IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Though judicial hypersensitiveness is not warranted but angelic silence on the part of a Judge is also not expected vis-a-vis an infraction of majesty of law.
2. It is not enough that there should be some technical contempt of court but it must be shown that the act of contempt would otherwise substantially interfere with the due course of justice which has been equated with "due administration of justice"
3. As regards imposition of punishment as against a contemner it is totally dependent on to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. No generalised guidelines can be had nor a set of general principles in the matter of award of punishment can be formulated.

Headnote:(i) Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Sections 2(c) and 13-Contempt of Court-False statement in affidavit deliberately made-Two suits pending in two different Courts-One Court passing injunction against defendant from alienating disputed property-Defendant moving Supreme Court for transfer of suit-In affidavit defendant contemner stating property was not alienated nor he had intention to alienate-In fact property stood alienated-Contemner affirmed a false affidavit and rendered himself guilty of contempt of Court-Unconditional apology would not exonerate contemner-A fine of Rs. 2500 failing payment of which imprisonment for one month imposed.
       Held : There is no plea of justification and the learned advocate appearing for the respondents without any reservation whatsoever, pleaded unconditional apology before this Court and it is on this perspective that this apology is to be considered as to whether the same is otherwise proper and sufficient remedy in the matter under consideration. Undoubtedly, the matter is rather serious and there is not an iota of doubt as regards the falsity of the averments by reason of the preponderance of the documentary evidence. But since the matter is pending in the Civil Court, we are not expressing any opinion insofar as the document of sale is concerned and as such further proceeding in the matter will have to be only on the assumption of correctness and not on its falsity, though, however, subject to further orders of the Civil Court. But the fact remains as to whether this particular statement has in any way impeded the course of justice by reason of which certain definite advantage has been gained by the respondent. The Transfer Order has been passed and it is only in connection with the clarification application that such a statement has been made in an affidavit. As noticed above, hypersensitiveness on the part of the law Courts, if it does not obstruct or impede the course of justice, as such cannot be appreciated. This is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts to punish an offender for his contemptous conduct or obstruction to majesty of law. Needless to record that to violate the order of the court or to obstruct or trend to obstruct is a quasi - criminal offence as such the courts, in the matter of award of punishment ought to be rather cautious in its approach even if the court is otherwise satisfied as to act or conduct of the party. The approach of the Court is thus different in the matter of imposition of punishment against a contemnor - the same being totally dependent on to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. No generalised guidelines can be had nor a set of general principles in the matter of award of punishment can be formulated. The Court must otherwise come to a conclusion that on facts that the act tantamounts to obstruction of justice which, if allowed, would even permeate into our society - it is only then that this power ought to be exercised. While, it is true that the statement made in the affidavit has been introduced as and by way of a denial but the fact remains such a statement has in fact been made in an affidavit before this Court. Litigant public ought to be extremely careful and cautious in the matter of making statements before Courts of Law. Whether, however, the respondent has obtained a definite advantage or not is wholly immaterial in the matter of commission of offence under the Act, though the same would be a relevant factor in the context of punishment to be imposed against a contemnor. It is on this score, the learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that there cannot be any defence neither the respondent desires to put forth any excepting however, pleading unconditional apology before the Court. (Para 18)
       Having a conspectus of the whole issue and the facts, we do feel it inclined to hold that the respondents cannot escape the liability of being held guilty of contempt by reason of a definite and deliberate false statement. The statement on oath is a fabricated one and contrary to the facts and there exists no extenuating circumstance to come to any other conclusions than as above. (Para 19)
       While it is true that contextual facts do not depict of drawing any advantage or even any attempt to gain any advantage through the statement as made in the affidavit noted hereinbefore, but there is no dispute as such on the factum of a false and fabricated statement finding its place in the affidavit. The statement cannot be termed to be a mere denial though reflected in the affidavit as such. Positive assertion of a fact in an affidavit known to be false cannot just be ignored. It is deliberate act. It is not a mere denial of fact but a positive assertion and as such made with definite intent to pass off a falsity and if possible to gain advantage. This practice of having a false statement incorporated in an affidavit filed before a Court should always be deprecated and we do hereby record the same. The fact that the deponent has in fact affirmed a false affidavit before this Court is rather serious in nature and thereby rendered himself guilty of contempt of this Court as noticed hereinbefore. This Court in our view, would be failing in its duties, if the matter in question is not dealt with in a manner proper and effective for maintenance of majesty of Courts as otherwise the Law Courts would lose its efficacy to the litigant public. It is in this perspective that we do feel it expedient to record that by mere tendering of unconditional apology to this Court would not exonerate the Contemnor in the contextual facts but having regard to the nature of the act of contempt, we do deem it fit to impose a fine of Rs. 2500/- each so as to sub-serve the ends of justice against the respondent-contemnors in default of payment of which they (each of them) will suffer simple imprisonment for one month. (Para 24)
       (ii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sections 2(c) and 13-Contempt of Court-Punishment for-Purpose of contempt jurisdiction-Courts duty to assess situation as regards factum of any interference with course of justice or due process of law-Substantial interference with due course of justice and not technical contempt that would warrant imposition of punishment-No generalised guidelines can be had nor a set of general principles in the matter of award of punishment can be formulated.
       Though judicial hypersensitiveness is not warranted but angelic silence on the part of a Judge is also not expected vis-a-vis an infraction of majesty of law. The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 has been engrafted in the Statute Book for the purpose of bringing in a feeling of confidence of the people in general for due and proper administration of justice in the country. It is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts and as such, it must be exercised with due care and caution and in cases of larger interest for due administration of justice. (Para 1)
       The right to inflict punishment for contempt of court in terms of the Act of 1971 on to the Law Courts has been for the purposes of ensuring the rule of law and orderly administration of justice. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law since the image of such a majesty in the minds of the people cannot be led to be distorted. The respect and authority commanded by Cours of Law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect for the judiciary is undermined. It is true that the judiciary will be judged by the people for what the judiciary does, but in the event of any indulgence which even can remotely be termed to affect the majesty of law, the society is bound to lose confidence and faith in the judiciary and the law courts thus, would forfeit the trust and confidence of the people in general. (Para 10)
       As regards the question of punishment, be it noted that punishment in one matter cannot be the guiding factor for punishment in another. Punishment has a co-relation with facts and in each case where punishment is imposed, the same must be the resultant effect of the acts complained of - more serious the violation, more severe is the punishment - and that has been the accepted norm, in matters though however within the prescribed limits. It is not enough that there should be some technical contempt of court but it must be shown that the act of contempt would otherwise substantially interfere with the due course of justice which has been equated with "due administration of justice". Substantial interference with the course of justice is the requirement of the statute for imposition of punishment. There is no manner of doubt that the words due course of justice used in Section13 is wider in scope than the words due course of any judicial proceeding or administration of justice used in sub-clause (ii) or (iii) of Section 2(c). Puts an obligation on to the court to assess the situation itself as regards the factum of any interference with the course of justice or due process of law. (Paras 20, 21 & 23)

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-Though judicial hypersensitiveness is not warranted but angelic silence on the part of a Judge is also not expected vis-a-vis an infraction of majesty of law. The Contempt of Court Act of 1971 has been engrafted in the Statute Book for the purpose of bringing in a feeling of confidence of the people in general for due and proper administration of justice in the country. It is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts and as such, it must be exercised with due care and caution and in cases of larger interest for due administration of justice.

2. In this matter, this Court by its Order dated 7th September, 1998, issued notice to the respondents for wrong assertion of facts pertaining to the sale of immovable property, in an affidavit filed before this Court.

3. Incidentally, the affidavit spoken of earlier, was filed by the Respondent No. 1 in an interlocutory application (IA No. 1/94) in a Transfer Petition being Civil No. 745//93 by way of an objection on behalf of the respondents herein against an application for clarification moved by the petitioners herein. The factual backdrop though not strictly relevant but is being noticed herein below for the purposes of assessment of the situation in its proper perspective.

4. The litigation between the parties has a chequered career. Proceedings both at Calcutta and at Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh have been initiated by the parties and diverse orders were obtained including an Order of Injunction passed on 14th May, 1993 by the Calcutta High Court restraining the respondents herein from transferring or alienating or encumbering or dealing with immovable properties standing in the names as mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Petition (the High Court Petition) without the leave of the Calcutta High Court.

5. The factual matrix further depict that the respondents herein however moved this Court for transfer of the original suit from Calcutta to Kanpur in which an application for clarification was filed by the petitioners herein and it is in connection therewith that the respondents have averred in the petition of objection verified by an affidavit on 9th February, 1994 to the following effect :-

"......... it is further incorrect to say that the petitioner in any manner has committed disobedience of the order passed by the Court or sold away the property or in any manner taking any steps to sell the property. The contentions to the contrary are false and fictitious. ............"

6. This statement is stated to be a deliberate falsehood and the said false statement was made want only as the respondents knew that the property was said long prior thereto.

7. Mr. Ray, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing in support of the petition for contempt contended that the statement as above cannot but the termed to be a motivated falsehood and thus has to be dealt with utmost seriousness as otherwise it will not be possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense of the term and to the sanction of those who approach the Courts with a firm hope that the truth will ultimately prevail. Mr. Ray contended that anyone who takes recourse to fraud or falsehood deflects the Courts of judicial proceedings and amounts to interference with the administration of justice. Before however, adverting to the contentions raised as above, it will be worthwhile to note the order as passed in the transfer petition by this Court on 1st October, 1993. The order is set out as below :-

"This petition is to seek transfer of OS 166/93 titled Ajanta Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Murray & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. pending in the Calcutta High Court. The aforesaid suit was said to have been filed on May 12, 1993. Before hand Murray & Co. and a few others had filed suit No. 649/93 in the Court of Civil Judge, Nagar Kanpur, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from acting as directors of the plaintiff company, i.e. Murray & Co. and also from selling the properti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 185

Cases Referred (4)