punishment, the appellant filed on 10-10-1967 an appeal to the State Government. The State Government by its order dated 15-7-1970 allowed the appeal on the ground that the Public Service Commission had not been consulted by the High Court before imposing the punishment, and that the chargesheet served on the appellant, having indicated the proposed punishment vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. After the case was sent back to the High Court the charges which had been earlier established, were framed again and served on him on 13-2-1971 and we are informed that the proceeding is still pending.
3. In the meantime, it appears, he was promoted to the post of the Additional District Magistrate in February, 1968 though the High Court was of opinion that he was unbalanced, quarrel some, reckless and indisciplined. The High Court specifically observed that though the appellant suffered from these defects, he was sincere and hard-working and the other officers who had superseded him as Additional District Magistrares were not much better. The promition was made on trial basis for a period of one year with the observation that if during that period his work was found to be unsatisfactory, he would be reverted to the rank of Sub-Judge.
4. In that year the High Court had to face an abnormal situation by the retirement of many District Judges on account of the decision of the Govt. reducing the age of retirement from 58 to 55 years. Many vacancies occurred and the appellant was then promoted as an Additional District and Session Judge on trial basis for six months in July, 1968. In January, 1969 he was allowed to continue on a termporary basis till further orders subject to further review of his work at the time of confirmation. It is worthy of note that his decision to contiune was taken on the report of the present Chief Justice G.K. Mishra who was at that time the Administrative Judge.
5. On May 12, 1969 his services were placed at the disposal of the Government in the Law Department, who appointed him as Joint Secretary, Law, till October 12, 1969. From October 13, 1969 to December 4, 1970 he was appointed by the Government as the Commissioner of Endownments. The Government was thoroughly dissatisfied with his work and on December 5, 1970 his services were replaced at the disposal of the High Court. The appellant went on leave.
6. On his return to the Judicial cadre, he functioned as Additio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
