Judgment

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. In our detailed order dated 21st January, 2011, besides disposing of the Writ Petition No. 260 of 2004 with the directions as contained in paragraph 16 of that order, we noticed the contemptuous behaviour of the petitioner NGO and its officials and had issued show-cause notice to the petitioner Kalyaneshwari and its Secretary Shri B.K. Sharma, in his personal capacity, which reads as under:

"Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, particularly, B.K. Sharma, we hereby issue notice to him as well as the petitioner to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against them and/or in addition/alternative, why exemplary cost be not imposed upon them. Further, we also call upon the petitioner to show cause why the Registrar, Government of NCT, Delhi be not directed to take action against them in accordance with law."

2. In response to this show-cause notice, Shri B.K. Sharma had filed a response affidavit dated 22nd March, 2011 on behalf of Kalyaneshwari as well as himself. This is a very short affidavit of seven paragraphs in which the petitioner has rendered his unconditional apology and prayed before this Court not to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He further prayed to discharge the notice of contempt and drop proceedings for imposition of cost and revocation of license and registration of the NGO Kalyaneshwari. Relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:

"2. THAT deponent herein tenders his unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court with folded hands concerning all actions in respect of which this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to issue Show Cause Notice as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against the Petitioner and the deponent herein and further as to why exemplary costs be not imposed upon them and their license be not cancelled/revoked.

3. THAT deponent herein unconditionally withdraws each and every averment and allegation made by the Petitioner in respect of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dated 9.12.2004 passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 14460, 14813 and 14819 of 2004 titled B.K. Sharma v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2005 Gujarat Page 203. Petitioner further withdraws all such pleadings made in this regard in the affidavit filed by the petitioner through deponent in response to the order dated 13.8.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Court as well as all the consequent proceedings."

3. There is no doubt that at the very initial stage, the respondents have tendered apology and prayed for dropping of the contempt proceedings. We are not quite certain as to the bona fide and intent of the respondents in tendering such an apology. For a Court to accept the apology in a contempt action, it is required that such apology should be bona fide and in actual repentance of the conduct which invited initiation of contempt proceedings. Furthermore, the conduct should be such which can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the Court. 'Contempt' is disorderly conduct of a contemner causing serious damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified into two categories: one which has a transient effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither away by the passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and administration of justice. The latter conduct would normally be unforgivable.

4. Institutional tolerance which the judiciary possesses, keeping in mind the larger interest of the public and administration of justice, should not be misunderstood as weakness of the system. Maintaining the magnanimity of law is the linchpin to the wheels of justice. Therefore, in certain cases, it would be inevitable for the Court to take recourse to rigours of the statute.

5. It is the seriousness of the