2009 Supreme(Mad) 4524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla and Ms. R.Banumathi, JJ.
Women Lawyers Association rep. By its Secretary and Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu
W.P. Nos. 3335, 3703, 3704, 3705 and 3910 of 2009 and Connected M.Ps. and M.P.S.Rs. and Crl.O.P. Nos. 4085, 4287 and 4434 of 2009
Decided on : 29th October, 2009.

Ratios:
a. While carrying out any operation or activity inside the Court premises which would otherwise cause prejudice to the judicial institution, the police and other officials are to get necessary instructions and if necessary, permission.
b. Before use of force against an unlawful assembly, police should make all attempts to arrest key persons in the assembly and when their attempt to control the assembly fails, as a last resort, force may be used.
c. Mere law and order problem cannot be an excuse to the police for the use of force against the members of an assembly.
d. Use of lathi charge by police against the members of an unlawful assembly cannot be the first step to disperse it.
e. An officer ordering use of force against a member of an assembly can escape from the legal consequences of his act only if he exercised his power in good faith.
f. A member of an armed force using force or does any act against a member of an assembly can escape from the legal consequences of his act only if he does any act in obedience of any order which he is bound to obey.
g. To establish good faith one will have to show his previous conduct of due care and attention.
h. The judiciary is looked upon by every one with high amount of confidence and come for one’s rescue and take all endeavor to remedy the wrong or prevent an evil from taking place or redress the grievance to the extent to which one is entitled/possible and thereby keeping its mettle high in everyone’s esteem and expectation.
i. Constitutional provisions regarding the judiciary have been couched in such a manner that the process of judicial institution is kept aloof from the reach of any other wing of the State and thereby ensure confidence in the minds of the common man.
j. Any attempt from any quarters either deliberately, subvertly, negligently, recklessly or in any other allied manner to cause a dent to the judicial institution should be seriously dealt with in order to ensure that the greatness of the institution is not undermined by any one to the detriment of the public at large.
k. The judiciary should take all appropriate measures to protect its status, glory and dignity and thereby instil confidence in the minds of everyone about its independency and effectiveness to render justice.
l. It is high time that the Advocates Associations take a very pragmatic approach and take a firm decision to resort to any other passive method by which they can exhibit their protest in a subtle way instead of resorting to Boycott of Courts.
m. Legal profession gives the advocate an insight into the character of his fellow-men, into all their weaknesses and all their strength, and an opportunity to do real good by helping in the proper administration of justice and maintenance of judicial standards.
n. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that in case of disputed question of fact, the remedy under writ jurisdiction are to be denied.
o. Good faith requires not logical infallibility, but due care and attention.
p. How far erroneous actions or statements are to be imputed to want of due care and caution must in each case, be considered with reference to the general circumstances and the capacity and intelligence of the person, whose conduct is in question.
q. When a question arises as to whether a person acted in good faith, then it devolves upon him to show not merely that he had a good intention but that he exercised such care and skill as the duty reasonably demanded for its due discharge.
r. It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to regulate the entry of Police in the High Court campus.
s. Before deploying additional strength of police force inside the Court campus, either for providing security to VIPs attending the Courts or under other circumstances, permission of the High Court ought to be obtained.
t. In case of serious Law and Order problem within the Court campus, the police can take necessary steps immediately even without prior permission from the High Court/Principal District Judge and when such steps are taken, without any delay, the police have to inform the High Court/Principal District Judge about the mobilization of strength, steps taken in handling the situation.
u. In the absence of any ill-motive on the part of the police, it is not contempt when an advocate is arrested inside the Court premises.
v. When an advocate is arrested for criminal process, to take action for contempt, mala fide on the part of the police has to be shown to indicate that there was an intention to interfere with the due course of justice.
w. There is no general immunity for a lawyer against his arrest inside the Court premises.
x. Advocates are, subject to their adherence to the Code of Conduct, entitled to protection in discharging their professional duties.
y. While dispersing an unlawful assembly, the police should use the minimum amount of force and cause as little injury as possible.
z. Only after the use of minimum force by the police failed to disperse the unlawful assembly, the executive magistrate present in the secne of occurrence may cause it to be dispersed by the armed forces.
aa. In the matters of use of force or armed forces to disperse an unlawful assembly, the choice must have to be dictated by public interest, to safeguard law and order as well as public tranquility and it must not be unprincipled or unreasoned.
bb. The action of the police in using force to disperse an unlawful assembly and the order of lathi charge is subject to the judicial review.
cc. When a question arise as to whether the police have committed excess and exceeded their limits, the Court may lift the veil and decide whether there was good faith and whether the officer has acted with due care and attention.
dd. Police carrying deadly weapons and a privileged authority to use force have a special responsibility to keep control of themselves and their fellow officers.
ee. Any time a Police officer abuses his or her authority and inflicts undue suffering on any person, it is an affront, not only to the victim of the pain but to society as a whole.
ff. Contempt jurisdiction is extraordinary in character, should not be used for the personal protection of the Judges.
gg. Contempt jurisdiction is applied against any authority or person whenever there is any kind of interference in the Administration of Justice and to maintain supremacy of law.
hh. Contempt is sui generis. There is no prosecution, no summons or warrant, no right of trial by jury. The judge decides the matter, on the basis of his own knowledge of the facts which is the basis of his power.
ii. Award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for the redressal of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21 by a public servant.
jj. Award of compensation by way of public law remedy will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil Court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal Court ordering compensation under Section 357 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.21, 215, 226, 311-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec.129, 130, 132-Judiciary-Independency of judiciary-Police-Public order-Use of force-Police excess-Compensation-Good faith-Contempt-Advocates-Boycot-Writ-Disputed question of fact-Police charged against a High Court Judge, advocates, court staffs, litigant public inside High Court campus during court hours and caused injury to them-They also damaged cars, two wheelers, smashed windows, tubelights etc.-Court functioning came to a standstill in the entire State for many days-High Court took up suo motu writ petition-State Government and Police personnel contended that in the then prevailing situation, they used mnimum force to maintain law and order and denied excesses on their part-Advocates associations contended that it was a deliberate action by the police - High Court examined video clippings, other materials and various communications-Held, the police was not justified in using force in the situation and damaging Court properties-Four officers found guilty of contempt of Court and notice was ordered to them for further action-State Government was directed to take departmental action against them-Additional compensation was ordered to injured persons- CBI was directed to proceed with investigation of the cases registered-Evil effect of boycott and the duty of advocates were pointed out-Procession and meetings inside the Court premises except inside the hall of advocates association banned-Writ petition ordered accordingly.

       (B)Constitution of India- Art.215, -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec.129, 130, 132-Judiciary-Independency of judiciary-Police-Public order-Use of force-While carrying out any operation or activity inside the Court premises which would otherwise cause prejudice to the judicial institution, the police and other officials are to get necessary instructions and if necessary, permission.

       Per F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla J: ……Though as claimed by Ms.R.Vaigai that the Judiciary is also entitled for the extent of immunity i.e. Available to the Parliament cannot be accepted, in the same breath, it will have to be stated that Judiciary as a constitutional machinery is entitled for higher amount of protection and safety and therefore the other wings of the State have to display utmost restraint while carrying out their operations inside the premises of the institution. Consequently when such other institution like police or executive want to deal with the said institution, they are bound to get necessary instructions and if necessary permission for carrying out any of their activities which would otherwise cause prejudice to the institution. Para 100

       (C)Constitution of India-Art.21 -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec.129, 130, 132-Right to life-Police-Public order-Use of force-Before use of force against an unlawful assembly, police should make all attempts to arrest key persons in the assembly and when their attempt to control the assembly fails, as a last resort, force may be used. -Mere law and order problem cannot be an excuse to the police for the use of force against the members of an assembly-Use of lathi charge by police against the members of an unlawful assembly cannot be the first step to disperse it.

       Per F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla J: … Any Executive Magistrate or officer in charge of a police station or, in the absence of such officer in charge, any police officer, not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector, can disperse the unlawful assembly which is likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace. ……. Under Section 129, the use of armed force is not provided for. Therefore, as the first step, the use of such force can by no means be by way of lathi charge. Without the aid of any armed force only the officer should attempt to disperse any such assembly. Since arrest of unruly mob is part of Section 129(2), an attempt should have been made to identify such key persons who are indulging in any unlawful assembly and make an attempt to arrest them without resorting to any other measure. The paramount purpose is to prevent anybody’s attempt to disturb public peace. Therefore mere law and order cannot be a situation for invoking the provisions contained under Chapter X. Para 115

       (D)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec.129, 130, 132-Police-Use of force-Liability-Good faith-An officer ordering use of force against a member of an assembly can escape from the legal consequences of his act only if he exercised his power in good faith.-A member of an armed force using force or does any act against a member of an assembly can escape from the legal consequences of his act only if he does any act in obedience of any order which he is bound to obey.

       Per F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla J: In fact Sections 132(2)(a) to (d) makes it clear that in order to claim protection under the substantive part of Section 132(1) action on good faith is paramount or such member of the armed force does any act in obedience of any order which he is bound to obey. Section 132 therefore makes it clear that good faith should be the basis for an officer or a member of the armed force to claim any benefit provided under the said Section. Para 120

       (E)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-132-Police-Public order-Use of force-Police excess-Good faith-To establish good faith one will have to show his previous conduct of due care and attention.

       Per F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla J: Therefore in order to establish good faith one will have to show his previous conduct of due care and attention. When we apply the above ratio to the facts of this case, our analysis to the decision making process applied by the Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police, jurisdictional Joint Commissioner of Police and the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Police makes it clear that there was total lack of proper care and caution taken while taking a decision. Para 129

       (F)Constitution of India-Art.215, -Judiciary-Independency of judiciary-Public faith-Contempt-The judiciary is looked upon by every one with high amount of confidence and come for one’s rescue and take all endeavor to remedy the wrong or prevent an evil from taking place or redress the grievance to the extent to which one is entitled/possible and thereby keeping its mettle high in everyone’s esteem and expectation.

       Per F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla J: …… The judiciary is the institution which commends high amount of reputation and respect from among the members of the society and the right thinking persons. The institution, which is rendering service to the common man, is looked upon by every one with high amount of confidence and hope that pitted against any onslaught or at extreme situation where one seeks succor, this institution has not failed to come for one’s rescue and take all endeavor to remedy the wrong or prevent an evil from taking place or redress the grievance to the extent to which one is entitled/possible and thus proved its existence all these years and thereby keeping its mettle high in everyone’s esteem and expectation. Para 172

       (G)Constitution of India-Art.215, 217, 218-Constitution-Judiciary-Independency of judiciary-Constitutional provisions regarding the judiciary have been couched in such a manner that the process of judicial institution is kept aloof from the reach of any other wing of the State and thereby ensure confidence in the minds of the common man.

       Per F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla J: When we make a glimpse of the provisions contained under Article 124 relating to the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court falling under Chapter IV and Articles 217 and 218 relating to the appointment and condition of office of a Judge of a High Court falling under Chapter V, the provisions have been couched in such a manner that the framers of the Constitution bestowed their utmost concern to ensure that the process of judicial institution is kept aloof from the reach of any other wing of the State and thereby ensure confidence in the minds of the common man ……. Para 174

       (H)Constitution of India-Art.215, 217, 218-Constitution-Judiciary-Independency of judiciary-Any attempt from any quarters either deliberately or subvertly or negligently or recklessly or in any other allied manner to cause a dent to the judicial institution should be seriously dealt with in order to ensure that the greatness of the institution is not undermined by any one to the detriment of the public at large.

       Per F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla J: …… Any attempt from any quarters either deliberately or subvertly or negligently or recklessly or in any other allied manner to cause a dent to the institution should be seriously dealt with in order to ensure that the greatness of the institution is not undermined by any one to the detriment of the public at large. Para 175

       (I) Constitution of India-Art.215, 217, 218-Constitution-Judiciary-Independency of judiciary- The judiciary should take all appropriate measures to protect its status, glory and dignity and thereby instil confidence in the minds of everyone about its independency and effectiveness to render justice.

       Per F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla J: The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate measures are not taken to protect its status, glory and dignity and thereby instil confidence in the minds of everyone that the Judiciary will uphold its authority and status at times when people cry for justice and it will not leave any stone unturned in order to achieve that goal. Para 179

       (J)Constitution of India-Art.21, 215 -Judiciary-Independency of judiciary-Advocates-Boycot-It is high time that the Advocates Associations take a very pragmatic approach and take a firm decision to resort to any other passive method by which they can exhibit their protest in a subtle way instead of resorting to Boycott of Courts.

       Per F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla J: ………. As lawyers belong to a very high clan and as such entitled for certain privileges in the Society, while at the same time when they fail to fulfill the obligations arising out of such status which the lawyers community is obliged to reciprocatively display to the Society at large, the same would certainly gain an impression adverse to their interest. In this context, the further fact remains as to, of the whole lot of the lawyers how many of them are really interested in abstaining from Courts. Therefore, it is high time that the Associations take a very pragmatic approach and take a firm decision to resort to any other passive method by which they can exhibit their protest in a subtle way instead of resorting to Boycott of Courts. Para 188

       (K)Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961)-Advocates-Legal profession-Nobility-Legal profession gives the advocate an insight into the character of his fellow-men, into all their weaknesses and all their strength, and an opportunity to do real good by helping in the proper administration of justice and maintenance of judicial standards.

       Per R.Banumathi J:The legal profession is most honourable profession, with high traditions and with the potentialities for great good in the progress of orderely society and maintenance of law and order. Lawyers have been in the vanguard of a country’s progress and have always zealously guarded human liberties and the rule of law. For an ambitious young man of keen intellect and capacity to work hard, the legal profession holds unlimited prizes. It gives him an insight into the character of his fellow-men, into all their weaknesses and all their strength, and an opportunity to do real good by helping in the proper administration of justice and maintenance of judicial standards. Para 252

       Per R.Banumathi J:We fully endorse the submissions of learned Advocate General Mr.P.S.Raman that advocates should be ’model citizens’ and lawyers must rise up to restore the glory and their public image. Mere saying that they would go by the rules may not be sufficient. On the other hand "Self conscious engagement" on the part of the lawyers individually and also collectively is required. Para 301

       (L)Constitution of India-Art.226-Writ-Disputed question of fact- No hard and fast rule can be laid down that in case of disputed question of fact, the remedy under writ jurisdiction are to be denied.

       Per R.Banumathi J: Of course, by and large when disputed questions of fact arise, High Court would not go into such disputed facts and filing of suit may be the appropriate remedy. Where necessary facts as to negligence/excesses are available, the High Court can proceed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. No hard and fast rules can be laid down on these aspects and obviously the remedy under Article 226 would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. Para 338

       (M)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec. 129, 130, 132- Police-Public order-Use of force-Police excess-Good faith-Good faith requires not logical infallibility, but due care and attention-How far erroneous actions or statements are to be imputed to want of due care and caution must in each case, be considered with reference to the general circumstances and the capacity and intelligence of the person, whose conduct is in question- When a question arises as to whether a person acted in good faith, then it devolves upon him to show not merely that he had a good intention but that he exercised such care and skill as the duty reasonably demanded for its due discharge.

       Per R.Banumathi J: Good faith requires not logical infallibility, but due care and attention. But how far erroneous actions or statements are to be imputed to want of due care and caution must in each case, be considered with reference to the general circumstances and the capacity and intelligence of the person, whose conduct is in question. When a question arises as to whether a person acted in good faith, then it devolves upon him to show not merely that he had a good intention but that he exercised such care and skill as the duty reasonably demanded for its due discharge. Para 383

       (N)Constitution of India-Art.215, 217-Judiciary-Independency of judiciary-Police-Deployment-Court premises-It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice to regulate the entry of Police in the High Court campus-Before deploying additional strength of police force inside the Court campus, either for providing security to VIPs attending the Courts or under other circumstances, permission of the High Court ought to be obtained.

       Per R.Banumathi J: Being a self-contained institution, it is prerogative of the Chief Justice to regulate the entry of Police in the campus. That is why for deploying the Police personnel or for increasing the strength and to regulate the security by the order of the Chief Justice, Security Committee has been constituted. Before deploying additional strength (in addition to the existing personnel for security) either for providing security to VIPs attending the Courts or under other circumstances, permission of the High Court/ACJ ought to be obtained. Para 400

       (O)Constitution of India-Art.215, 217-Judiciary-Independency of judiciary-Police-Public order-Use of force-Court campus-Permision-In case of serious Law and Order problem within the Court campus, the police can take necessary steps immediately even without prior permission from the High Court/Principal District Judge and when such steps are taken, without any delay, the police have to inform the High Court/Principal District Judge about the mobilization of strength, steps taken in handling the situation.

       Per R.Banumathi J:When there is serious Law and Order problem within the campus, Police are to necessarily act even without prior intimation and even then, they are duty bound to inform the High Court/Chief Justice about mobilisation of additional strength and the steps taken in handling the situation. In so far as the Districts, the Principal District Judge/District Judge is the authority to regulate the entry of Police and security arrangements on the above lines subject to other directions issued by the High Court. Para 401

       (P)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.2-Contempt-Advocates-Arrest-Protection-Motive-In the absence of any ill-motive on the part of the police, it is not contempt when an advocate is arrested inside the Court premises- When an advocate is arrested for criminal process, to take action for contempt, mala fide on the part of the police has to be shown to indicate that there was an intention to interfere with the due course of justice.

       Per R.Banumathi J:Generally speaking, arrest of counsel in the court precincts, without motive, may not amount to contempt of court since it cannot, generally be predicated of an arrest in such cases that it constitutes a contemptuous interference with the administration of justice or that it has the tendency to cause any such obstruction. Para 424

       Only where the circumstances of arrest of a counsel show that it was in the bad faith and tended to interfere with the administration of justice, it could be held to be contempt. When a counsel is arrested for criminal process, mala fide has necessarily to be shown to indicate that there was an intention to interfere with the due course of justice. Para 426

       (Q) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.2-Contempt-Advocates-Arrest-Protection-Motive-There is no general immunity for a lawyer against his arrest inside the Court premises- Advocates are, subject to their adherence to the Code of Conduct, entitled to protection in discharging their professional duties.

       Per R.Banumathi J: There is fine distinction between discharge of professional duties and other acts of the lawyers in the campus. As an officer of the Court, lawyers may be entitled to protection in discharging their professional duties which again is subject to their adherence to the Code of Conduct. Say for instance, lawyers cannot be picked up from Court Hall or while proceeding to a court to defend a case. While discharging his professional duties as an Officer of the Court, a lawyer may be entitled to veil of protection. But to say that there is general immunity for all the activities of lawyers inside the Court premises would tantamount to conferring special privilege upon them. Within the campus or elsewhere, lawyers are not above the law. Para 427

       (R)Constitution of India-Art.21, -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec. 129, 130, 132-Right to life-Police-Public order-Use of force-Police excess- While dispersing an unlawful assembly, the police should use the minimum amount of force and cause as little injury as possible-Only after the use of minimum force by the police failed to disperse the unlawful assembly, the executive magistrate present in the secne of occurrence may cause it to be dispersed by the armed forces.

       Per R.Banumathi J:The underlying intention of section Section 129 Cr.P.C. appears to be to disperse the assembly with the minimum amount of force and as little injury as possible. If the assembly shows no disposition to disperse quietly, force may be employed to disperse it and it would be permissible to require any male person to render assistance. The section, however, emphatically declares that such male person shall not be an officer or member of the armed forces and acting as such. The section indicates clearly that in order to disperse the crowd it is permissible to arrest and confine in jail the person constituting the unlawful assembly. Thereafter, the arrested persons can be punished according to law. It is only when action taken under Section 129 fails to disperse the assembly that an Executive Magistrate of the highest rank who is present may cause it to be dispersed by armed forces. Para 453

       (S) Constitution of India-Art.14, 21, -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec. 129, 130, 132-Right to life-Police-Public order-Use of force-Police excess- Arbitrariness-In the matters of use of force or armed forces to disperse an unlawful assembly, the choice must have to be dictated by public interest, to safeguard law and order as well as public tranquility and it must not be unprincipled or unreasoned.

       Per R.Banumathi J:Even though the Police Officers in the field were the best Judges as to the action to be taken and nature of force to be used, police action is not beyond the pale of judicial review. A discretionary power is one which is exercisable by the holder of Authoritative power on subjective satisfaction of appliance of his intelligentia mind on evaluation of facts, prevailing circumstances governing the situation and imminent necessity warranting for operation of his empowerment as well as his answerability and responsibility to the situation. The aforesaid onerous public official responsibility of his, must not be arbitrary, fanciful and influenced by extraneous considerations. In matters of discretion like this, the choice must have to be dictated by public interest, to safeguard law and order as well as public tranquility and it must not be unprincipled or unreasoned. Reasonableness and non-arbitrary exercise of discretion is an inbuilt requirement of the law and the discretion must be exercised reasonably.

       Para 466

       (T) Constitution of India-Art.14, 21, -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec. 129, 130, 132-Right to life-Police-Use of force-Police excess- Arbitrariness- Power of Court-Lifting veil-The action of the police in using force to disperse an unlawful assembly and the order of lathi charge is subject to the judicial review-When a question arise as to whether the police have committed excess and exceeded their limits, the Court may lift the veil and decide whether there was good faith and whether the officer has acted with due care and attention.

       Per R.Banumathi J:We cannot accept the contention of the police that sporadic stone pelting by lawyers has created serious law and order problem which justified deploying of additional police force. ……. Of course, the police officers are vested with discretion to decide as to the proper action to be taken and as to the amount of force to be used in particular situation. Merely because such discretion is vested with the Officer, the Court cannot fold its hands in despair and declare that the powers of Judicial review is very limited. If the police acted arbitrarily in an absolute disregard of constitutionalism and the police standing orders, they can be challenged by seeking judicial review. So long as the question arises that the police have committed excess and exceeded their limits, it is always open to the Court to lift the veil and decide whether there was good faith and whether the officer has acted with due care and attention. Para 469

       Fundamental Rights are so important that they occupy unique place in all civilized societies. Therefore, any apprehension of the fundamental rights must be strictly in conformity with the Law validly enacted by a competent legislature. We are of the view, the action of the police in using the force to disperse unlawful assembly and the order of lathi charge cannot be said to be beyond the pale of judicial review. Para 472

       (U)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec. 129, 130, 132-Police-Public order-Use of force-Reasonableness-Police excess- Police carrying deadly weapons and a privileged authority to use force have a special responsibility to keep control of themselves and their fellow officers.

       Per R.Banumathi J: Police carrying deadly weapons and a privileged authority and so have a special responsibility to keep control of themselves and their fellow officers especially since a breach in relations between Police and Civilians can make their jobs impossible and lead to more widespread violence. Para 498

       (V)Constitution of India-Art.21-Human rights-Police-Custodial violence-Right to life-Any time a Police officer abuses his or her authority and inflicts undue suffering on any person, it is an affront, not only to the victim of the pain but to society as a whole.

       Per R.Banumathi J:If the judiciary has to perform its duties and functions in a fair and free manner, the dignity and the authority of the Courts has to be respected and maintained at all stages and by all concerned, failing which the very constitutional scheme and public faith in the judiciary runs the risk of being lost. The cause is of the public. It is this Police, Justice delivery system depends as one of the important wing in the administration of criminal justice. ……… Any time a Police officer abuses his or her authority and inflicts undue suffering on any person, it is an affront, not only to the victim of the pain but to society as a whole. Para 503

       (W)Constitution of India-Art.215, 217- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.2-Contempt- Limitation -Judiciary-Independency of judiciary-Contempt jurisdiction is extraordinary in character, should not be used for the personal protection of the Judges- Contempt jurisdiction is applied against any authority or person whenever there is any kind of interference in the Administration of Justice and to maintain supremacy of law.

       Per R.Banumathi J: Though Judiciary is entrusted with the function of Administration of Justice, it cannot claim superiority over other two organisations and Judiciary has been given all the requirements needed for upholding the majesty of law particularly when it has neither the power of purse nor power of the Police. So through contempt proceedings the Judiciary performs its function of proper Administration of Justice and safeguards the Rule of law. It is fairly well settled that Contempt jurisdiction is extraordinary in character, should not be used for the personal protection of the Judges. The jurisdiction is applied against any authority or person whenever there is any kind of interference in the Administration of Justice and to maintain supremacy of law. Para 504

       (X) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.2-Constitution of India-Art.215, 217-Contempt-Nature-Procedure-Contempt is sui generis. There is no prosecution, no summons or warrant, no right of trial by jury. The judge decides the matter, on the basis of his own knowledge of the facts which is the basis of his power.

       Per R.Banumathi J: Contempt is sui generis. There is no prosecution, no summons or warrant, no right of trial by jury. The judge decides the matter, as in this case, on the basis of his own knowledge of the facts which is the basis of his power. Para 519

       (Y)Constitution of India-Art.21, 226 -Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-Sec. 357-Fundamental right-Torts-Violation-Compensation-Quantum-Civil remedy- Award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for the redressal of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21 by a public servant-Award of compensation by way of public law remedy will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil Court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal Court ordering compensation under Section 357 of Code of Civil Procedure.

       Per R.Banumathi J: Award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21 by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation by way of public law remedy will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil Court, in enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal Court ordering compensation under Section 357 of Code of Civil Procedure. Para 584