2018 Supreme(P&H) 1542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.M.S. Bedi, Hari Pal Verma, JJ.
Court on its own motion – Petitioner
Versus
Manish Vashishth and another – Respondents
CROCP 9 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-05-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt – Derogatory remarks against sitting Judge of High Court on Social media by an Advocate – Sentenced to one month imprisonment.
Contempt – Suo motu Powers – High Court has got wide inherent power to punish for contempt not only of Subordinate Courts but of the High Court itself

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contemptuous Publication – Derogatory remarks against High Court Judge on Social media amounts to contempt – An advocate whose three cases were dismissed by a High Court Judge posted a article in his facebook account (though later deleted) alleging that the judgment passed against him by the High Court Judge was not speaking and a better decision could have been written by a Magistrate and that the Judge had not uploaded the judgment as the Judge might not have understood what was to be written – Such a derogatory remark is contemptuous on the face of it as such the contemnor is held guilty of having committed contempt of Court – Further, held; contemnor has not justified any apology or remove contemnor sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period one month.

       Approach of Contemnor

       The contemnor had admitted all the facts mentioned in the contemptuous publication annexure P-8 but disputed the origin of the said facebook publication – We had expected that the contemnor being an Advocate with a reasonable good standing and with the legal wisdom to his credit would come forward with the true facts and would show some remorse for having expressed his anguish in the heat of the moment after three cases were decided against him but we were surprised by the extent and vehemence of resistance of the contemnor who has not come forwarded with any defence or plea of remorse but has gone to the extent of complaining each and every step of every individual who had come in touch with the proceedings for Contempt of Court i.e. the referring Judge, first puisne Judge who referred the contempt petition for adjudication, the staff of the High Court who provided him 102 pages out of 103 pages of the record and even complained about the jurisdiction of this Court by challenging the procedure being adopted – He admitted all the facts but disputed the origin of the publication from his facebook and even refused to give his password in confidence of the Court pertaining to his facebook account – The above said approach was an attempt to elicit truth, probability of the allegations of contempt but the contemnor has gone to the extent of finding error in the jurisdiction of this Court and the procedure adopted by this Court – He has gone to the extent of raising a plea that this Division Bench cannot adjudicate the contempt proceedings wherein the Court itself is a party and the Court could not act as a prosecutor on behalf of the Court on its own motion as well as 'a Judge' to decide the controversy between the parties.

       Delete post belonged to contemnor

       In view of the above circumstances, we arrive at a conclusion that the contemptuous publication Annexure P-8 had originated from the facebook account of the contemnor – It was made public but after the same had been read by the general public, the same was deleted – It is also established on the record from the affidavits of Ishwar Singh Yadav, Jagparvesh and Jai parkash that the said publication had been downloaded by them and forwarded to their Advocate as attachment with e-mail – It is established from the report of Registrar Computerization that whenever the post in the attachment was clicked, it automatically directed the user to the facebook account of Manish Vashishth It has never been the defence of the contemnor that somebody has manipulated the original publication but his case has been that of a 'complete denial' – It is not out of place to observe here that the entire incriminating material had been supplied to the contemnor and rules of natural justice have been followed – The contemnor had filed reply to the affidavits of Ishwar Singh Yadav and Jai Parkash and had also not filed any objections to the report of the Registrar Computerization – The contemnor did not made any prayer to cross-examine of the persons who had furnished affidavits – We have considered the contention of the contemnor that the above three persons are not in his friend list but in his reply to the affidavits he has not mentioned about the privacy status of his facebook account to allege that Ishwar Singh Yadav, Jagparvesh and Jai Parkash or general public had been blocked in any manner – The contemnor being a journalist had been issuing various posts meant for the consumption of general public – In view of the said circumstances, we arrive at a conclusion that the contemptuous publication, annexure P-8, is a publication of the facebook account of the contemnor – The same had been erased after its publication but had been downloaded by Ishwar Singh Yadav and Jai Parkash and forwarded to their Advocate Mr.H.P.S – Ghumman and has not been tampered by anyone. (Paras 20 & 21)

       (B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Suo motu powers of High court – Jurisdiction of a court being a prosecutor and a judge of its own cause – Held;

       (i) High Court as a Court of record possesses inherent power and jurisdiction, who is a special one, not arising or derived from Contempt of Courts Act.

       (ii) That under Article 215 of the Constitution, no law made by a Legislature could take away the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court nor it could confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority.

       (iii) High Court has got wide inherent power to punish for contempt not only of Subordinate Courts but of the High Court itself.

       (iv) That Section 15 prescribes procedure for taking cognizance but it does not affect the High Court's suo moto power to take cognizance and punish for contempt of Court.

       (v) The proceedings of Contempt of Court are of a peculiar nature and are quasi criminal in certain aspects but the jurisdiction is not exercised as part of original criminal jurisdiction of the Court – It is settled principle of law that in summary proceedings, Court is free to evolve its own procedure consistent with fair play and natural justice.

       (C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Power of High Court – Cross examination of contemnor – The contemnor is not in a position of an accused, it is open to the Court to cross examine the contemnor and even if contemnor is found to be guilty of contempt, the Court may accept apology and discharge notice of contempt whereas tendering of apology is no defence to the trial of a criminal offence. (Para 14)