Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.Manikumar, Anu Sivaraman, JJ.
Bar Council of India - Petitioner
Versus
Lokanath Behera Ips, Director, Vigilance And Anti Corruption Bureau, Vikas Bhavan & Ors. - Respondents
Con. APP(C).No.1 of 2020
Decided On : 03-07-2020
For the Petitioner: Sri. Rajit
IMPORTANT POINTS
It is true that in considering a question whether the alleged contemnor is guilty of contempt or not, the court hears the parties and considers the materials produced before it and, if necessary, examines witnesses and, thereafter, passes an order either acquitting or punishing him for contempt. When the High Court acquits the contemnor, the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction for contempt, for such exercise will mean that the High Court should act in a particular manner, that is to say, by imposing punishment for contempt. So long as no punishment is imposed by the High Court, the High Court cannot be said to be exercising its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Advocates Act, 1961, Section 4,6,7,8A, Section 19(1)(a) ---Contempt Appeal-The decision to reject the unconditional apology and proceed further was an order or decision to proceed to punish the contemnor-Such a decision or order was appealable-Whether appeal under Section 19 is maintainable or not is not required to be decided finally -Facts of this case are grossly inadequate and the contempt proceedings were not required to be initiated at all- While issuing notice in the contempt petition, is only for the prima facie satisfaction as to whether the contempt petition needs to be considered on merits.
Statement of facts:
Instant contempt appeal is filed by the Bar Council of India aggrieved by the judgment in Con. Case(C) No.699 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.34162 of 2018 dated 28.03.2019, by which a learned single Judge of this Court held that contempt has not been committed by the respondents on the ground that the statement filed by the respondents through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau could not be binding on them and since the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau has not been made a party in the contempt petition.
Finding of the court:
While issuing notice in the contempt petition, is only for the prima facie satisfaction as to whether the contempt petition needs to be considered on merits. Only after such a preliminary stage, notice can be issued. Now, it is open to the respondents to file their reply and after considering the defence, the learned Single Judge will have to take a call as to whether it is a case to be proceeded against for punishing the respondents. In case such a decision is taken by the High Court, it is, at that stage, that the respondents get a right to file an appeal before the Division Bench in terms of Section 19(1)(a) of the Act. Such a stage having not arisen, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench is only to be set aside
Result: Contempt appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. Manikumar, J.
Instant contempt appeal is filed by the Bar Council of India aggrieved by the judgment in Con. Case(C) No.699 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.34162 of 2018 dated 28.03.2019, by which a learned single Judge of this Court held that contempt has not been committed by the respondents on the ground that the statement filed by the respondents through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau could not be binding on them and since the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau has not been made a party in the contempt petition.
2. Short facts leading to filing of the appeal are under:
Bar Council of India is a body corporate constituted under Section 4 having all the functions provided under Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act, 1961). Kerala Bar Council is a body corporate constituted under Section 3, having all the functions provided under Section 6 of Act, 1961. On the date of filing of the writ petition, Kerala Bar Council was administered by a Special Committee constituted under Section 8A of Act, 1961, and the Advocate General of Kerala was the Chairman. Two other members were nominated by the Bar Council of India as its members. Kerala Welfare Fund Trust is a Trust constituted under Section 4 of the Kerala Welfare Funds Act, 1980 (for short, 'Act, 1980). The Director, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau is a specialized agency of the State of Kerala, responsible for the investigation and prevention of corruption in Kerala and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau, Central Range, Ernakulam was the officer in-charge of the investigation in VC.02/18/CR, VACB, Central Agency, Central Range, Ernakulam.
3. The appellant is the Bar Council of India, the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.34162 of 2018. Kerala Bar Council represented by its Secretary, was the 2nd respondent, Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Trust, represented by its Secretary, was the 3rd respondent, the Director, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau, was the 4th respondent, and the 5th respondent was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau, Central Range, Ernakulam.
4. Above writ petition was filed by the 'Members elect' of the Bar Council of Kerala awaiting notification in the Official Gazette under Rule 33 of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979. Both the bodies are constituted solely for the purpose of welfare of advocates and intended for administration, well being and regulation of the advocates in the State of Kerala. The Advocate General is an Ex-officio member of the State Bar Council in the usual course, the Chairman of the Special Committee, which was constituted in a situation, wherein State Bar Council could not conduct the election before the expiry of the term of five years or the extended term, and the Ex-officio Chairman of the Trustee Committee, as per Section 4 of Act, 1980.
5. Appellant has further stated that the present Advocate General was the Ex-officio Chairman of the State Bar Council and was the Ex-officio Chairman of the Trustee Committee between 2006 and 2011. The Advocate General was the Ex-officio member of the State Bar Council from May, 2016, the Chairman of the Trustee Committee as per Section 4 of Act, 1980 and the Chairman of the Special Committee constituted under Section 8A of the Advocates Act from October, 2016. Appellant has further stated that between 2011 and 2016 October, the present Director General of Prosecution was the Member and Chairman of the State Bar Council and he was also a Member of the Trustee Committee, as per Section 4 of Act, 1980, in his capacity as President, Kerala Bar Federation. Appellant has contended that the Trust Committee is having the functions as provided under Sections 9 and 10 of Act, 1980. The Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala, the Ex-officio Secretary of the Trustee Co
