Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1744

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Mehmood Pracha – Appellant
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2020
Decided On : 10-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondents: Vikramjeet Banerjee, Shruti Agarwal, Shivam Singhania.

The denial of a trial in a contempt of court case, where the accused denies the charges, results in a miscarriage of justice. The procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act and the Rules, which allow for the adducing of evidence when there is a denial of the charge, must be followed.

Headnote:
Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 - Section 14: Provides the procedure to be followed when contempt is committed in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. The court may detain the person charged with contempt, inform them of the charges, give them an opportunity to defend themselves, take necessary evidence, and make an appropriate order for punishment or discharge. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 17: Gives the Tribunal the same jurisdiction, powers, and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has. The Tribunal can exercise the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, with modifications. The reference to the Advocate-General in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is construed differently for the Central Administrative Tribunal and other Administrative Tribunals.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant stands convicted by the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971. The appellant made certain submissions in his capacity as counsel for the party, including personal attacks on the Chairman. The charge against the appellant was that his acts and omissions tarnished the image of the Tribunal and amounted to criminal contempt. The appellant denied the charge.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found the appellant guilty of contempt of court but did not impose a sentence. Instead, the appellant was warned that any future acts of contempt would be considered in future proceedings. The Tribunal also forwarded a copy of the order to the Bar Council of India and Delhi State Bar Council.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal erred in denying the appellant the right to be tried for the charge of contempt. The appellant insisted on his right to a trial, but no trial was conducted. The denial of a trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act and the Rules, which allow for the adducing of evidence when there is a denial of the charge, was not followed. The appellant's appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Result: The appellant's appeal is allowed. The impugned order convicting the appellant of contempt of court is set aside. The direction to forward the case to the Bar Council of India is also revoked.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. The appellant stands convicted by the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, under Section 14 of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for brevity) in terms of the charge framed against the appellant.

After finding the appellant so guilty, we may notice the following:

38. The copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Bar Council of India and Delhi State Bar Council.”

2. We have heard Shri Mehmood Pracha, appellant-inperson. We have also had the advantage of hearing Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General who incidentally, it must be noticed, in keeping with the mandate of Central Administrative Tribunal Rules was called upon to assist the Tribunal in the matter of proceedings against the appellant.

3. There were certain original applications before the Tribunal. On the fateful day, which is 08.02.2019, it is found by the Tribunal in the impugned order that the appellant made certain submissions in his capacity as counsel for the party. We may notice the relevant portions as follows:

10. By looking around the Court, he said that the proceedings must be held in Camera and he has much to say about the Chairman. He was informed that he can say in the open Court whatever he intends and if that is not done, it would amount to scandalising the Chairman. His behaviour continued in the same manner and he did not reveal anything. The Court was full with Advocates of different standings and repeated requests made by them to pacify the respondent did not have any effect on him. He proceeded to observe that Chairman lost his right to hear the PTs. He was informed that Section 25 of the Act provides for hearing of PTs only by the Chairman and that if he has got any other alternative or suggestion, he can make it. Even that did not work and he continued his tirade. Left with no alternative, a detailed order was passed on that date and a notice was issued. The respondent was required to explain within two weeks as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.”

4. The charge was framed on 10.02.2020. Though the charge was initially not produced along with the appeal memorandum, the charge is subsequently produced along with an application to produce the entire trial Court/lower Court record. There was a draft charge and finally the charge which has become the subject matter of the impugned order which reads as follows:

That you on 08.02.2019 represented the applicant in PT No. 288/2017 in OA No. 2413/2016. In the course of the proceedings you insisted on the proceedings to be conducted in camera since you had to say something against the Chairman which could not be revealed in open Court. However, when you we