Re: To Consider Suo Motu Contempt of Court vs Proceedings Against The Tis Hazari Court Lawyers

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Rajnish Bhatnagar, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Re: To Consider Suo Motu Contempt of Court – Appellant
Versus
Proceedings Against The Tis Hazari Court Lawyers – Respondent
Cont.Cas. (Crl.) 2 of 2006, Crl.M.A. Nos. 2075 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 2076 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 2077 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 2078 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 2839 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 2847 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 3887 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 4061 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 4062 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 5607 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 5778 of 2006, Crl. M.A. 11461 of 2006 and Crl. M.A. 9030 of 2007 and Cont.Cas. (Crl.) 8 of 2006 & Crl.M.A. 3515 of 2006
Decided On : 28-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae along with Ms. Shubhangi Jain, Mr. Yash Giri, Mr. Raju and Mr. Adityaa, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
1) Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Contemnor/Respondent No.1 in-person.
2) Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bakshi, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Praveen K. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Nasiar, Contemnor/Respondent No. 2 in-person.
3) Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Prateek Bhalla, Mr. Rahul Sambher, Ms. Adeeb Ahmed, Mohd. Qasim Ms. Punya Rekha Angara, Advocates for Mr. Jaiveer Singh Chauhan Contemnor/Respondent No.3 in-person.
4) Mr. A.K. Gupta, Contemnor/Respondent No.4 in-person.
5) Mr. Dharmavir, Contemnor/Respondent No.7 in-person.
6) Mr. Inder Singh Saroha, Contemnor/Respondent No.8 in-person.
7) Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Contemnor/Respondent No.9 in-person.
8) Mr. Sunil Sherawat, Contemnor/Respondent No.12 in-person.
9) Mr. Vikas Arya, Contemnor/Respondent No.17 in-person.
10) Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Contemnor/Respondent No.21 in-person.
11) Mr. Anil Kumar Chauhan, Contemnor/Respondent No.22 in-person.
12) Mr. Madan Lal Gupta, Contemnor/Respondent No.24 in-person.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - SUBJECT - ACT-SECTION REFERRED - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:

The present criminal contempt proceeding emanates from the incident that occurred on the 24.02.2006 at the Tis Hazari Courts, in addition to earlier incidents stated to have taken place commencing from the 02.01.2006 at the Tis Hazari and the Rohini Courts, where advocates went on strike, opposing the establishment of the Rohini Court complex.
Finding of the Court:

The Court discharged the Show Cause Notices issued to the remaining alleged Contemnors/Respondents in the present criminal contempt proceedings. Resultantly, the notice to show cause as to why criminal contempt be not drawn against the alleged Contemnors/Respondents, are hereby discharged.
Issues: Whether the High Court had appropriately exercised its suo motu jurisdiction with respect to the occurrence of the purported incident that transpired in the District Courts of Delhi.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that it had appropriately exercised its suo motu jurisdiction with respect to the occurrence of the purported incident that transpired in the District Courts of Delhi. The Court further held that the material including the subject videos fail to provide any direct evidence connecting the damage allegedly caused to court rooms with the Advocates' protest. Furthermore, the videos do not furnish any evidence of Advocates manhandling their colleagues, obstructing the Administration of Justice, or supporting any other allegations made against the alleged Contemnors in the present proceedings. Hence, there exists no substantial evidence to establish obstruction of justice, acts of manhandling, or destruction of property. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively established that the act of protesting interfered with the administration of justice.
Final Decision: Both the criminal contempt proceedings are disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J. The present criminal contempt proceeding emanates from the incident that occurred on the 24.02.2006 at the Tis Hazari Courts, in addition to earlier incidents stated to have taken place commencing from the 02.01.2006 at the Tis Hazari and the Rohini Courts, where advocates went on strike, opposing the establishment of the Rohini Court complex. On 24.02.2006, a comprehensive report was forwarded to this Court by the then District & Sessions Judge, Mr. S.N. Dhingra, highlighting the need for initiating suo motu contempt of the Court proceedings against the errant advocates, which included numerous supporting documents, as well as reports from other Judges and officials functioning at the Tis Hazari Courts. In view of the shared nature of the facts and issues involved, both of these petitions were adjudicated collectively and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. A conspectus of the facts giving the background of the aforesaid incidents relevant for the adjudication of the subject proceedings are encapsulated herein below:

i. On the 27.02.2006, this Court, acting suo motu, took cognizance of the alleged incident and determined that qua 25 individuals there existed the elements of prima facie case of being liable for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. Consequently, Show Cause Notices were issued to these 25 individuals, requiring them to provide a justification as to why they should not be penalized for committing the offense of criminal contempt of court, based on the allegations outlined in various reports and other supporting material submitted before this Court. Furthermore, on the same day, an interim order was passed, imposing restrictions on the alleged Contemnors, prohibiting them from approaching within a distance of 500 meters from the premises of the Court compound of Delhi High Court or any Subordinate Courts falling under its jurisdiction, including Courts/Tribunals under its supervisory jurisdiction.

ii. On the 29.03.2006, Respondent Nos.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 22 filed their responses to the Show Cause Notice and some of them also requested for the relaxation of the interim order passed on the 27.02.2006. They explicitly asserted that they were not accountable for the acts of vandalism and provided a solemn undertaking that they shall refrain from engaging in any acts of vandalism, obstructing the ingress or egress of advocates attending the court proceedings, or disrupting the functioning of Court. Taking into account the aforementioned undertaking, this Court, on 29.03.2006, decided to suspend the direction issued vide order dated 27.02.2006, specifically pertaining to the abovementioned respondents; vide order dated 18.04.2006, the interim restraint order dated 27.02.2006 was also suspended qua Respondent no. 23 based on the Affidavit filed by him.

iii. Subsequently, the interim restraint order dated 27.02.2006, was modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 15.06.2006, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2914/2006. The modification stipulated that the petitioners would be allowed to carry out their professional duties pertaining to Courts and Tribunals, but they must refrain from engaging in any activity that the High Court has objected to.

iv. It is noteworthy to highlight that, FIR No.74/2006, under Sections 147/149/186/353/332/427/188/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred as "IPC"] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act was registered with Police Station, Subzi Mandi on 24.02.2006 and subsequent to it the chargesheet was filed on 25.02.2006 with respect to the alleged incident.

v. During the period from March, 2006 to September, 2006, a total of 13 Contemnors/Respondents were either discharged or removed from the present criminal contempt proceedings. The details of the alleged Contemnors who have been discharged or dropped from the present proceedin