IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that not all disruptive actions in court constitute contempt; intent and context are crucial in determining criminal contempt.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This Contempt Case (Crl.) is initiated suo motu by this Court, invoking the provisions under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, by treating the information in Annexure B report dated 23.11.2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, as an ‘information’ under Rule 7 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971, in respect of an unruly incident that unfolded in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam and its immediate precincts on 23.11.2023. Along with Annexure B report, a list mentioning the names of lawyers, who were involved in the said incident, was also furnished. After the preliminary hearing, on being satisfied that a prima facie case of criminal contempt has been made out, this Court issued notice to the respondents. The order of this Court dated 01.12.2023 reads thus:

“This Contempt Case (Crl.) is initiated suo motu by the High Court, invoking the provisions under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, by treating the information in Annexure B report dated 23.11.2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, as an ‘information’ under Rule 7 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971, regarding the incident that happened on 23.11.2023 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam. Vide Annexure A report dated 23.11.2023, the District Judge, Kottayam has also reported the matter to the High Court. On 24.11.2023, when the matter was placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice, having gone through the reports and the relevant records relating to the incident that has taken place in the court premises/room, the Honourable the Chief Justice considered it expedient to take appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the Registry was directed to place the matter for preliminary hearing under the provisions of the said Act and the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971.

2. On 28.11.2023, when this matter came up for consideration, Registry has reported the service of a copy of this contempt case on the learned Advocate General, as provided under Rule 8A of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971. Registry was directed to show the name of the learned Advocate General in the cause list and the matter was ordered to be listed on 30.11.2023 at2.00 p.m.

3. On 30.11.2023, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Director General of Prosecution appeared on behalf of the learned Advocate General. We have viewed in open court the video of the incident that happened on 23.11.2023, which forms part of this contempt case as Annexure E (pen drive).

4. Today, when this contempt case is taken up for consideration, the learned Advocate General, who appeared on service of a copy of this Contempt Case, as provided under Rule 8A of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971, would point out the decision of the Apex Court in S.K. Sarkar Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow v. Vinay Chandra Misra [AIR 1981 SC 723] and also the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Bar Council of Kerala v. Saju [2001 (1) KLT 341] We viewed again in open court the video of the incident that happened on 23.11.2023, which forms part of this contempt case as Annexure E (pen drive).

5. As already noticed hereinbefore, this Contempt Case (Crl.) is initiated suo motu, invoking the provisions under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, by treating the information in Annexure B report dated 23.11.2023 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam as an ‘information’ under Rule 7 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971. Therefore, the initiation of this contempt proceedings suo motu, based on the decision of the Honourable the Chief Justice in the administrative side, is not by treating Annexure B r