Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.K. Tare, and Shivdayal, JJ.
Guljarilal and others, In re:
Misc. Cr. C. No. 255 of 1967
Decided On : 14-3-1968
To sum up the law on contempt of Court, may be recapitulated thus: (1) contempt of Court, which is characterised as 'scandalising' a Court or a Judge, consists of an act done or writing published which is calculated to bring the Court or the Judge into contempt or lower his authority. A reflection on the Court imputing dishonesty, partiality, unfairness or incompetence is contempt by scandalising. Mens rea is not a necessary constituent of contempt. Truth of the allegations constituting contempt is not a good defence. (2) Judges and Courts are alike open to criticism, if reasonable argument or expostulation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law or public good. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful comments of ordinary men. Judges must remember that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the utility of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum, which they deserve in their judicial conduct. It is not by stifling criticism that confidence in Courts can be created. Temperate criticism in good faith is immune. (3) The purpose of punishment for contempt of Court is not to protect the Court or the Judge from a repetition of attacks and interferences but to protect the public from the mischief they will incur if the authority of the Court is undermined or impaired. (4) There is a clear distinction between a libel and a contempt. The former is a wrong done to the Judge personally, while the later is a wrong done to the public. If the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice, it can be punished summarily as contempt. But, otherwise, a defamatory attack on a Judge is only a libel and it is open to him to proceed against the libellor in a proper action, if he so chooses. 5) In that connection, the nature and the circumstances under which the allegations are made, the extent and the character of the publication and similar other considerations have to be taken into account. (6) A complaint or report about a judicial officer of his dishonesty, partiality or conduct unbecoming of a Court, made to an authority to whom he is subordinate, is not contempt of Court if all reasonable care is taken by the maker to keep it confidential, and he gives no publicity to it. It is necessary that the maker discloses his identity by stating his name and address, and gives such details as he may possess. 24 MPLC 293, 1952 SCR 425, AIR 1966 AP 167, AIR 1961 Pat. 1, ILR 1959 AP 1282, AIR 1967 Cal. 153, AIR 1965 SC 745, 1953 SCR 1169, 1952 SCR 425 discussed. 1959 SCR 1367, 1966 JLJ 950, AIR 1961 J & K 76, AIR 1960 Orissa 132, AIR 1961 Cal, 495 & AIR 1961 Punj. 113 referred to. [Para 18
(2) Contempt of Court Act, 1952 - S. 3 - defamatory statements against a judge not amounting to contempt of Court - the judge may institute action under Tort or under section 500, I.P.C.
Where the imputations, even if they are false, do not constitute contempt of Court, the judge against whom the imputations are made is free to institute an action under the law of torts, thereby putting the persons making the imputations to proof of the allegations they made against him, or to prosecute them for the offence punishable under the Penal Code. 1959 SCR 1367, relied on. [Para 19
Shiv Dayal, J.
1. This is a complaint under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act by Shri S.R. Agrawal, Civil Judge, 2nd Class, and Magistrate 1st Class, Ambah, for taking action against Shri Gulzarilal, Shri Hardayal, Shri Atul Arvind Kamthan and Shri Devendra Tyagi,(hereinafter called the respondents). All the four are Advocates practising at Ambah, within the judicial district of Bhind.
2. It is alleged in the complaint that Shri Agrawal (hereinafter called the petitioner) has been a judicial officer since 14 December 1952 and has been the Civil Judge 2nd Class and Magistrate 1st Class at Ambah, since 14 June 1965. All the respondents are influential persons of Ambah town and Tahsil. The petitioner received copies of three complaints from the District Judge, Bhiod, with a demi-official letter dated 13 July 1967. These copies have been filed along with the complaint. The first one is a complaint dated 22 June 1967 addressed to the High Court and the District Judge, Bhind, while the second is a complaint dated 11 July 1967 addressed to the District Judge, Bhind. (They will hereinafter be referred to as annexure 1 and annexure 2, respectively). The petitioner contends that in those complaints allegations of "dishonesty, unfairness, favouritism, misbehaviour and illegal judicial work" have been made against him, which allegations are per se defamatory; they further amount to contempt of Court. They contain allegations in respect of pending and disposed of cases. The allegations are:
"Scandalous, unwarranted, defamatory, contemptuous and have been made relating to character, conduct and judicial and legal ability of the complainant and have been made to obstruct and interfere in the course of justice and due and proper administration of law for the personal motive of the accused persons".
The petitioner further adds that :
"These allegations tend to create distrust in the popular mind and impair confidence of people in my Court. These allegations tend to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability and fairness of the complainant and they have caused embarrassment in my mind in the discharge of my judicial duties".
The petitioner asserts that all the adverse allegations against him in those complaints are false, baseless and have been made and published intentionally and mala fide. It is also averred that the complaints being typed ones must have been got typed by 'others, and that they were sent without confidential covers. It is further alleged that the respondents personality spoke to the District Judge, Bhind, on the 6th and 7th July on the telephone from Ambah Post Office in the presence of Post Office staff. The District Judge visited Ambah on 11 July 1967 and held an enquiry against the petitioner and recorded statements of all the four respondents and some other members of the Bar Association, Ambah. It is then alleged that the respondents themselves gave wide publicity to the complaints in the Ambah town and through their registered clerks and agents with the result that when the District Judge arrived in the Court at Ambah, there were about 300 persons in the Court precincts. The petitioner says that according to his information, the matter of those complaints became the talk of the Ambah town long before 11 July 1967.
3. The learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, contended that contempt of Court has been committed:
(1) in the complaints themselves, which were sent to the High Court and the District Judge;
(2) by getting them typed by others;
(3) by speaking to the District Judge on the telephone; and (4) by, otherwise, giving publicity to the contents of the complaints.
4. The third annexure is a copy of an anonymous complaint addressed to the Honourable the Chief Justice. In their reply, the respondents have disowned any connection with this anonymous complaint. They have expressed their complete ignorance of it and have said so in their affidavits. We have
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
