AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J.—This contempt notice was issued by this Court on the report of Shri R.S. Gupta, District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani to Shri Balbir Sharma, Respondent No. 1 and Shri Dev Barat Vashishth, Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 was being proceeded against in a criminal case in the Court of Shri R. N. Singal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani. Shri Balbir Sharma filed an application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani for the transfer of his case from the Court of Shri R. N. Singal. With that application Respondent No. 1, Shri Balbir Sharma, attached a leaflet, printed on May 8,1975. The English translation of this leaflet is as under:-
Tumahare Zulam Ki Tumhise Ham Fariad Karte Hain. Mohabat Ka Naya Pahlu Yeh Aik Ijad Karte Hain. Shri R.N. Singal a Judge or a Dictator.
Ever since Shri R.N. Singal has been appointed a Judge at Bhiwani, the atmosphere of the Court at Bhiwani has changed. Whosoever visits the Court for any purpose he is maltreated. So much so he also uses filthy language, Even the Advocates have not escaped from his anger. A few days back Pt. Deep Chand Advocate of Hansi was insulted in the Court and he was directed to go out of the Court.
When nothing could be done to him even after insulting the Advocate, his attitude became more stiff(sic) and the public while attending his Court do not consider their self-respect safe. Shri R. N. Singal considers himself to be the right hand of the Government and after taking action in accordance with the orders of Shri Surinder Singh, he is of the opinion that there is none to cause any harm to him even after insulting any person from the public. The public is very much upset with the attitude of Shri Singal. Hence the authorities might look into it. Dated 8th May, 1975.
Yours Balbir Sharma, Mantri, Bhartiya Lok Dal, Bhiwani.
Chetna Press Bhiwani.
The leaflet was printed at Chetna Press Bhiwani of which Dev Brat Vashishtha, Respondent No. 2, is the proprietor.
Respondent No. 1, Balbir Sharma, in his reply to the notice submitted that be held the Courts in a very high esteem as people go there with a feeling the next to God they can get justice only from there. He was implicated in many cases falsely by the executive and always got justice from the Courts and was grateful for that. He was greatly hurt when he found that Shri R. N. Singal was acting in a very rude and undignified manner. The attitude of Shri R.N Singal towards the litigants and a large number of the members of the Bar was highly contemptuous, undignified and rude. Shri R. N. Singal, according to Respondent No. 1, was not only lowering the dignity of his Court but also of the judiciary as a whole. He further submitted-
He was giving out the impression perhaps deliberately that he enjoyed the support of the executive authority. In his Court Shri Surinder Singh son of Shri Bansi Lal and other advocates related to Shri Bansi Lal are being supported by him, enjoyed a favourite position. On the other hand, other Advocates, like Thakur Bir Singh, his brother and son and others were being insulted and humiliated by him every day.
The Respondent submitted that as political worker he was inspired by a motive of eulogising the dignity of the judicial system by pointing out the misbehaviour of Shri R. N. Singal, who was a stigma on the judiciary. Respondent No. 1 further stated that be learnt that Shri Deep Chand, Advocate, who had been insulted by Shri R. N. Singal, bad filed a complaint in the High Court which was found correct and Shri R. N. Singal was transferred, but the transfer was later on cancelled. After defending the matter in the leaflet the Respondent stated that he bad not committed any contempt "but if this Hon''ble Court finds that it does fell within the ambit of law of contempt he offers an unqualified and unconditional apology for the same."
Respondent No. 2, in his reply repeated the words used by Respondent No. 1 in his reply about the esteem in which he held the Courts and the judiciary. About the leaflet he took the plea that it was printed at his press in routine and he did not know the legal implications involved. He tendered apology in these words:-
I tender an unqualified apology for having printed it if this Hon''ble Court comes to the conclusion that the printing of this pamphlet amounts to contempt of Court. The Respondent has, how-ever, been advised that it does not amount to the contempt of Court."
Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines "Criminal contempt" as under:-
criminal contempt'' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court ; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding: or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or fends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
Every libel, spoken or written, about a Judge does not amount to contempt of Court unless it has the effect of besmearing bis judicial image in public calculated to cause apprehension in the minds of the general public that they would not get fair and proper justice in that Court thus amounting to interference or obstruction in the administration of justice. It would only fall within the ambit of the Contempt of Court if it scandalises or tends to scandalise the Court. If it amounts to a libel, pure and simple about the Judge then be can have his own remedy permitted by law. Law of contempt does not act for defending the Judges against the disparaging remarks which do not amount to reflection on their conduct in the discharge of their judicial functions. Distinction must be made between a mere libel or defamation of a Judge and what amounts to contempt of Court. Contempt proceedings are taken in public interest and not to relieve a feeling of a particular Judge It has, therefore, to be seen whether the matter printed in the leaflet amounts to scandalising the Court of Shri R. N. Singal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani or has the effect of interference or obstruction in the justice administered or to be administered by him.
The leaflet criticises Shri R. N. Singal on two aspects ; one is his conduct in the Court towards the litigants and lawyers attending his Court and the other is more serious, that is, criticising his conduct as a judicial officer. The second portion tends to show that Shri R.N. Singal acts according to the dictates of Shri Surinder Singh, who is the son of Shri Bansi Lal who, at the time of publication was the Chief Minister of Haryana. Although the whole of the leaflet has been reproduced above, but for convenience the two parts are again reproduced separately as under:-
"whosoever visits the Court for any purpose, he is maltreated. So much so he also uses filthy language. Even the Advocates have not escaped from his anger. A few days back Pt. Deep Chand Advocate of Hansi was insulted in the Court and he was directed to go out of the Court. When nothing could be done to him even after insulting the Advocates, his attitude became more stiff and the public while attending his Court do not consider their self-respect safe."
"Shri R N. Singal considers himself to be right hand of the Government and after taking action in accordance with the orders of Shri Surinder Singh he is of the opinion that there is none to cause any harm to him even after insulting any person from the public. The public is very much upset with the attitude of Shri Singal."
This distinction between an ordinary libel and one amounting to contempt of Court as referred to in Supreme Court decision in Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, is to be drawn in such cases. In The Matter of Special Reference From Bahama Islands, 1893 AC 138 a man in the Bahama Island in a letter published in a colonial newspaper criticised the Chief Justice of that Colony, which contained sarcastic allusions in a pungent language to a refusal by the Chief Justice to accept a gift of pine appels. There was a wild insinuation that he was an incompetent Judge and a shirker of work and the writer suggested in a way that it would be providential thing if he would die. In this case no judgment was delivered by the Privy Council but a very strong Board constituting of 11 members reported to Her Majesty that the impugned letter, though it might have been made the subject matter of proceeding for libel, was not, in the circumstances, calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice or the due administration of law and therefore did not constitute a contempt of Court.
In that case there was no question of scandalising the Court nor bad any imputation been made against the Chief Justice in respect of any judicial proceedings pending before him or disposed of in his Court. In Brahma Prakash Sharma and Others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the members of Bar Association Muzaffarnagar passed the following resolution against two judicial officers:
"Resolved that:-
''Whereas the members of the Association have had ample opportunity of forming an opinion of the judicial work of Sri Kanbaya Lal, Judicial Magistrate and Shri Lalta Prasad Revenue Officer.
It is now their considered opinion that the two officers are thoroughly incompetent in law, do not inspire confidence in their judicial work, are given to stating wrong facts when passing orders and are overbearing and discourteous to the litigant public and the lawyers alike.
On these facts Their Lordships of the Supreme Court (in para 17). held as under:
As regards the first part of the resolution, the allgaetions are made in general terms that these officers do not state facts correctly when they pass orders and that they are discourteous to the litigant public. These do not by any means amount to scandalising the Court. Such complaints are frequently heard in respect of many subordinate Courts and if the Appellants had a genuine grievance, it cannot be said that in ventilating their grievances they exceeded the limit of fair criticism.
If any delinquent or a wrong headed person exceeds the limits of fair comment, as has been done by Respondent No. 1, in this case, by publishing the first part of the leaflet, which, no doubt amounts to a libel, his conduct does not amount to scandalising the Court. The first part of the leaflet about the insulting and abusive attitude of Shri R.N. Singal towards the persons attending his Court cannot be taken to create any apprehension in the mind of the general public that such a conduct in any way would be an interference or arc obstruction in the dispensation of even-handed justice by Shri R. N. Singal. Any fear in the mind of the litigant public that they might be illtreated or even be abused by a Judge cannot be equated with the apprehension of the denial of justice to the general public to bring the case within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Act. In ray view the first part of the leaflet does not fall within the mischief of the contempt of Court.
From the plain language of the second part of the leaflet quoted supra when read as a whole the only inference which one can deduce is that Shri R. N. Singal considers himself as a right hand man of the Government and he takes orders from Shri Surinder Singh, who according the reply of Respondent No. 1, is the son of Shri Bansi Lal former Chief Minister of Haryana. In his reply Respondent No. 1 has further elaborated this insinuation by stating "he was giving out the impression, perhaps deliberately, that he enjoyed the support of the executive authority In his Court Shri Surinder Singh son of Shri Bansi Lal and other advocates related to Shri Bansi Lal are being supported by him, enjoyed a favourite position." It is impossible to avoid a conclusion from this that Respondent No. 1 had made an attack that Shri R.N. Singal was discharging the judicial functions according to the dictates and directions of Shri Surinder Singh, Advocate.
This, when circulated in public, amounts to creating an impression that the Judge allows himself to be influenced by outsiders in the dispensation of justice. Such a thing does not remain a simple libel but amounts to scandalising the Judge in public with an attempt to low his authority. That inference, in my view, is inescapable from the second part of the leaflet. The case from the Bahamas Islands, the facts of which have been referred to above, does not render any help to the Respondents as the criticism o the Chief Justice in that case was not in discharge of his judicial functions and this was not held to be a contempt of the Court
In the matter of In Re: Tushar Kanti Ghosh. Editor, Amrit Bazar Patrika, and Another, The facts were that an article was published in Amrita Bazar Patrika containing the following passage:-
We are glad to find in the Bengal Legislative Council yesterday there was a discussion about administration of the Calcutta High Court. Every word of Mr. N. K. Basu was true. It is so unfortunate and regrettable that at the present day the Chief Justice and the Judges find a peculiar delight in honabling with the Executive, with the result that the judiciary is robbed of its independence which at one time at racted the administration of the whole country. The old order of things has vanished away. We wish the Chief Justice and the Judges appreciate the sentiments of the public. The generation that has gone by should be an ideal to them.
The majority view expressed in the Full Bench decision was, that criticising the Judges in the manner amounted to contempt of Court and the contemners, i. e., the Editor, Printer and Publisher was indicated. Derbyshire C.J. expressed at page 426 of the report in the following words:
It seems to me to be as much a contempt of Court to say that the judiciairy has lost its independence by reason of something it is alleged to have done out of Court, as to say that as a result of a case it has decided, it is clear that it has no independence or has lost what it had. 1 am therefore of opinion that words complained of were a contempt of Court.
In para 18 of Braham Parkash Sharmd''s case, the facts of which have been given above. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:
The only portion of the resolution to which '' prima facie '' objection can be taken is that which describes these officers as thoroughly incompetent in law and whose judicial work does not inspire confidence. These remarks are certainly of a sweeping nature ana can scarcely be justified. Assuming, however, that this portion of the resolution is defamatory, the question arises whether it can be held to amount to contempt of Court. To answer this question, we have to see whether it is in any way calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice in these courts, or in other words, whether such statement is likely to give rise to an apprehersion in the minds of litigants as to the ability of the two judicial officers to deal properly with cases coming before them, or even to embarrass the officers themselves in the discharge of their duties.
Further in para 19 it was held-" We are clearly of the opinion that the contempt, if any, was only of a technical character "
In a Division Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Advocate-General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Vs. V. Ramana Rao, , the facts were that an article, containing the following passage, was published in the Andhra Herald on 29th November 1964:
The way in which the administration of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was conducted during the last few years when Justice Mr. P. Chandra Reddi was the Chief Justice provides ample evidence to substantiate Shri Brahmananda Reddi''s claim not only in the appointment of law officers of the State and the promotion and transfer of Judges but also in the matter of constituting the Benches to dispose of matters in which the matters of the executive are involved.
On these facts it was held (in para 32) as under:
This passage appears to us to be a clear contempt of the High Court. It unmistakably suggests that Benches favourable to the executive or Benches which would suit the executive have been constituted in this High Court to dispose of matters in which '' members of the executive are involved''. The true meaning and import of this passage can only be that partiality and favouritism were shown by this High Court in adjudging cases in which members of the executive were involved. This appears to us to be a serious reflection on the integrity and impartiality of the High Court. This passage castes a serious aspersion not only on the Chief Justice but also on other Judges who were members of the Benches said to have been constituted to dispose of matters in which the members of the executive were involved.............
An attack like this is bound to lower the prestige and dignity of this Court and bring it into contempt and disrepute. What is more, it is calculated to impair the confidence of the litigating public in this Court. A perusal of the entire passage headed '' Reddy Justice '' published in the issue of Andhra Herald dated 29th November 1964 only serves to confirm this conclusion. The passage can have no other meaning or implication. There is hardly anything veiled in this passage. It is an express act of scandalising this Court.
The facts of the present case are almost similar to the facts of Ramana Rao''s case and Brahma Parkash Sharma''s case (supra). It is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such a defamatory statement ; it is enough if it is likely or tends in any way to bring the administration of justice into contempt. To charge a Judge for receiving instructions in his judicial role from a person who is out of the said administration, as is Shri Surinder Singh in this case, and then circulate it in the public in a printed form through leaflet with a heading " A Judge or a dictator "takes the case beyond the limits of pure and simple libe . It amounts to scandalising the Court and brings the offence within the ambit of Section 2 (c) (i) of the Contempt of Courts Act (1971). The publication of the disparaging statement like the one contained in the second part of this leaflet will be an injury to the public as it tends to create apprehension in the mind of the public about the role of the Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions. The justification which Respondent No. 1 tried to project in his reply does not mitigate the offence because justification cannot be offered as a defence in cases of contempt of Court.
Respondent No 2 has put forward the plea of ignorance about the effect of the matter in the leaflet. Ignorance of the contents of a libelous matter or mischief it was capable of causing or of the law cannot be pleaded as a defence by a printer or a publisher. Mens rea is not a necessary ingredient of contempt. The test is not the intention of the contemner but whether the writing in fact lowers the prestige of the judiciary or brings the Judge, against whom it is intended, into public contempt by scandalising his Court or lowers the authority or dignity of his Court. A duty is cast on the printer and publisher to apply his mind and understand the meaning of the material which is being printed by Him and also the effect it is likely to make on the mind of the public. Respondent No. 2 cannot take shelter behind the plea of ignorance and he has to take the responsibility for the effect caused by the publication of the disparaging writing.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 exposed Shri R. N. Singla, in bis capacity as a judicial officer, to the public ridicule by stating that he is a tool in the hands of the son of the Chief Minister in the discharge of his judicial duties. This stultifies the image of the judicial officer and could have the effect of embarrassing him in the discharge of his functions as a judge. Both the Respondents are thus held guility of the offence of contempt of Court for scandalising the Court of Shri. R. N. Singal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents then pleaded for the discharge of the notice on the ground that both the Respondents have tendered unqualified and unconditional apology. The view of the law before the coming into force of the Contempt of Courts Ac, 1971, was that the justification and apology were incompatible. A contemner tendering unconditional apology or maintaining that his act did not amount to contempt of Court could not legitimately ask for the discharge of the notice against him Now a provision about apology has been incorporated in Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under:
(i) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law. a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a terra which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded of may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Explanation- An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
XX XX XX XX XX .
The explanation to proviso to Section 12(1 )of the Contempt of Courts Act, provides that an apology shall not be rejected on the ground of its being conditional or qualified. It does not postulate that in every case howsoever scurrilous be the attack on the Judge or the Court or howsoever serious the contempt might be a contemner can walk out of the Court by tendering a conditional or qualified apology defending his action. It lays stress on the bona fide of the apology. A joint reading of the proviso and explanation to Section 12(1) of the Act indicates that the apology should be bona fide and to the satisfaction of the Court. It is the Court which has to judge whether the apology is really an act of contrition. The words in proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act are that the apology "may be accepted." The explanation has been added only with a view to modify the previous law so that the apology should not be rejected only on the short ground that it was conditional or qualified. Beyond this the explanation does not have the effect. If apology is only a subterfuge for escaping the punishment for publishing the libelous matter amounting to contempt of Court and the man is not pentitent for his delinquent conduct then in spite of the language used in the explanation to the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, the Court can refuse to accept the apology. The matter cannot be so simple amounting to "say sorry and go". The contemner has to satisfy the Court that the apology has really emanated from the depth or his mind and he was really contrite of his action. The apology can be accepted only if the Court has formed that view about the bona fides of the apology.
Respondent No. 1 repeated the contempt by saying that Shri. R. N. Singal was giving out the impression, perhaps deliberately, that he enjoyed the support of the executive authority. By this repetition he has aggravated the contempt by his reply in Court. This was done by him presumably with a view to justify his act. Both the Respondents maintained in their replies that their action does not amount to contempt of the Court. The replies filed by them do not show if they were repentant of their action. They have put forward a very halting apology stating that if they have done any wrong, though they do not believe it to be so, they tender an apology. This is a subterfuge of every person who is faced with a charge of contempt and knows that he might be visited with the penalty. In this case I feel that apology is not the out pouring of a penitent hearts but is only a convenient device to escape the punishment. The Respondents are not really contrite of their action and the apology tendered by them is not really bona fide. I, therefore, do not feel inclined to accept it.
The contempt committed by the Respondents is neither technical nor slight nor trifling. In such cases when the acts are done deliberately to stultify the image of the Judge and to scandalise him by the persons who are litigants in the Courts, the Courts should not put premium on their activities by accepting such a conditional apology. Such delinquents when called upon to answer the charge of hurling indignity to the judicial officers, in their judicial capacity, should be suitably dealt with and such sullying attacks on judicial officers require to be put down with a firm hand.
As Balbir Sharma, Respondent No. 1 and Dev Barat Vashishth, Respondent No. 2 are guilty of the contempt of Court in scandalising Shri. R.N. Singal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani, in his judicial capacity, they are convicted for this charge. On conviction Shri Balbir Sharma is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Shri Dev Bharat vashishth is guilty on account of his being the printer and publisher of the leaflet and as such does not deserve to be treated with the same standard as that of Shri Balbir Sharma. Dev Barat Vashishth, Respondent No. 2, is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.