The main legal point established in the judgment is that an advocate's conduct of making false, baseless, and mischievous allegations against the court and its judges, thereby scandalizing and lowering the authority of the court, amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

ORDER

Vishal Mishra, J. - These suo motu contempt proceedings have been initiated against respondent - Manoj Kumar Shrivastava who is an Advocate as per the order by the then Honble Chief Justice dated 10.01.2013.

2. The respondent herein is a petitioner in Writ Petition No.7247 of 2007 seeking a direction to the respondent No.1-Vikram University to quash the appointment of respondent No.2-Dr. Pratishtha Sharma to the post of Lecturer in Language (Lab) and to appoint the petitioner on that post. He was consistently making allegations in writing against Honble Judges at Indore Bench submitting repeated applications/ communications which were prima facie baseless and mischievous.

3. Therefore, in pursuance to the direction issued by the court on 14.09.2012 in Writ Petition No.7247 of 2007 to prepare an index of the complaints made from time to time by the respondent and to be placed before the Honble Chief Justice, along with the record, for orders. Pursuant thereto, the matter was placed before the Honble Chief Justice along with copy of 14 complaints, as reflected from the order sheet dated 09.01.2013. However, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2009 and it was challenged in Writ Appeal No.427 of 2009. The same was allowed and the matter was remanded back for fresh hearing. In pursuance thereto, the same was placed before the Single Bench of this Court and vide order dated 04.03.2011, the concerning Judge had directed the matter to be placed before another Bench. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.09.2011, it was again directed to be placed before another Bench. In pursuance to the order of Honble Acting Chief Justice dated 05.11.2011, the matter was placed before Honble Shri Justice N.K. Mody.

4. The complaints which were filed by the respondent were dated 25.07.2011, 01.12.2011, 10.12.2011, 03.07.2012, 21.08.2012, 24.08.2012 and 25.09.2012. In complaint dated 02.05.2012, the respondent stated that the Honble Court has not decided the Writ Appeal No.300 of 2010 after properly examining the record. But the same being a judicial order could not have been examined on administrative side. With respect to complaint dated 03.07.2012, it simply alleges what proceedings have taken place in the court on 22.11.2011 when Writ Petition No.7247 of 2007 was taken up for hearing. In the complaint, the respondent has raised an apprehension regarding his life and property to be in danger which appears to be quite misplaced. Another complaint dated 21.08.2012 is nothing but a copy of subsequent complaint dated 24.08.2012 which after due consideration has been filed vide approval dated 10.09.2012 under the orders of the Acting Chief Justice. The complaint dated 25.09.2012 again contains baseless aspersions against the Honble Judge at the same time, praying for expeditious hearing in Writ Petition No.7247 of 2007. The complaint dated 24.08.2012 was forwarded by the Principal Registrar Bench Indore to the Principal Seat under the instructions of Honble the Administrative Judge, Bench Indore. The same was placed before Honble Acting Chief Justice. After perusal, it was directed that the same be filed.

5. After perusal of the complaints dated 25.07.2011, 01.12.2011, 10.12.2011, 03.07.2012, 21.08.2012, 24.08.2012 and 25.09.2012, it would reveal contemptuous conduct of the petitioner, the respondent herein, in making false, baseless and mischievous allegations against Honble Judges of this Court which clearly amounts to obstructing the course of administration of justice and maligning the reputation and prestige of the court and thus, lowering the dignity of the court. Therefore, the Principal Registrar (Judicial) in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of M.Y. Shareef vs The Honble Judges of The High Court of Nagpur, AIR 1955 SC 19 and Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court, (2003) 3 SCC 427 placed a note sheet for initiating of contempt proceedings against the respondent before the Honble Chief Justic