The conduct of the accused constituted criminal contempt by making baseless allegations against judicial officers, thereby lowering the authority of the Court.

ORDER :

K.S. MUDAGAL, J.

The accused is tried in this case on the charge of commission of criminal contempt of Court. The charge against the accused is as follows:

“Taking suo motu cognizance of the letter dated 02.08.2022 and the letter dated 21.10.2022 along with enclosures forwarded by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mysuru, notice of contempt was issued by this Court on 03.01.2023.

On considering the contentions and the submissions advanced by respondent/accused in our opinion, the conduct of the respondent/accused by filing applications using derogative words, making baseless allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Mysuru and interfering with the Court proceedings amounts to criminal contempt as contemplated under Section 2 (c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

2. Exs.C13 and C14/the letters dated 01/02.08.2022 addressed by CW.1/the then Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Mysuru are the one referred to in the charge. In a nutshell under those letters CW.1 reported that the accused with an intention to interfere with CW.1 and his Predecessors in office in adjudicating I.I.D.No.98/2009 which was renumbered as I.I.D.No.22/2016 went on making contemptuous allegations against them, the Court Staff etc. Thereby he has committed contempt of Court. Those letters and the evidence will be discussed in detail later at appropriate stage.

3. To find out whether such acts amount to criminal contempt, it is necessary to refer to Sections 2 (c) and 12 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act’ for short). Section 2 (c) of the Act reads as follows:

“2(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner

12. Punishment for contempt of court.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both

Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.

Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.”

4. Section 10 of the Act empowers the High Court to punish a person who commits contempt of subordinate Court. There cannot be any dispute that Labour Court in question is the subordinate Court to this High Court.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 97 of the judgment in Vijay Kurle in Re and others , (2021) 13 SCC 616 in the similar circumstances held as follows:

“97. ……… No litigant has a right to attribute motives to a Judge. No litigant has a right to question the integrity of a Judge. No litigant has a right to even question the ability of a Judge. When the ability, integrity and dignity of the Judges are questioned, this is an attack on the institution. It is attack on the majesty of law and lowers the impression of the Courts in the public eye.

(Emphasis