Back
2005 Supreme(All) 1771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUSHIL HARKAULI, R. K. AGRAWAL,rakesh TIWARI, D. P. SINGH ANDTARUN AGARWALA, JJ.
RAM CHANDRA SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ALLAHABAD - Respondents
Cr. Contempt 29 Of 2005
Decided On : 09/19/2005
Disrupting court proceedings and displaying unruly behavior in the presence of a five-judge bench constitutes criminal contempt, which threatens the orderly functioning of the legal system and shakes public confidence in the judiciary.
Headnote:
Contempt - Advocate's Misconduct - Criminal Contempt Act, Section 2(c) - High Court Rules, Rule 3 - Summary: The court found the advocate guilty of contempt for disrupting court proceedings and disturbing the functioning of a five-judge bench. The advocate's unruly behavior, including shouting, thumping the desk, and rebuking other lawyers, was deemed to lower the authority and dignity of the court. The court imposed a three-week simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a provision for the sentence to be revived if the advocate commits contempt again within the next three years.
Fact of the Case:
The advocate was charged with ex-facie contempt of the High Court for disrupting court proceedings and displaying unruly behavior in the presence of a five-judge bench. Despite being given the opportunity to file a reply, the advocate did not do so and expressed regrets for the incident in open court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the advocate guilty of contempt for disrupting court proceedings and disturbing the functioning of a five-judge bench. The advocate's unruly behavior, including shouting, thumping the desk, and rebuking other lawyers, was deemed to lower the authority and dignity of the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the advocate's behavior constituted criminal contempt under the relevant legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the advocate's conduct of disrupting court proceedings and not allowing the court to function normally amounted to criminal contempt, which threatened the orderly functioning of the legal system and shook public confidence in the judiciary.
Final Decision: The court imposed a three-week simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the advocate, with a provision for the sentence to be revived if the advocate commits contempt again within the next three years.
( 2 ) THE earlier facts are as follows: on 2-9-2005 a Bench of five Honble judges passed the following order:
"this Bench assembled today at 2. 00 p. m. for hearing the Criminal Contempt Case no. 25 of 2004. On the last hearing on 12th August, 2005. we had framed charges against 10 contemner-Advocates and the Court directed the registry to serve the charges on the said contemners. Todays date was fixed by us on 12th August, 2005. Today, when the case started, Shri P. N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Rajendra Prasad Mishra, one of the contemners, made an application supported by affidavit, praying that the charges framed against Rajendra Prasad Mishra be recalled and he may be discharged from the contempt proceedings. Shri Saxena completed his arguments and thereafter we also heard Shri Sudhir Agarwal learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri vijay Mishra. Government Advocate for the respondents. As soon as Shri Sudhir agarwal completed his arguments, Shri Ram chandra Sharma, who is one of the contemners. against whom we had framed charges on 12th August, 2005. stood up and started saying that he also wants to make some submissions. We immediately told him that we will hear him. In between Shri U. N. Sharma and Shri A. B. L. Gaur. learned Senior Advocates who are appearing for other contemners informed the Court that charges have been served on the contemners represented by them only on 31 st August, 2005 and they require some time to file their objections or affidavits. On this request, we observed that we will grant time to all such contemners who want to file their objections to the charges or affidavits. On making this observation, Shri Ram Chandra Sharma, the contemner said that he should immediately be heard. He stated that he is not being heard by the Bench and injustice is being done. Thereafter, he started shouting. The bench repeatedly asked him to cool down his voice and make his submission in normal voice. The Bench further observed that whatever objection he wants to file, he may give in writing or file the affidavit. The Court further observed that he may also take time to file his objections like other contemners. On this observation, Shri Sharma said that he does not want any time and started shouting at a very high volume thumping the desk with intention to brow-beat the court. He further shouted that the Court should speak in Hindi because he only knows Hind. The Court observed that in case he cannot control his speech and gesture, a counsel may be engaged by him. Shri sharma flatly refused to engage any counsel and further said that he cannot lower down his voice and the Court is bound to hear him. Again, thumping the table, he said that the Court is bound to hear him even if he does not file any objection in writing, to the charges. When some lawyers tried to pacify him, he rebuked them. We also noticed that Shri Vinod Chandra Dubey, the ex. President of the District Bar association, allahabad stood up and wanted to pacify him but he snubbed him and did not accede to his request. Shri Ram Chandra Sharma has prima facie conducted himself in a manner which amounts to criminal contempt, lowering down the authority and dignity of the court. In above view of the matter, we, after being satisfied that prima facie, criminal contempt has been committed by Shri Sharma, frame following charges against him:-
"that you Ram Chandra Sharma, son of late Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, during the course of hearing in Criminal Contempt no. 25 of 2004 today at 2. 00 p. m. , started shouting on a high volume and after thumping the desk, made unruly scene by speaking in a loud voice that you be heard by the court and the Court should only speak in hindi as you do not understand the language
