Back
High Court Of Delhi
STATE - Appellant
Versus
INCIDENT INWOLVING J.P.SINGH, ADDITIONALDISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 7 of 1992
Decided On : 09/02/1992
CONTEMPT OF COURT - ACT-SECTION REFERRED - Section 2(c)(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - SUMMARY: The court held that the attack on an Additional District and Sessions Judge and his wife by staffers of a hospital constituted gross contempt of court. The court observed that the acts and conduct of the accused were calculated to lower the authority of the court and weaken the sense of public confidence in the administration of justice.
Fact of the Case:
An Additional District and Sessions Judge and his wife were attacked by staffers of a hospital. The accused broke open the lock of the judge's official residence, seized his personal belongings, and dispossessed him of the room.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were guilty of gross contempt of court. The court observed that the acts and conduct of the accused were calculated to lower the authority of the court and weaken the sense of public confidence in the administration of justice.
Issues: Whether the accused were guilty of contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in State v. Debabrata and Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis Hazari Court v. State of Gujarat to hold that the accused were guilty of gross contempt of court. The court observed that the acts and conduct of the accused were calculated to lower the authority of the court and weaken the sense of public confidence in the administration of justice.
Final Decision: The court requested the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench to hear and decide the case.
( 1 ) HARDLY a few hundred yards away from the Tis Hazari Courts there is a single storeyed bungalow. It is the official residence of an Additional District and Sessions Judge. He lives there with his family. J. P. Singh is his name. Beyond that house, but at some distance, is the St. Stephens Hospital. It appears that the land underneath the bungalow has been allotted to the hospital for its expansion though there was a long standing demand for its being made a part of court complex. The matter is before the High Court and it appears that an order to maintain status quo is in operation. This should have kept the peace. However, it did not.
( 2 ) IT happened on the night of August 24. The Registrar came to know about it the same very night but for reasons best known to him, informed the Chief Justice about it on the 25th. The lesser mortals came to know on the morning of the 26th only and that too through the media. The news item was with regard to an attack on the person of Mr. Singh and his wife by some staffers of the St. Stephens hospital. This led to my order of the 26th calling upon the Commissioner of Police, the District and Sessions Judge and the Registrar to submit reports. Subsequently, I called upon the Registrar to also place before me the applications/reports, if any made by Mr. Singh. He has complied with the same.
( 3 ) WHAT does the record show? It shows, to put it very briefly, that on the night of 24th while Mr. Singh was busy going through some judicial files (every judicial officer maintains office at his residence and has to spend sufficient time at home to go through the files), a mob led by some officials of the Hospital and aided and abetted by others, physically assaulted Mr. Singh and his wife voluntarily causing hurt, threw brick bats, subjected them also to intimidation, insult and humiliation. Abuses were buried at them and damage was caused to the building. Only timely help of the police saved them from greater harm. The incident so unnerved the officer that he had to proceed on leave resulting in disruption of court work and its proper functioning. It appears that those responsible for the sordid attack knew fully well that Mr. Singh was Additional District and Sessions Judge of Delhi, that the lady in question was none other but his wife and that the bungalow was their lawfully allotted official residence-cum-office. I assume, they must have been aware of the stay order as well.
( 4 ) IN my order of the 26th I observed that, prima facie, it is a case of contempt of court. The documents placed before me have lent further support. Judgments in two cases, one a little distant in matter of time and the other whose reverabrations are still strong have further fortified my view. Let me deal with them in required measure.
( 5 ) THE first is State v. Debabrata (AIR 1964 Calcutta 572 ). The victim was a Subordinate Judge posted at Krishnagar. He was staying in an officially allotted room in the Circuit House. In defiance of the Rules of the Circuit House, the District Magistrate broke open the lock of the room, seized the personal goods and articles of the judicial officer and dispossessed him of the room and as in the present case the officer had to remain on leave. The Court observed:
". . . . . WE have no hesitation in finding in the facts of this case that the acts and conduct of this District Magistrate are calculated to lower the authority of the Court and weaken the sense of public confidence in the administration of justice and are therefore gross and clear contempt.
( 6 ) THE second is known as Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis Hazari Court v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1991 SC 2176 ). The facts are too well known to the legal world and need not be recapitulated in detail. It was a case where a Chief Judicial Magistrate was arrested, assaulted and kept in wrongful detention after having been taken to a police station. What is important for our purposes are the following observat
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
