Judiciary possesses inherent powers under Article 215 to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings, independent of the Contempt of Courts Act, while conduct undermining judicial authority constitutes both civil and criminal contempt.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. RULE. The present contempt applications have been initiated suo motu by the High Court against the single contemnor, Mr. Devesh Bhatt, an advocate practicing in the Gujarat High Court as well as in the Courts of State Judiciary. Today, we are informed by learned advocates for the respective parties that the Bar Council of Gujarat (BCG) has debarred the contemnor from practicing in any court, due to his misconduct of leveling reckless and scandalous allegations against Hon’ble Chief Justice’s and Hon’ble Judges of this Court and also against the Judicial Officers.

2. Numerous orders have been passed by this Court against the contemnor. The order sheets reflect that, bailable warrants, as well as non-bailable warrants, were issued intermittently to secure his presence. He was arrested, and also remained in jail. He was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as a security for remaining present in the present proceeding as and when it is listed.

3. Judicial Officers have also informed to this Court about the imputations and false allegations leveled against them, as well as the use of libelous language in the court proceedings. Accordingly, suo motu contempt proceedings are also registered in this regard.

4. Pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued against Mr.Devesh Bhatt, he was asked to file an undertaking, which is on record, and to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and to assure that he would regularly remain present in the present proceedings. It was further stated that, any single failure or default in remaining present, non- cooperation, etc., would be sufficient to forfeit this amount forthwith, and he would have no right to object.

5. Despite this undertaking, the contemnor has not chosen to remain present on any of the dates on which the matters were listed, and hearings have taken place. Ultimately, this Court had no option but to appoint learned advocate Mr.Kurven Desai from the panel of Legal Aid, to defend his case.

6. On 11.11.2011, this Court observed that the opponent - Mr.Devesh Bhatt was aware that a Special Bench was constituted to hear multiple contempt cases pending against him. Pursuant to the order dated 21.10.2011, he was called upon to explain why fresh contempt proceedings should not be initiated and why his bail bond should not be forfeited due to violation of bail conditions.

7. Despite this, the opponent failed to remain present. The order dated 09.09.2011, recorded by the Coordinate Bench, noted that the opponent was directed to remain present on the date fixed by the Court. While releasing him on bail on 09.09.2011, a statement was recorded from the opponent, in which he undertook not to indulge in any activity that might lead to the registration of fresh contempt cases during hearing and disposal of the present set of proceedings. Despite this undertaking, the opponent continued to make frivolous and unfounded allegations against the Honorable Judges of this Court.

8. On 11.11.2011, a show-cause notice was issued to the opponent for indulging in the same conduct, calling upon him to explain as to why fresh contempt proceedings should not be initiated and his bail bond should not be forfeited in view of violation of conditions of bail. Such orders were passed during the pendency of the present proceedings, yet the opponent did not remain present.

9. On 21.10.2011, this Court directed the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to instruct the Police Inspector, Gujarat University Police Station, to su