CHITRANJAN SINGH vs CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(All) 1067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BINOD KUMAR ROY, N. S. GUPTA
CHITRANJAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY - Respondents
CRI. M. C. P. 32 Of 1996
Decided On : 09/12/1997

Advocates Appeared:
A.KUMAR SINGH, D.K.S.Rathor, G.D.SRIVASTAVA

Headnote:
The High Court held the contemnor guilty of gross contempt of the Court and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, which has to be deposited in the Registry of the Court by 12-11-97, in failure thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
Fact of the Case:

The contemnor, a member of the Higher Judicial Service, issued notes to the Press which were published in the Allahabad Newspapers on 12-7-96. The notes contained allegations against the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, the present Hon'ble Chief Justice and the other Hon'ble Judges of the Court then constituting the Administrative Committee and also the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. The Administrative Committee of the Court considered the notes and resolved to suspend the contemnor with immediate effect in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the contemnor's allegations were scandalous and rendered him guilty of gross contempt of the Court. The Court rejected the contemnor's submissions that the allegations were inseparable and that the Supreme Court alone was competent to take cognizance of the matter. The Court also rejected the contemnor's request to summon witnesses to contradict his allegations.
Issues: 1. Whether the contemnor's allegations were scandalous and rendered him guilty of gross contempt of the Court? 2. Whether the allegations were inseparable and the Supreme Court alone was competent to take cognizance of the matter? 3. Whether the contemnor's request to summon witnesses to contradict his allegations should be allowed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the contemnor's allegations were scandalous and rendered him guilty of gross contempt of the Court. The Court noted that the contemnor had attempted to ridicule and scandalise the functioning of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, the present Hon'ble Chief Justice and the other Hon'ble Judges of the Court then constituting the Administrative Committee and also the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. 2. The High Court rejected the contemnor's submissions that the allegations were inseparable and that the Supreme Court alone was competent to take cognizance of the matter. The Court held that the gravamen of the allegations, which were scandalous, were by and large against the Court and that the Supreme Court's direction in D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, clearly connotes in itself the competence of the High Courts to initiate proceedings in contempt for violation of the 11 requirements laid down by the Apex Court. 3. The High Court rejected the contemnor's request to summon witnesses to contradict his allegations. The Court held that the contemnor had not made out a special case for summoning the witnesses as Court witnesses.
Final Decision: The High Court held the contemnor guilty of gross contempt of the Court and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, which has to be deposited in the Registry of the Court by 12-11-97, in failure thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

( 1 ) ON 12/07/1996 the Northern India Patrika, Allahabad, a daily Newspaper published the following news :-"the controversy over the transfer of legal advisor to the Governor, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Pandey took a new turn when the member of the higher judicial service levelled allegations against the Allahabad High Court and the Chief Justice of India Mr. A. M. Ahmadi. It may be recalled that a nine member administrative committee of High Court Judges had recently passed a resolution to transfer Mr. Pandey to Gorakhpur. Mr. Pandey is the Working President of All India Judges Association. In a signed statement Mr. Pandey alleged that the H. C. Committee recommended his transfer in order to oblige the Chief Justice of India who wanted his men to be posted as Legal Advisor. "the committee sent the name of only Mr. V. K. Dixit, Additional District Judge of Barabanki, whereas on earlier occasion a panel of five names used to be sent. Mr. Pandey alleged that Mr. Ahmadi came close to Mr. Dixit as Deputy Director of U. P. Judicial Research Institute, Mr. Dixit paid travel expenses of Mr. Ahmadis wife on one occasion. Mr. Pandey further alleged that Mr. Ahmadi in his capacity as President of the Indian chapter of International Jurist Organisation made Mr. Dixit Secretary of the Lucknow chapter of IJO. According to Mr. Pandey, Mr. Dixit was attached to the Allahabad High Court as OSD two months before the IJOs Lucknow convention on September 16 and 17, 1995 whereas the services of Mr. Dixit were taken for a Non-Government Organisation (NGO) his salary was drawn from the office of the Barabanki District Judge. At that time Mr. Dixit was serving as Additional District Judge, Barabanki. Mr. Pandey further alleged that due to the efforts of Mr. Ahmadi, Mr. Dixit went to U. K. Tour recently. Later Mr. Ahmadi joined the tour. After Mr. Ahmadis return the High Courts administrative committee held a special meeting and "transferred me to Gorakhpur as ADJ. " The communication should have been sent to the U. P. Governor because I was his Legal Advisor. Only the Governor was competent to relieve me. He recalled that the former Governor Mr. Moti Lal Vora had recommended "the merger of my service to the Governors Secretariat. "mr. Pandey today announced that he was quitting the judicial service for Govt. He acceded to serve a social organisation known as Bharat Parishad. " (Underlining is ours)

( 2 ) THE publication of the aforementioned news was viewed with seriousness and the following clarification was issued by the Court, which was also published in the Newspaper :-"allahabad High Court clarifies the transfer of Mr. C. B. Pandey from Raj Bhawan and refutes the insinuations appearing in the press. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Pandey has continued at Lucknow for nearly 14 years since the year 1982 except that for one year he remained at Kanpur between 24-6-1986 to 13-7-87. Since 6/01/1990 he has continued in the Raj Bhawan in the capacity of either Assistant Legal Advisor or Additional Legal Advisor or Legal Advisor to the Governor and till today the same position continues. His reversion to the regular line and posting at Varanasi Judgeship as Civil Judge in June, 1993 stood cancelled on the request of the Secretary to the Governor vide his communication dated 3-7-1993. The result being that Mr. Pandey continued in the Raj Bhawan. The Administrative Committees subsequent resolution adopted in their meetings held on 16-8-1994 , 1-2-1995 and 25-5-1995 deciding to revert him to the regular line also remained ineffective and he continued in the Raj Bhawan. The Courts notification dated 13-6-1995 reverting him to the regular line and posting him in Gorakhpur Judgeship was also not carried out. In view of the resolution of the Administrative Committee dated 7-8-1995, the Secretary to the Governor was requested to obtain explanation from Mr. C. B. Pandey for non-compliance of the transfer order. This, too, was not complied with. Thereafter the Principal Secretary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(All) 1067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADBINOD KUMAR ROY, N. S. GUPTACHITRANJAN SINGH - AppellantVersusCHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY - RespondentsCRI. M. C. P. 32 Of 1996Decided On : 09/12/1997

Cases Referred (15)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BINOD KUMAR ROY, N. S. GUPTA
CHITRANJAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY - Respondents
CRI. M. C. P. 32 Of 1996
Decided On : 09/12/1997