Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A. SAMBASIVA RAO, GANGADHARA RAO, J.
THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (A.P.)
VERSUS
RACHAPUDI SUBBA RAO
Contempt Case No. 14 of 1975,
Decided On : 23 -4 -1975
CONTEMPT OF COURT - JUDICIAL OFFICER - NOTICE IMPUTING MALA FIDES AND LACK OF GOOD FAITH - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - JUDICIAL OFFICERS' PROTECTION ACT - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT FOR DAMAGES - SECTION 13 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent issued a notice to a Subordinate Judge imputing mala fides and lack of good faith in the disposal of two suits, and threatened to file a suit for damages of Rs. 30,000. The Subordinate Judge forwarded the notice to the High Court, which initiated contempt proceedings against the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notice issued by the respondent constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it scandalized and lowered the authority of the court. The court rejected the respondent's arguments that publication was necessary for contempt, that the matters were no longer pending before the Subordinate Judge, that the contempt proceedings were premature, and that a suit for damages against the Subordinate Judge was maintainable under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice issued by the respondent constituted criminal contempt. 2. Whether the maintainability of a suit for damages against the Subordinate Judge under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act affected the contempt proceedings. 3. Whether the contempt proceedings were premature.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notice issued by the respondent constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it scandalized and lowered the authority of the court. The court reasoned that even without publication, scurrilous accusations against a judicial officer could scandalize and embarrass the officer, and that such communication could interfere with the officer's disposal of other matters. 2. The court held that the maintainability of a suit for damages against the Subordinate Judge under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act did not affect the contempt proceedings. The court reasoned that the Judicial Officers' Protection Act protected judicial officers from liability for acts done in the discharge of their judicial duties, and that the respondent's notice imputed mala fides and lack of good faith to the Subordinate Judge in the discharge of his judicial duties. 3. The court held that the contempt proceedings were not premature, as the notice issued by the respondent constituted contempt even if the suits had been disposed of.
Final Decision: The court sentenced the respondent to one month's imprisonment for contempt of court.
A. Sambasiva Rao, Actg. C. J. :- We start consideration of the case with a brief statement of the events that have caused the filing of the contempt case. The respondent (contemner) filed O. S. No. 101/73 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada against five defendants for declaration of his title and for injunction in respect of a building. The 1st defendant on that suit, in his turn, filed O. S. No. 275/72 in the same court against the respondent for possession of the same building and for recovery of damages for occupation and user. The 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, heard the two suits together and by a common judgement dated 31st of October, 1974 dismissed the respondent's suit and decreed the other one against him, both with costs. The decree-holder filed an execution petition for execution of the decree in his favour and the respondent filed an application for stay of that execution. They were pending enquiry.
2. On 25th of December, 1974 the respondent issued a notice to the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge who had disposed of the two suits, which is the bone of contention in this case. It is fairly a long notice and we prefer to extract verbatim some of the important portions which would demonstrate the tenor and the temper with which the notice was issued. In paragraph 3 it is alleged :-
"In the said judgement (O. S. Nos. 101/73 and 275/72) your honour created new facts by making third version without evidence as detailed below among others."
Then the respondent purported to give a large number of instances which, he thought would illustrate the allegation he makes in paragraph 3. In paragraph 4 he accuses :
"Your honour has intentionally with bad faith and maliciously disordered the existing oral and documentary evidence with a view to help the plaintiff. In O. S. 275/72 causing damage and injury to me." In paragraph 5 he alleged :
"Your honour has maintained different standards in the same judgement with regard to Exs. B-9, B-10, B-13 and A-15 to A-19 and A-20 to A-22 and B-11 and B-12 in para No. 25."
In paragraph 6 he reiterates :
"Your honour has maintained different standards even with regard to self-serving statements."
In paragraph 16 it is said :
"Your honour has side-tracked the binding direct decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court disordering the contents of the said decisions."
In paragraph 18 it is averred :
"So under these circumstances it cannot be said that these acts done by your goodself in the discharge of your Honour's your judicial duty within the limits of honour's jurisdiction in good faith, for the abovesaid acts themselves prove that your honour has done these acts with mala fide exercise of powers without jurisdiction."
Then the notice is concluded in the following manner :
"19. Your Honour has done these acts in excess of jurisdiction knowing the law regarding your own powers and duties. So, your honour is liable in tort to pay damages for the heavy monetary loss incurred by me and for the injury.
20. Hence, I request your honour to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 by way of damages for the heavy monetary loss incurred by me and for the injury within a reasonable time, or else I will be compelled to seek legal redress for the same.
21. I hereby reserve my right to take available legal actions against your honour under the other enactments."
3. On receipt of this notice, the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge sent it to the High Court for necessary action. The High Court requested the learned Advocate General to institute contempt proceedings. Consequently, he has brought this case and incidentally he has also mentioned in the affidavit that the respondent is in the habit of making very many unwarranted allegations against the members of the Bar and Judges and has been persistently sending complaints to the Bar Council against Advocates.
4. Many defences are raised in the counter-affidavit. A reading of the counter-affidavit shows that the respondent is not only particular to ju
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
