Court on Its Own Motion vs Gabrial Kujur

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—The instant case suo motu contempt proceeding has been initiated on the report of the District Judge, Gumla and on the basis of the report submitted by the Registrar General and the minutes of the Zonal Judge, Hon''ble Justice Vikramaditya Prasad., as he then was, dated 27.4.2004. Notice to show cause was issued to the concerned Advocate, Mr. Gabrial Kujur (hereinafter referred to as the '' contemnor'').

It appears that on 2.1.2004 the contemnor entered in the court room of the Munsif, Gumla and scolded him. The contemnor used unparliamentary language against the Munsif and threatened him to assault and also to make effort to remove him from the post of Munsif. The Munsif, thereafter, reported the matter to the District Judge, Gumla stating all the facts . He also stated that at the last moment the President of the Bar Association, Gumla came to his court to whom he apprised all the facts. It was further reported by the Munsif that one Title Suit No. 39/98 was pending in his court in which the contemnor was appearing. On 20.12. 2003 judgment in the said case was delivered which went against his client. Being infuriated by the defeat of his client, he did such contemptuous act . The District Judge, thereafter, made a preliminary inquiry in the matter by issuing show cause notice to the contemnor as to why the matter be not reported to the High Court. The contemnor filed his reply to the said show cause notice. Meanwhile the Munsif, Gumla sent a photo copy of the letter written by the contemnor to his client on 7.1.2004. In that letter the contemnor admitted the fact that he scolded the Munsif in his court and also used unparliamentary language .

The District Judge, on going through the show cause fild by the contemnor, found the incident true. The matter was, thereafter referred to the Zonal Judge of Gumla Judgeship who opined that it was a fit case in which contempt of courts proceeding can be initiated against the concerned advocate.

In reply to the show cause notice issued by this court the contemnor filed show cause . In para 3 of the show cause he has tendered his unqualified and unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the Munsif, Gumla. In para 4 and 5 he has stared that he is aged 70 years and has been in practice since 1969. Due to some unavoidable circumstance, the. present situation arose in the court of the Munsif, Gumla. In para 7 he has categorically stated that on the relevant date, due to hypertension some mistake took place by him as at that time he was beyond his control. In para 9 of the show cause he has stated that because of his ill-health some times he looses his temperament and starts argung the case in a loud voice which causes embracing situation. He has stated that he has now left the practice and he is taking rest and spending his time under the treatment of some doctor.

Learned counsel appearing for the contemnor very fairly conceded that the contemnor has committed mistake and for that he has tendered his unqualified and unconditional apology. Learned counsel further submitted that the contemnor has now left his practice and he is taking rest because of his ailments.

It is well settled principles of law that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution is wider and the High Court , in exercise of that jurisdiction can deal with the matter relating to contempt summarily and adopt its own procedure.

In the case of In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner), , similar question arose for consideration before a Full Bench of the Supreme Court. While considering the matter the Supreme Court observed:

The rule of law is the foundation of the democratic society. The Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence Judiciary is not only the third pillar, but the central pillar of the democratic State. In a democracy like ours, where there is a written constitution which is above all individuals and institutions and where the power of judicial review is vested in the superior courts, the judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform, viz., to oversee that all individual and institutions including the Executive and the Legislature act within the frame work of not only the law, also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart front'' the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society. If the judiciary is to perform its. duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with the extra ordinary power of punishing those who indulged in acts whether in side or outside the courts, which tend to undermine their authority and bring them in disrepute and disrespect by scandalizing them and obstructing them from discharging their duties without fear or favour. When the court exercise this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual Judge who is personally attacked or scandalized, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation is itself shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded.

The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the contemnor is guilty of the offence of the .criminal contempt of the Court for having interfered with and obstructed the course of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language. The Court sentenced the contemnor for his conviction for the offence of criminal contempt and he was also suspended from practicing as an advocate for a period of three years.

9 In the case of Bar Council of India Vs. High Court of Kerala, , their Lordships while considering the contempt jurisdiction of the court held as under:

Law of contempt both as regards its interpretation and application had posed complex questions before the Court." No branch of law possibly has been more misconstrued or misutilised within the contempt jurisdiction," observed Lord Denning. The contempt Jurisdiction originates from the Ecclesiastical Courts which goes back to the middle ages while ethics and taw were, treated to be at par.

Inherent power of the Court to punish a person for committing contempt of the court is universally recognized. The law of contempt is governed by the statutes including the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 or other statutory laws relating thereto as, for example, the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the powers of the superior courts are engrafted in the Constitution by reasons of Articles 129 and 215 thereof providing that the Supreme Court and the High Court being courts of record shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of themselves. Apart from constitutional and statutory provisions, the inherent powers of the courts in that behalf is recognized. See R.L. Kapur. v. State of Madras

The country is governed by rule of law. Disobedience of the court''s order has, thus, been held to strike at the very root of the said concept having regard to the system upon which our government is based. See Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar.

An advocate is allowed considerable freedom in conducting his case. In the interest of the client, he can even cast reflection upon the character, conduct or credit of parties or witnesses with impunity, provided such comments are relevant to the issue before the court and the same are not defamatory in character. So long the conduct of the advocate does not amount to insult to the court, he may not be held up for contempt.

Summary power of punishing for contempt is used sparingly and only in serious cases. Such a power a court must of necessity possess but its usefulness would depend upon the wisdom and restrained with which it is exercised. It is not used to suppress methods of advocacy. See Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. R.A.C. at page 270.

17 When a person is punished by the superior court, the right of freedom of speech conferred upon a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India cannot stand as a bar as the powers of this Court under Article 129 and those of the High Court under Article 215 are independent and not subject to Article 19(1)(a); particular when Clause (2) thereof excludes the operation thereof. See D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v. Hon''ble the Chief Justice of India

In the instant, case, in our considered opinion, the contemnor is guilty of the offence of criminal contempt of the court having interfered with and obstructed the course of justice by using unparliamentary language against the Munsif and threatened him to assault and further to make efforts to remove him from the post of Munsif. The aforesaid conduct of the contemnor has not been seriously refuted by him .

However, considering the age of the contemnor and also the fact that he has tendered unqualified and unconditional apology and has now left practice we think it proper to debar him from practicing in any court henceforth and we do so. Such punishment, in our view, would meet the ends of justice. This proceeding is, accordingly, disposed of.