DELHI HIGH COURT
(Full Court Decision of 23 Judges)
Gokal Chand Millal, CJ., S.B. Wad. B.N. Kirpal. Malik Shane/-ud-Din, DP. Wadhwa. Sunanda Bhandare. Arun B. Saharya, CL. Chaudhury. Y.K. Sabharwal, P.K. Bahri, P.N. Nag, V.E. Bansal, RL. Gupta. Arun Kumar, Anil Dev Singh, Jaspal Singh, Usha Mehra, S.C. Jain, C.M. Nayar, J.K. Mehra, Sat Pal, D.K. Jain & Mohd. Shamim, JJ.
Court of its own Motion - Appellant
versus
B.D. Kaushik & 6 others - Respondents
Criminal Contempt No. 4 of 1991
Decided on 19-12-1991

IMPORTANT POINT
for storming of the Court rooms and for disruction of their functioning in Delhi High Court on 26-9-1991 by the Members of Delhi Bar Association, the full Court unanimously convicted the condemners for contempt of court. On punishment, however, the Court was divided. Majority of 12 Judges out of 23, accepted the apology and granted probation for one year whereas Minority of 11 Judges did not find apology as bona fide and opined for simple imprisonment and fine sentence.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India 1950, Article 215 Show cause notice under for contempt of Delhi High Court. Office Bearers and Members of Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari Courts along with hundreds of their colleagues stormed the various court rooms of Delhi High Court on 269-1991 from 10.30 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. and disrupted functioning by shouting abuses and slogans "Chief Justice and Judges Hal Hal, Murdabod," and in a threatening tone they also shouted "Stop the work,- we will not allow the courts to function and you should retire to your Chambers" - B.D. Kaushik, contemner, the President of Association also read a Memorandum, the contents whereof tended to scandalise and lower the authority of High Court - Show cause issued - Appearance put - Regrets expressed - Later by resolution submitted that it amounted to tendering an un-conditional and unqualified apology - Whether contemners are guilty of contempt of this court and are liable to be convicted? (Yes)

       HELD : keeping in view the entire back-ground of the legal provisions and the nobility which should flow from the legal profession, we have no hesitation in saying that the contemners along with their other brethen indulged in the most reprehensible activity on 26-9-1991. They simply brought down not only the dignity and majesty of this temple of justice but their own profession also and attempted to erode the entire system of administration of justice. In fact, the contempt was so gross and outrageous that we have no hesitation in holding them guilty of the contempt of this Court and convict them accordingly. (Para 8)

       (See Paras 33, 99, and others also)

       (ii) Constitution of India 1950 - Art. 215 - Contempt of High Court - Office Bearers and Members of Delhi Bar Association found guilty of contempt of High Court for their acts on 26-9-1991- Apology tendered - Apology un-conditional and unqualified - What should be the appropriate sentence or direction which should issue in such a case? - Majority opinion - Release on probation of good conduct for one year - Minority opinion – A pology is not bona fide and not acceptable - Sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month & fine of Rs. 2000/-each.

       Held for Majority (12 Judges): We must realise that they are members of the noble profession and in their misguided zeal, ventured upon the defiant course for which they have offered apology. At the same time we must also keep in mind that simply accepting the apology and discharging the rule may not appear to be warranted in the circumstances of the gross contempt. Therefore, taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, including the Outrageous incident and unqualified apology, we do not propose to award the sentence at present arid defer it as we would like to further watch their conduct and behaviour for a period of one year from today. In case any of them repeats any act which tantamounts to contempt of court or undermining the judiciary, he will be called upon to appear in Court to receive the sentence. But if they main rain orderly, good and disciplined behaviour and do not indulge themselves in the repetition of such 8CJS within the stipulated period, then the rule shall stand discharged on the expiry of period. Para l2)

       Held for Minority (11 Judges (4+7)): We have the benefit of reading the judgment by my lord the Chief Justice. It is held in the said judgment that the contemnors have commuted gross and outrageous Contempt of Court. After holding that the contemnors have committed gross and outrageous contempt of Court, we find it difficult to persuade ourselves to the operative part of the order in the said judgment Since we have held that the apology is not bona fide and not acceptable, we direct that the contemnors, viz. S/s. B.D. Kaushik, Rajiv Khosla, R.K. Sharma, Jugal Wadhwa, R.N. Vats, Jatan Singh and P.S. Rathee, should undergo simple imprisonment for one month and shall pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. (para 47)

       (See also Para 58 (Wadhwa, J.), Para 62 (Sunanda Bhandare, J.), Para 80 (Saharia, J.), Para 85 (Sabharwal, J.), Para 92 (Anil Dev Singh, J.), Para 106 (Jaspal Singh, J.), Para 121 (C.M. Nayar, J.), agreeing with Minority view)

       Held finally: In view of the majority decision, we make the following order:

       We do not propose to award the sentence at present and defer it as we would like to further watch their conduct and behaviour for a period of one year from today. In case any of them repeats any act which tantamounts to contempt of court or undermining the judiciary, he will be called upon to appear in CoW1 to receive the sentence. But if they maintain 6'rderly, good and disciplined behaviour and do not indulge themselves in the repetition of such acts within the stipulated period, then the rule shall stand discharged on the expiry of the period. (Para 123)