Judgment :-

Ashok Kumar Ganguly, J.

Today in open Court when Item No. 37 was called on, the petitioners appeared in person. Several ladies appeared along with a gentleman and they addressed the Court in very intemperate and offensive language. The address was more against the Members of the Bench than on the merits of the case. To say the least, this is unfortunate. The persons who appeared, became very agitated and one of them threw a footwear at the Bench. At the time the learned Solicitor General of India was present in Court and two other learned Additional Solicitors General were also present along with a large number of advocates. Ultimately, those agitated persons were actually taken out of the Court by some other Advocates and by security personnel.

To my mind this is prima facie an incident where provisions of Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter the Act) can be invoked.

Learned Justice Pasayat called for the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court and was pleased to pass an order to the following effect:

"Today when these matters were taken up suddenly the contemnors started shouting and used very offensive, intemperate and abusive language and even one had gone to the extent of saying that the Judges should be jailed for having initiated proceedings against them. They said that Judges are not interferring with orders by various Judges of the Bombay High Court, are to be punished for not taking care of their so-called fundamental rights. Even one of them threw a chappal at the Judges. This happened in the presence of the learned Solicitor General of India, two learned Additional Solicitor General and a large number of learned counsel including the President of the Supreme Court Advocate of Record Association.

This conduct is contemptuous. There is no need for issuing any notice as the contemnors started in open Court that they stand by what they have said and did in Court. The Registrar is directed to take the following four persons into custody from the Court premises:

1. Annette Kotian D/o A.Kotian, R/o 1, Madhav Baug, Brahmin Society, Naupada Thana -400602; (aged 23 years)

2. Dr. Sarita Parikh D/o Kishor Bansilal R/o F.16. Juhu Apartments, Juhu Road, Juhu Mumbai-49; (aged 31 years)

3. Leila David W/o Neil David R/o 22, West View Ist Pastalane, Colaba, Mumbai-5; (aged 75 years)

4. Pavithra Murali D/o Murali R/o Jeevan Akash Forjett Street, Tardev, Mumbai-36; (aged 23 years)

They shall suffer three months simple imprisonment. Rest of the matters shall be listed after three weeks.

His Lordship by this order directed the Registrar (Judl.) to send persons named above to prison, as according to His Lordship, they have acted in an indecent manner which is apparently contumacious in the face of the Court. His Lordship thus also sentenced them as above.

Just before that, the learned Solicitor General has addressed the Court and suggested that instead of taking those persons into custody, the Court may restrain them from entering any Court premises except in cases where they have to answer any charge or defend themselves. In support of the said contention the learned Solicitor General of India relied on Arlidge, Eady and Smith on Contempt, Second Edn. 1999 paragraph 14-106:

"14-106: Against that background, the Vice-Chancellor concluded that it would be quite inappropriate to deal with the matter by way of imprisonment, the purpose of which in such a case "would be to mark the displeasure of the Court about the contempt that had been committed and to punish the perpetrator"". He said that a person suffering from the mental infirmity in question did not require punishment, and the Courts displeasure had been connoted by the judgments the Vice-Chancellor had given. He focused therefore rather upon the need to protect court officials in the future, both in the High Court and in county courts generally, and granted injunctions restraining the bringing of any action of making any claim in an action already brought