Back
Supreme Court Of India
Decided On : (September 25, 1998)
PRESIDENT OF INDIA
Versus
AJAY KUMAR PANDEY
CONTEMPT OF COURT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The alleged contemner, Ajay Kumar Pandey, a practicing advocate, filed a criminal complaint against an Advocate Mr. Mahesh Giri and an Additional District Judge, Ms. Saroj Bala, then posted as VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow, under Sections 499 and 500, IPC, after first serving them with a notice demanding compensation for defaming him. The allegations made in that complaint are not relevant for our purpose. That complaint was dismissed on 16-11-1994. He thereafter filed a Criminal Revision in the High Court which was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court (Virendra Saran, J.) on 15-2-1995.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the alleged contemner had committed gross contempt of Court by the use of the objectionable and intemperable 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.
Issues: Whether the alleged contemner had committed contempt of Court by using intemperate and abusive language in the memorandum of the petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the alleged contemner had committed gross contempt of Court by the use of the objectionable and intemperable 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.
Final Decision: The Court sentenced the contemner 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. The Court also directed that the copy of the judgment together with the relevant record be forwarded to the Chairman, Bar Council of India, who may refer the case to the concerned committee for appropriate action as is considered fit and proper.
Judgment
DR. A. S. ANAND, J.
( 1 ) THE alleged contemner-Ajay Kumar Pandey, a practising advocate, filed a criminal complaint against an Advocate Mr. Mahesh Giri and an Additional District Judge, Ms. Saroj Bala, then posted as VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow, under Sections 499 and 500, IPC, after first serving them with a notice demanding compensation for defaming him. The allegations made in that complaint are not relevant for our purpose. That complaint was dismissed on 16-11-1994. He thereafter filed a Criminal Revision in the High Court which was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court (Virendra Saran, J.) on 15-2-1995. While dismissing the revision petition, the learned single Judge inter alia observed :-"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 on 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. . . IT appears that the aim of the applicant is to malign the learned Judge (Smt. Saroj Bala) and hold her at ranson. 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 is 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 alleged contemner, thereafter, filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 819-820 of 1996 against the judgment of Virendra Saran, J. dated 15-2-1995.
( 3 ) IT appears that the alleged contemner had filed another complaint on 12-9-1994 under Ss. 500 and 504, IPC against seven advocates namely (1) Shri Prakash Narayan Awasthi (2) Shri R. P. Misra (3) Shri Vishambhar Singh (4) Shri T. N. Misra (5) Shri Srikant Verma (6) Shri Pankaj Sinha and (7) Shri N. C. Pradhan, in which it was alleged that those advocates had made defamatory imputations regarding the relationship between him and Ms. Saroj Bala, Addl. District Judge. In that complaint an application giving a list of 31 advocates for being summoned as witnesses was filed. That application was rejected by the trial Court. He, therefore, filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4114 of 1995 against that order.
( 4 ) AJAY Kumar Pandey, the alleged contemner has also filed following Contempt Petitions (Crl.) in this Court :1. Contempt Petition (Crl.) Dy. No. 16199/95 filed on 28/10/1995 :against Mr. Justice Virendra Saran, Judge, High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench;2. Contempt Petition (Crl.) Dy. No. 17021/95 filed on 8/11/1995. The respondents in the petition are :i. Ms. Saroj Bala, IV Addl. District Judge, Lucknow. II. Shri Udai L. Raj, V. A. C. J. , Lucknow. III. Shri R. P. Misra, VI Addl. C. J. M. 3. Contempt Petition (Crl.) Dy. No. 17922/95, filed on 9/11/1995 against the following respondents :i. Shri J. C. Mishra, Distt. Judge, Lucknow. II. Shri K. N. Ojha, II A. D. J. , Lucknow. III. Shri Shailendra Saxena, III A. D. J. , Lucknow. IV. Shri B. N. Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow. WHEN the SLPs and contempt petitions were listed before this Bench, it was noticed that the language used in the memorandum of petitions was wholly objectionable, unparliamentary and abusive. By way of illustration, we may refer to the list of dates, at internal pages 2-3 of S. L. P. (Crl.) No. 4114 of 1995. The language used by the petitioner is in the following terms :-"it will not be out of place to m
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
