Allegations of bias and pre-judgement against judges, made with the intent to intimidate them, constitute criminal contempt of court.

JUDGMENT

Panda, J. :- On 13-2-1973, the learned Advocate-General of Orissa made an application to this Court under Section 15(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act (Act 70 of 1971) against the opposite party on the allegation that the contemner had committed criminal contempt of this Court by making allegations in an application presented by him at the time when judgment was delivered in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 8 of 1972 on 5-2-1973 by a Special Bench of five judges of this Court.

2. A brief account of events leading to the filling of the impugned application (hereinafter referred to as the "petition") by the contemner may now be given.

The contemner was recruited as a Munsif in the year 1947. After a chequeed career in the service, by 1968, he had been promoted on officiating basis as a District Judge. His work having been found unsatisfactory he was reverted to the post of Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) by Government and on a representation to the Chief Minister, that order was cancelled. At this stage, in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, the Court placed the contemner under suspension in exercise of powers vested in it under article 235 of the Constitution. The contemner preferred an appeal against the order of suspension and also made representation to the Governor. Contempt proceedings were initiated against him as the contents of the petition of appeal and the representation were found to contain writings amounting to contempt of this Court. After notice of contempt was issued the contemner showed cause and wanted the maintainability of the contempt proceeding to be preliminarily decided. When this Court refused to do so, he carried an appeal to the Supreme Court and in the memorandum of appeal made allegations against the Court amounting to further contempt. A Special bench of five judges was constituted to hear the charges of contempt against the contemner in the said proceeding. The case was by the Special Bench consisting of the learned Chief justice, Mr. Justice B. K. Ray, Mr. Justice B. K. Patra and two of us, that is, Mr. Justice Misra and Mr. Justice B. K. Ray. Judgment was delivery of judgment the contemner presented an application to the Court therein alleging that contempt had been committed by the learned Chief Justice and the members of the Special Bench. The said application for contempt filed by the contemner was registered in this Court as Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 3 of 1973 and by order dated 13-2-1973, a Special Bench of this Court dismissed it.

3. The contemner had alleged in the petition that the learned Chief Judges forming the Special Bench had committed contempt of Court by disposing of an administrative Proceeding against the contemner on 8-12-1972 while the Special Bench was still hearing the contempt matter against him. The leaned judges constituting the Special Bench who participated in the Full Court meeting held on 8-12-1972 came to further hear the contempt proceeding against the contemner with a biased mind when the hearing was resumed. The contemner further alleged that the charges in the administrative proceeding and in the contempt case were common. The Special Bench which rejected the plea of contempt raised by the contemner by order dated 13-2-73 came to find -

"...... The substantial questions which were debated in the judicial proceeding (Or. Cr. Misc. Case No. 8 of 1972) were the following :-

(1) Whether an appeal lay to the Governor against an order of suspension passed by the High Court against the petitioner during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding;

(2) Assuming that an appeal in fact lies to the Governor, whether the petitioner is entitled in such representation to scandalise the High Court and make to imputations which would amount to contempt of the Court;

(3) Whether any disparaging remarks made against a judge in his administrative capacity and not in relation to the discharge by him of judicial functions would amount to contempt