Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Nazmi Waziri And Ashutosh Kumar, JJ.
Court on Its Own Motion - Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Khosla – Respondent
Cont Cas (Crl.) No. 9 of 2014.
Decided on : 22-2-2016
For the Respondent:Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. with Sanchita Ain, Ajay Marwah & Srishti Singh, Advocates.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - LANGUAGE USED AGAINST LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN AVERMENTS - SCANDALOUS AND HAS REMAINED ON RECORD OF COURT TILL DATE, WITHOUT RESPONDENT SEEKING TO HAVE IT WITHDRAWN OR AN APOLOGY BEING OFFERED TO THAT EFFECT - CONDUCT OF RESPONDENT SHOWS THAT AT EVERY STAGE HE WAS CONTESTING THE CONTEMPT NOTICE ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS - NEITHER WAS ANY SENSE OF REMORSE EXPRESSED BY RESPONDENT NOR WAS ANY APOLOGY OFFERED TO COURT AT ANY STAGE, DESPITE MORE THAN A YEAR HAVING PASSED SINCE APPEAL WAS FILED AND CONTEMPT NOTICE WAS ISSUED - RESPONDENT SENTENCED TO ONE MONTH IMPRISONMENT ALONG WITH FINE OF RS.2000/-.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent, an advocate, made certain unwarranted averments in his pleadings and in his oral submissions before a Division Bench of Delhi High 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 cognisance 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.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the respondent guilty of criminal contempt of Court. It held that the language used by the respondent was quite explicit and unambiguous. The unwarranted imputations were not said in the heat of the moment. It is evident that it was brought on record after due contemplation, surely the respondent knew what he meant by it. They tend to overawe/embarrass/ threaten and inhibit the Court. The respondent is a lawyer licensed to practice law and an officer of the Court and it is presumed that he understands the full import of the language used in pleadings and submissions made before the Court. Advocates are required to conduct themselves at all times as gentlemen; this conduct assumes greater significance in a court of law when he/she stands to assist the Court. Unlike the contemnor in Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Banik and ors. and Apu Banik, (supra), who sought shelter from the contempt proceedings under the nebulous umbrella of illiteracy, the present respondent is an advocate who has practised in this Court. The deliberate objectionable language used by him cannot be ignored.
Issues: Whether the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt of Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the language used by the respondent was quite explicit and unambiguous. The unwarranted imputations were not said in the heat of the moment. It is evident that it was brought on record after due contemplation, surely the respondent knew what he meant by it. They tend to overawe/embarrass/ threaten and inhibit the Court. The respondent is a lawyer licensed to practice law and an officer of the Court and it is presumed that he understands the full import of the language used in pleadings and submissions made before the Court. Advocates are required to conduct themselves at all times as gentlemen; this conduct assumes greater significance in a court of law when he/she stands to assist the Court.
Final Decision: The Court sentenced the respondent contemnor Deepak Khosla to one month imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/-. The fine shall be deposited within a week from today, failing which the imprisonment shall extend by another month.
Nazmi Waziriana, J.
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 cognisance 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 scandalise 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 change in
