Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 942
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAJMI WAZIRI AND ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JJ.
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION - Petitioner
Versus
DEEPAK KHOSLA – Respondent
CONT CAS (CRL.) 9/2014
Decided On : 22.02.2016
Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Sanchita Ain, Mr. Ajay Marwah & Ms. Srishti Singh, Advs.
MAKING SCANDALOUS AND MALICIOUS AVERMENTS AGAINST A JUDGE IN PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSIONS CONSTITUTES CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - SUBJECT - CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971 - ACT SECTION LIST - 1. SECTION 2(C)(I) - 2. SECTION 14(2) - 3. SECTION 15(1) - 4. SECTION 17 - SUMMARY - THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT, AN ADVOCATE, WAS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR MAKING SCANDALOUS AND MALICIOUS AVERMENTS AGAINST A JUDGE IN HIS PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSIONS. THE COURT REJECTED THE RESPONDENT'S APOLOGY AND SENTENCED HIM TO ONE MONTH'S IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE OF RS.2000/-. THE COURT ALSO DIRECTED THAT A COPY OF THE ORDER BE SENT TO THE BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND THE BAR COUNCIL OF KARNATAKA FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION.
Fact of the Case:
THE RESPONDENT, AN ADVOCATE, MADE SCANDALOUS AND MALICIOUS AVERMENTS AGAINST A JUDGE IN HIS PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSIONS IN AN APPEAL BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT. THE COURT TOOK SUO MOTO COGNIZANCE OF THE MATTER AND ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 15(1) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT'S AVERMENTS WERE CLEARLY SCANDALOUS AND HAD REMAINED ON THE RECORD OF THE COURT TILL DATE, WITHOUT THE RESPONDENT SEEKING TO HAVE THEM WITHDRAWN OR AN APOLOGY BEING OFFERED TO THAT EFFECT. THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT FILED A REPLY TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DESPITE BEING GRANTED NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SO. ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT'S AVERMENTS WERE SCANDALOUS AND MALICIOUS. 2. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO FILE A REPLY TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE CONSTITUTED A CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES IN REACHING ITS DECISION: 1. ANY ACT DONE OR WRITING PUBLISHED CALCULATED TO BRING A COURT OR A JUDGE OF THE COURT INTO CONTEMPT, OR TO LOWER HIS AUTHORITY, IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT. (REG V. GRAY 1900(2) QB 36 AT 40) 2. THE GRAVITY OF THE AFORESAID STATEMENT IS THAT THE SAME WOULD SCANDALIZE THE COURT. (HARIDAS DAS V. SMT. USHA BANIK AND ORS. AND APU BANIK AIR 2007 SC 2688) 3. THE CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PERSISTENTLY INCORRIGIBLE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT HE CONTESTED THE CONTEMPT NOTICE ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS AT EVERY STAGE. NEITHER ANY SENSE OF REMORSE REGARDING THE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE USED IN THE APPEAL NOR ANY APOLOGY AT ANY STAGE WAS OFFERED DESPITE MORE THAN A YEAR HAVING PASSED SINCE THE TIME OF THE OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL BEING PUT ON RECORD AND THE CONTEMPT NOTICE BEING ISSUED.
Final Decision: THE COURT SENTENCED THE RESPONDENT TO ONE MONTH'S IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE OF RS.2000/-. THE COURT ALSO DIRECTED THAT A COPY OF THE ORDER BE SENT TO THE BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND THE BAR COUNCIL OF KARNATAKA FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
1. After 26 judges of the Delhi High Court had recused themselves from hearing this and another criminal contempt petition (Cont Cas Crl. 12/2014), the Hon”ble Chief Justice has constituted this Special Division Bench to adjudicate upon the two pending petitions against the respondent, Deepak Khosla - an advocate, who has appeared before the Court.
Background/ Issue of Show Cause Notice
2. On 05.09.2014, in LPA No. 583/2014, the respondent, made certain unwarranted averments in his pleadings and in his oral submissions before a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon”ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon”ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha. Taking a prima facie view that the respondent”s submissions constituted criminal contempt and tended to scandalise and lower the authority/prestige of the court, the Court took suo moto cognizance of the same under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and issued a show cause notice, vide order dated 8.9.2014, as to why the respondent should not be punished for contempt. The said order reads:
“1. By a common judgment and order made today, this Court has disposed of LPA Nos. 550/2104 (sic) and 583/2014 on the ground that they are not maintainable.
2. During the course of proceedings – as well as oral hearing, which was held on 05-09-2014, the Court had noticed that Mr. Deepak Khosla, who argued the appeal (LPA 583/2014) made averments in the appeal which tends to scandalize or lower the authority or prestige of the court, as they directly attribute malice to the learned Single Judge. The averments made are as follows:
"That by means of the order impugned herein, the learned Single Judge, acting in a fit of pique, acted in sheer and malicious retaliation against the contents of the letter and email referred to in the para below, and in further retaliation against the application filed by the appellant's client, Mr. R P Khosla, seeking referral to a larger Bench under Chapter II Section 2 of the Delhi High Court rules, to decide whether the allegations of discrimination/bias/prejudice of the learned single judge should be decided by the learned single judge, or by the larger bench.
That is further to his conduct brought up. in LPA No. 550 of 2014, where he, without any preceding query to the appellant relating to his registration as an advocate under the Advocates Act 1961, has directed the Secretary of the Bar Council of India to obtain from the Bar Council of Karnataka a copy of his application for registration as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. In addition, he has passed other directions also, which also are impugned therein, as they both suffer from two common vices : bias, and lack of jurisdiction.
8. That as regards rampant discrimination on the part of the learned Single Judge, the appellant had met Hon”ble the Chief Justice on 13-08-2014 in follow-up of his email dated 14-07-2014 {Annexure -1) and during the course of the audience, had explained to her the difficulties in appearing for the Court of the learned Single Judge in the absence of there being an incontrovertible record of what transpires in his Court, such as through audio recording, or any other system Hon'ble the Chief Justice may devise.
9. That during the same hearing, he had handed over a note setting out as many as around 26 incidents that, to the mind of the appellant, reflected conduct that was not acceptable, both by the standards of judicial discipline laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as well as by many other criteria.
10. That Hon'ble the Chief Justice had informed the appellant to place on (sic) his grievances formally in a letter to be submitted in writing. Accordingly, this had been done, and the said letter had been filed with her PPS/Secretary at 1:10 pm of 20-08-2014. Leave is craved to produce a copy of this confidential representation during the hearing of the present appeal, if deemed essential by this Hon'ble court.
11. That as there is no
