1. Contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, regarding medical professionals aiding a party in violating court orders to obstruct justice. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1668
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Sita Ram - Appellant
Vs.
Balbir @ Bali - Respondent
Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 374 of 2014, Crl. A. No. 1834 of 2013
Decided On : 25-04-2017
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Rishi Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondents:R. Balasubramanian, Nalin Kohli, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ananya Mishra, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advocates
For the State of Haryana :Davender Kumar Saini, AAG, Ms. Monika Gusain, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv, Gagan Gupta, Advocates
For the Petitioners:Rishi Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondents:R. Balasubramanian, Nalin Kohli, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ananya Mishra, Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advocates
For the State of Haryana :Davender Kumar Saini, AAG, Ms. Monika Gusain, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv, Gagan Gupta, Advocates
The court held that medical professionals providing unjustified asylum to help a party evade court orders are guilty of contempt for obstructing the administration of justice. Upon accepting unconditional apologies, the court may impose financial penalties to be used for social welfare and medical aid for the underprivileged.
Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Contemnors tendering unconditional apology - The apology accepted by Court with conditions as directed. (Para 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
Two medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr.K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to the respondent without there being any reason or medical condition justifying prolonged admission of the respondent as an indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed by the Supreme Court on 24th October, 2013 in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013 and thereby aided and assisted the respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of justice. The present contempt petition has been filed against the violation of order of the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The unconditional apology tendered by the respondents is accepted with conduition of social service as directed.
Result:
Matter adjourned to 6th July, 2017.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contemnors offered unconditional apologies and free medical aid for leniency, whereas the petitioner sought the cancellation of the hospital's license. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
3. Providing unjustified medical admission to a party to defeat court orders constitutes obstruction of the administration of justice. (Para 1 )
4. Aiding a party in violating court orders by providing a cover for evasion, such as unjustified medical admission, amounts to obstructing the administration of justice. (Para 1 )
5. Unconditional apologies accepted; contemnors directed to deposit a monetary sum for providing medical aid to underprivileged and marginalized sections of society. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. When does the provision of medical services by professionals amount to obstruction of justice?
It occurs when medical professionals provide asylum or prolonged indoor admission to a person without medical justification as a cover to defeat court orders, thereby aiding the violation of such orders. (Para 1 )
7. Can a court impose financial penalties or social service requirements after accepting an unconditional apology in contempt proceedings?
Yes, the court may accept an unconditional apology but still direct the contemnors to perform social service or deposit funds for the benefit of underprivileged sections of society to meet the ends of justice. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER :
1. The present contempt petition was initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity "the Act") on the ground that there had been violation of the judgment and order dated 24th October, 2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013. We need not advert to the facts in details suffice it to say that the contempt proceedings have been adjudicated vide order dated 15th December, 2016. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:-
"In our view, the Medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr.K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to the respondent without there being any reason or medical condition justifying prolonged admission of the respondent as an indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed by this Court and the Trial Court, as stated above and thereby aided and assisted the respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of justice.
We thus hold that the respondent guilty of having violated the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court and for having obstructed administration of justice. We also hold Dr.Munish Prabhakar and Dr.K.S. Sachdev guilty for having helped the respondent in his attempts and thereby obstructing administration of justice. Having held so, we could straightaway have imposed appropriate punishment under the Act. However, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to these contemnors. The respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered an apology. At the same time for Dr.K.S. Sachdev, Managing Director of the company that owns the hospital is said to be 76 years of age. Considering the fact that these are medical professional with sufficient standing, in our view ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to them to present their view on the issue of punishment. In the circumstances, we direct presence of these three contemnors on January 2, 2017. The respondent is in custody and therefore appropriate production warrant shall be issued under the signature of Registrar of this Court ensuring presence of the respondent before this Court. The concerned police is directed to facilitate such production of the respondent. The contemnors can also present their views and make appropriate submission in writing on or before December 23, 2016."
2. When the matter was again listed on 2nd January, 2017, the Court passed the following order:
"Balbir-Respondent No.1 is present in custody. He submits that he is unable to afford the services of a counsel to argue his case. He seeks a direction for providing free legal assistance to him. We request Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel to appear and assist us on behalf of the said respondent. She shall have the liberty to avail the services of any Advocate on record to brief her properly. The Registry shall furnish a set of paper books to the briefing counsel of Ms. Malhotra. The briefing counsel and Ms. Malhotra shall be paid usual fee payable to the legal aid counsel in such matters.
Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned senior counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the respondents place themselves on the mercy of the court and that apart from offering an unconditional apology for what has been found against them, they are ready and willing to offer free medical aid to 10% of their intake capacity of their hospital to deserving poor patients. He further submits that the said respondents are willing to provide medical services and assistance to such class of under privileged and disadvantaged sections of the society as may be identified for that purpose by this Court or by any other authority or agency. He seeks time to file an affidavit on the above lines. Let the needful be done by Mr. Dave within two weeks with an advance copy to learned counsel for the complainant who may respond to the same within one week thereafter.
3. The matter was again listed on 6th February, 2017. The rel
