Back
1968 Supreme(Del) 124
High Court Of Delhi
R.L.GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
H.L.SEHGAL - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 21 of 1963
Decided On : 09/12/1968
H.L.Sehgal, V.D.MISRA
The Court must exercise its power with restraint and care, distinguishing cases of deliberate and conscious contempt of Court from cases where a person has innocently been induced to say something improper.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Defense - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The contemner expressed regret for adding objectionable paragraphs in his reply and stated that he did not intend to commit contempt of Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court emphasized that contempt of Court is a serious matter and that the Court must act with due circumspection, making appropriate allowances for common human failings within reasonable limits. The Court found that the objectionable paragraphs had been deleted at the earliest opportunity and discharged the rule without making any order as to costs, but warned the contemner to be more careful in the future.
Issues: Contempt of Court, Defense, Use of Intemperate Language
Ratio Decidendi: The Court must exercise its power with restraint and care, distinguishing cases of deliberate and conscious contempt of Court from cases where a person has innocently been induced to say something improper. Use of intemperate or improper language by an aggrieved party in reference to Courts cannot be justified.
Final Decision: The rule was discharged and no order was made as to costs, but the contemner was warned to be more careful in the future.
( 1 ) THE contemner Shri H. L. Sebgal has stated before us that he confines his defence to paragraph 1 of the reply dated 27th May, 1968 and that he is sorry to have added the remaining paragraph Nos 2 and 3 in that reply. We are satisfied that the contemner did not intend to commit contempt of Court and perhaps in him enthusiasm, he was misled into ventilating his grievances in this reply.
( 2 ) ACTION by way of contempt of Court is a serious matter. In this action, the Court is both the accuser and the Judge of the accusation. The position is the same whether the alleged contempt is of a subordinate Court or of this Court. It thus behoves the Court to act with due circumspection, making appropriate allowances for common human failings within reasonable limits. Whereas the Court must always be jealous in vindicating its dignity and impartiality, at the same time, the Court must exercise its power with restraint and care, always distinguishing cases where there is a deliberate and conscious contempt of Court which is unexplainable, from cases where a person has innocently been induced by certain circumstances or factors to say something improper, which may perhaps be on the border line of the law. The major offending paragraph? in the review application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge have, in the present case, already been deleted by the contemner from the portion of the pleadings which were reported to this Court by the learned Subordinate Judge. They were in fact deleted as early as 1st March, 1968. Now a litigant may have a grievance in a matter decided by the Courts, but that cannot justify use of intemperate or improper language by the aggrieved party in reference to Courts.
( 3 ) AS we are satisfied that it was either under some misguided zeal or under the influence of some other uncontrolled impulse which induced the contemner to make the objectionable observations, and finding that the same were deleted at the earliest opportunity, we discharge the rule and make no order as to costs. We however, do warn the contemner that in future he should be more careful.
