Tendency to scandalize the court or lower its authority constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and mens rea is not necessary.

As per Hon 'hie Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. :

1. The contemnor/respondent addressed a complaint to His Excellency the Governor of Chhattisgarh, contents of which are per se contemptuous. Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs forwarded the said complaint for appropriate action to the Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, on the basis of which the instant contempt proceeding was registered.

2. Show-cause notice was issued to the contemnor. The contemnor appeared in person and submitted that he is not in a position to engage counsel, whereupon counsel was provided to him through Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Aid Committee. He submitted his reply on 15.6.2007 and denied having committed any contempt and further stated that he had drawn attention of the Court towards the facts, which were not considered, and reiterated his grievances in reference to the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 2104/01, which was filed by him and dismissed by this Court on merits. Along with his reply he also filed several documents including the order dated 2nd January, 2006 passed in WP No.21 04/0 1. However, no affidavit in support of the reply was filed.

3. He again submitted an application on 25.8.2007 and prayed for deciding the matter on the basis of his reply dated 15th June, 2007 as he is unable to engage private counsel and he also alleged that the advocates provided to him through Legal Aid are not willing to contest his case.

4. Referring to his reply dated 15th June, 2007 and 25th August, 2007, vide his application dated 1th October, 2007, he again prayed for deciding this matter and stated that the counsel provided to him is pressurizing him to tender apology, though he has not committed any contempt.

5. None of the reply/applications filed by the contemnor is supported by his affidavit. On 27.11.2008 the contemnor was allowed further time of two months to file appropriate reply alongwith affidavit to the show-cause notice. However, he did not file reply. On 6.2.2009 charge was framed. The contemnor denied the charge and prayed for enquiry, and the matter was fixed on 16.3 .2009 for evidence.

6. Shri UNS Deo, learned Govt. Advocate submits that contents of the complaint by the contemnor to His Excellency-the Governor of Chhattisgarh are per se scandalous in nature and the same lowers the authority of the Court. Since the charge is based on documentary evidence and the contemnor has not denied the authorship of the complaint, or that he sent the same to His Excellency-the Governor in his reply, no evidence would be necessary to prove the charge. The contemnor examined himself in his defence and further submitted that he does not intend to examine any other witness. He also submitted that he does not need any legal assistance.

7. The complaint to His Excellency-the Governor of Chattisgarh by the contemnor is in relation to WP No.21 04/0 1, disposed of by this Court on 2nd January, 2006. From perusal of the order of this Court it appears that the contemnor applied for appointment on the post of Loader, South Eastern Central Coalfields Ltd. In the year 1984, however, he was not selected. Aggrieved by the above order, the contemnor filed writ petition in the year 200 1. The petition was dismissed by this Court with an observation that the petitioner had not acquired any right at the first instance itself as he was rejected by the selection committee for appointment. Even otherwise, the petition is time barred as the petitioner did not take any steps for more than 16 years.

8. In the complaint, the contemnor has made following imputations against, this Court:

9. In his defence, the contemnor has stated that he has received the copy of complaint sent by him to His Excellency-the Governor along with notice of the High Court. The contemnor has also admitted that he was author of the said complaint and he had sent the same with his own signature to His Excellency-the Governor. However, he has further stated that he did