In Re: Jagdish Chandra Srivastava

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This Criminal Contempt application has been registered under Section 10 read with Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971") against contemnor Jagdish Chandra Srivastav, Advocate, on a Reference letter dated 29.1.2011 made by Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Additional District Judge/FTC-I, Kushinagar, Padrauna complaining about conduct of contemnor shown on 28.1.2011 during hearing of Criminal Revision No. 34/07 Chandra Shekhar v. State. The relevant extract of the letter is reproduced as under:

Today on 28.1.2011 after sitting on dias at 10.30 A.M. Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava Advocate, entered the Court room and just after entry shouting in a high pitch asked a question from the Court, without hearing him how it was written in the order dated 25.1.2011 that arguments of both sides have been heard and how the file was fixed for decision on 28.1.2011.... Hearing the aforesaid statement of the Court Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava started shouting very loudly and threatened the Court that he would see how the Court passes judgement in the case. Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate continued shouting in the Court for about 5-7 minutes, which (his utterance) could not be heard clearly due to noise because hearing shouts of Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, a number of litigants, court staff and some Advocates have entered the Courtroom. Body language and face guesture of Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava was clearly exhibiting that he was using derogatory words against the Court. Thus Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava Advocate obstructed the judicial work of the Court for ten minutes. Hearing shouts of Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastavas, about 50 litigants and Advocates gathered in the Court room due to noise. At that time Court''s staff including Reader Sri Ravindra Chaurasia, Orderly Sri Sushil Dubey, Court Moharrir Sri Gopal Singh, Ahalmad Sri Santosh Chaubey, Stenographer Sri Janardan Pathak were present. Besides Secretary of Bar Sri Rakesh Pandey Advocate, Senior Advocate Sri Mahant Gopal Das, Junior counsel of Sri Hari Shankar Dikshit, Sri Rajesh Srivastava Advocate (who visits Kushinagar every Thursday, Friday and Saturday from Gorakhpur district and practices in the matters of M.A.C. on behalf of Insurance Company) were present. Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava was told by the Court if he wanted to argue then he should first file his Vakalatnama and then his arguments would be heard, otherwise if the party Amawas, if so desires, may himself address to the Court. But Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava paid no attention to the Court''s observation and inside the Court room continued shouting. It seems that Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava with an intention to delay the proceedings in the case does not allow to pass decision. It is for this reason, neither he filed his Vakalatnama in the case nor argued, nor the party put his case before the Court. In this way Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate has obstructed the Court work for about ten minutes by his indecent, derogatory conduct and making noise. Simultaneously he has insulted the Court."

Supporting the aforesaid incident the learned Judicial Officer has also sent statements of Ravindra Prasad Chaurasia, Reader, Janardan, P.A., Santosh Chaubey, Appeal clerk. Notice was issued to the contemnor on 14.10.2014. The contemnor filed reply vide affidavit dated 6.4.2015 wherein he raised the objection that the contempt proceedings are barred by limitation. The objection with regard to limitation raised by contemnor has already been considered and decided on merits vide order dated 6.4.2015, wherein this Court has rejected the said objection and held that the proceedings are not barred by limitation by placing reliance on Apex Court''s decision in Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2763 : (2001) 107 CompCas 76 : (2001) 4 CompLJ 161 : (2001) CriLJ 4175 : (2001) 6 JT 330 : (2001) 5 SCALE 127 : (2001) 7 SCC 549 : (2001) 2 UJ 1464 : (2001) AIRSCW 3025 : (2001) 5 Supreme 763 .

On merits of the allegations contained in Reference letter, the contemnor said that a complaint was also made by Presiding Officer to Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the matter was examined by Disciplinary Committee in case No. 38 of 2011 and the Committee found complaint made by Judicial Officer, without any basis, and dropped the proceedings. A copy of said order is on record which shows that the Bar Council issued notice to complainant i.e. the Judicial Officer concerned, who did not appear or submitted his response, whereupon on the basis of statement and affidavit given by contemnor, the matter was dropped. In any case, the proceedings of the Bar Council are neither binding on this Court nor otherwise constitute an evidence in support of the contemnor but his attempt is clearly to denounce the correctness of the allegations made by the subordinate Court in the Reference in question.

In para 9 and 10 the contemnor then proceeded to tender apology but this Court did not find his apology genuine and bona fide, hence declined to accept the same and by order dated 6.4.2015 framed following two charges against him:--

"That you Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, admitted on 28.01.2011at 10:50 a.m. in the Court of Ashwani Kumar Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar, Padrauna, while the Court was hearing Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2007 Chandra Shekhar v. State, you questioned the authority of the Court regarding the words "AADESH PATRA ME KAISE LIKH DIYA GAYA HAI KI UBAI PAKSHON KI BAHAS SUNI GAYI TATHA PATRAWALI KO 28.01.2011 KO KAISE NIRNAY HETU NIYAT KAR DIYA GAYA" aforesaid act tantamount to under mining the authority of Court. Thus you have committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(C) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (Hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") punishable under Section 12 of the Act."

"That you Jagdish Chandra Srivastava on 28.01.2011 at 11:50 a.m. entered in the Court of Ashwani Kumar Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar, Padrauna, while the Court was hearing Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2007 Chandra Shekhar v. State, started shouting in loud voice, threatened the Court that he will see that house the Court will pass order in the Court, the indecent words used, could not be heard on account of noise, however, from visible expression of your face clearly reflected that you are using abusive words against the Court and in this way you have created hindrance in Court proceedings for ten minutes, the aforesaid act was committed in presence of Court staff, litigants, advocates and in this way you have not only scandalized the Court by visible expression, lower down the authority of the Court, obstructed administration of justice. Thus you have committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(C) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (Hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") punishable under Section 12 of the Act."

In reply to the aforesaid charges, a counter affidavit has been filed by contemnor, denying allegations in entirety. It is stated that neither he was appearing in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2007, having not been engaged as counsel therein nor appeared in the Court at any point of time on 28.01.2011, and hence there was no reason or justification for the deponent to do such act as alleged. With regard to the evidence of Court staff, the contemnor said that they are subordinate officials of Presiding Officer and their statements having not been recorded in the presence of contemnor, are not creditworthy. It is further said that the statements are not true. With respect to the presence of Advocates mentioned in the order, the contemnor in para 6, though defended himself, stating that he had no knowledge in the matter but did not say anything otherwise with respect to the aforesaid Advocates. Para 6 of his affidavit is reproduced as under:

"6. That in reference at 28.01.2011/29.01.2011 it is mentioned that Advocates Shri. Rakesh Pandey, Shri. Mahant Gopal Das, Junior Advocate of Shri Hari Shanker Dixit, Shri Rajesh Srivastava and Mohd. Sidiqqi were present in the court room who alleged to have seen the deponent acting as charged. Since deponent is innocent and never committed the acts as charged and seems to have been falsely implicated through the reference for the reasons of which he has no knowledge, it is necessary in the interest of justice that this Honourable court may kindly be pleased to order for serious enquiry about the correctness of the reference."

Lastly, he has tendered apology.

Counsel for the contemnor stated that his defence may not be considered to be hindrance in not tendering apology, but it is only for the purpose of apprising the Court about the correct facts.

We have already stated that we have given full opportunity to contemnor and his counsel to adduce any evidence etc. but he stated at the outset that except the aforesaid averments in the affidavit, nothing further is required to be filed and the Court may proceed to decide the matter.

Now the only question up for consideration in this case is whether denial by contemnor of allegations made by concerned Presiding Officer of the subordinate Court can be said to be sufficient to doubt veracity of the said allegations and to discharge the contemnor, or in the absence of any evidence adduced by contemnor, the allegations contained in Reference made by Judicial Officer be treated to be correct.

The Judicial Officer himself has said that contemnor did not file any Vakalatnama in the aforesaid Criminal revision. Therefore, contemnor''s defence that he has not filed any Vakalatnama and was not representing any party in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2007 does not give any new fact since it is already mentioned in the order dated 28.1..2011passed by judicial Officer in which conduct of the contemnor has been mentioned at length. It is quite obvious that the proceedings of Court, if are disrupted when the Court is functioning, a large number of persons must have been present there who witnessed the incident. The Presiding Officer has carefully mentioned names of some of the Advocates. The contemnor has not brought on record evidence of such Advocates that no such incident took place. Even otherwise, it is not his stand in reply to the charge that those Advocates were not present in the Court. With respect to the statement of officials of the Court, he simply says that they are subordinate to Judicial Officer but that would not dilute sanctity of the statement, particularly when the matter relates to obstruction in the administration of justice, by making scurrilous allegations against the Judicial Officer and creating a scene in the Court. In the absence of any otherwise evidence brought on record by contemnor, we have no hesitation in holding that the charges levelled against him are proved.

It has neither been argued before us nor there is anything showing that the allegation made against contemnor, if taken to be true, do not constitute criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of Act 1971. An obstruction in the functioning of the Court by shouting and making allegations against the Presiding Officer is nothing by a great insult to the Court, having effect of lowering down its authority.

In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Revashankar, AIR 1959 SC 102 : (1959) CriLJ 251 : (1959) 61 PLR 343 : (1959) 1 SCR 1367 , the Court said that in similar circumstances, aspersions made, prima facie, show that they were much more than mere insult to learned Magistrate. In fact, they scandalized the Court in such a way as to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of people in Courts.

Insulting a Judge engaged in judicial work or imputing corrupt practices to him in discharge of his official duties is a very grave contempt. It is nothing but scandalising the Court. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of A.P. Vs. Dr. A. Gopal Menon, Secretary, Vigyanapuri Allottees Welfare Association, (1996) 2 ALD(Cri) 386 : (1996) 3 ALT 296 said:

"The test for determining whether this kind of contempt has been committed is to find out whether the act in question has a tendency to pollute the fountain of justice and whether it has a tendency to destroy the confidence of common man in the administration of justice."

If an impression is made in the minds of public that Judges of the Court act on extraneous considerations in deciding cases, confidence of the litigants, in particular, and, public in general, in the administration of justice is bound to be undermined. No greater mischief than that can possibly be imagined.

The allegation of mala fide, bad intention against a Judge in respect to a judicial orders clearly amounts to scandalizing the Court and is a "criminal contempt". Wilificatory criticism of a Judge functioning in the court is nothing but a clear criminal contempt since it not only affects the ''administration of justice'' but also lowers the authority and dignity of the Court. It creates a distress in the public mind as to the capacity of Judge to meet out even-handed justice. Reckless and scurrilous attack made against a Judge, imputing oblique motives in discharge of his judicial functions and suggesting unholy acquaintance and constant contacts with one of the litigant to favour him/them for granting relief amounts to criminal contempt.

In Re: S. Mulgaokar, AIR 1978 SC 727 : (1978) 3 SCC 339 : (1978) SCC(Cri) 402 : (1978) 3 SCR 162 , the Court said that judiciary cannot be immune from criticism, but, when that criticism is based on obvious distortion or gross mis-statement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for judiciary and destroy public confidence, it cannot be ignored. When there appears some scheme and a design to bring about results which must damage confidence in judicial system and demoralize Judges by making malicious attacks, anyone interested in maintaining high standards of fearless, impartial, and unbending justice will feel perturbed.

Of late, we find a deep increase in tendency of advocates in making allegations against Presiding Officers of the Courts and thereafter also try to justify their allegations by filing transfer applications with such allegations. In the context of allegations of bias etc. against Presiding Officers made in transfer applications filed under Section 24 C.P.C. Or 407 Cr.P.C., the Court, time and again has held that apprehension of bias must be shown bona fide and reasonably. It should be substantiated by material placed before the Court. Reminding the duties of advocate, in Smt. Sudha Sharma Vs. Ram Naresh Jaiswal, AIR 1990 MP 320 : (1990) MPJR 112 : (1990) 35 MPLJ 225 : (1990) MPLJ 225 , the Court said that a foremost duty casts upon the counsel concerned while drafting and making allegations against the Judge concerned, is to take utmost care and caution in making wild allegations against the Presiding Judge. The counsel should realise that he is officer of the Court. Introducing fanciful and imaginary allegations for harbouring apprehension that fair and impartial justice would not be done should be avoided. Mere suspicion by party is not sufficient. There must be reasonable apprehension based on material.

In Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, AIR 1998 SC 3299 : (1998) CriLJ 4606 : (1998) 6 JT 571 : (1998) 5 SCALE 393 : (1998) 7 SCC 248 : (1998) 2 SCR 87 Supp : (1998) AIRSCW 3229 : (1998) 7 Supreme 473 , the Court said that superior Courts, i.e. High Court as also the Apex Court is bound to protect the Judges of subordinate Courts from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear.

If there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial Officer of subordinate Court, it is bound to shake confidence of litigating public in the system and has to be tackled strictly. The damage is caused not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge, but, also to the fair name of judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language, and, at times, blatant condemnatory attacks, like the present one, are often designedly employed with a view to tame a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice.

We cannot ignore the fact that much cherished judicial independence needs protection not only from over zealous executive or power hungry legislature but also from those who constitute, and are integral part of the system. Here is a case where an Advocate has drafted an application since the litigants do not appear to understand the legal complexity much. The Advocate forgetting the higher status conferred upon him, making him an Officer of the Court, has chosen to malign Judicial Officer of the Subordinate Court.

An Advocate''s duty is as important as that of a Judge. He has a large responsibility towards society. He is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an Advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent. He should conform to the requirements of law. He plays a vital role in preservation of society and justice system. He is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law. He must ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. He, who practices law, is not merely a lawyer, but acts as moral agent. This character, he cannot shake off, by any other character on any professional character. He derives from the belief that he shares sentiment of all mankind. This influence of his morality is one of his possession, which, like all his possession, he is bound to use for moral ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court. Advocacy is a respectable noble profession on the principles. An Advocate owes duty not only to his client, but to the Court, to the society and, not the least, to his profession.

We do not intend to lay down any code of conduct for the class of the peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly we have no hesitation in observing that no Advocate has any business to condemn a Judge merely on the basis of his caste, creed or religion or for any other similar trait or attribute. If there is something lacking on the part of a Judicial Officer touching his integrity, Advocates, being Officers of the Court, may not remain a silent spectator, but should come forward, raising their voice in appropriate manner before the proper authority, but there cannot be a licence to any member of Bar to raise his finger over the competency and integrity etc. of a Judicial Officer, casually or negligently, or on other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be maligned commenting upon his integrity and honesty. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest words. No one can justify it in any manner. Thinking of intrusion of such thought itself sounds alert. It is a siren of something which is not only very serious, but imminent. It is a concept or an idea which should not have cropped up in anybody''s mind, connected with the system of justice, and if has cropped up, deserves to be nipped at earliest, else, it may spreads its tentacles to cover others and that would be a dooms day for the very institution.

Wild imaginary allegations against conduct of Judicial Officer without having any material to substantiate the same cannot be tolerated, inasmuch as, it not only brings into disrepute the entire justice system but is likely to cause serious erosion in the confidence of public in case such tendency is not snuffed at the earliest. The Judicial Officer/Judges had no platform to stand and clarify the circumstances in which the order has been passed by them. They had no platform to defend themselves. The strength of judiciary comes from the strong public opinion which it has in the system. If unsubstantiated flimsy imaginary fanciful allegations made by a party, who did not find its order in its favour, it will demolish the very foundation of the system of justice. Every order passed by the Court will be in favour of one of the party and against another. The loosing party cannot be allowed to challenge the very integrity of Judicial Officer in passing an order and that too without any material to support such a allegation. If we allow such a trend to remain unnoticed, or condone the same without any appropriate action, it will not only encourage such tendency amongst other and but also resultant situation may result in a serious blow to the system of administration of justice, which is one of the founding pillar of constitutional scheme and has to be protected by all legal and reasonable means.

In the present case the contemnor shouted in open Court in the presence of public in large including Advocates, their Clerks, litigants etc. Making insulting remarks against Presiding Officer and thereby obstructing the function of Court for quite some time, in our view is a serious act, constituting criminal contempt. Except bare denial nothing has been placed on record to support the defence taken by the contemnor and, therefore, as we have already said, we are clearly of the view that the two charges levelled against the contemnor stand proved.

Now comes the question of sentence. It is pointed out that earlier criminal contempt proceedings were initiated in Criminal Case No. 1 of 2011 but the proceedings were dropped by the Court on contemnor tendering unconditional apology which was accepted by Court showing magnanimity. Probably, this act of condonation shown by Court encouraged the contemnor to repeat contemptuous act under the impression that whenever any proceedings would be initiated on mere tendering of apology, the matter would be dropped.

In the present case, the contemnor first tried to take advantage of a technical plea of limitation to wriggle out of the situation and when failed, firstly disclaimed the correctness of all the allegations and made imputation of making wrong statement by three officials of the Court who gave statements supporting the allegations made by learned Judicial officer in the order dated 28.1.2011 accompanying the Reference letter. Conduct of contemnor, therefore, in our view, does not warrant any leniency and there exists no mitigating circumstance(s) to impose lessor punishment upon him.

Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances as discussed above, we impose punishment of simple imprisonment of three months besides a fine of Rs. Two Thousand. In case of non-payment of fine within fifteen days, the contemnor shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Further, in exercise of regulatory powers to maintain discipline, peace and atmosphere of cordial and smooth functioning in the District Court, we restrain the Contemnor, namely, Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate for a period of three months, from entering the premises of Civil Court/District Judgeship, Kushinagar at Padrauna. The aforesaid period shall commence from 1.6.2015.

The conduct of aforesaid Contemnor Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate shall remain under constant watch and surveillance of the District Judge, Kushinagar in respect of his functioning in Civil Court campus whenever he starts functioning after expiry of aforesaid period. If the District Judge finds any otherwise conduct, act or omission on the part of aforesaid Contemnor-Advocate, he shall report the matter suo motu to this Court forthwith.

The contempt application is disposed of accordingly with the directions as above, in respect of aforesaid Contemnor.

Let a copy of this order be sent to District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna.

Contemnor states that the sentence may be deferred to enable him to avail further remedy.

We, therefore, suspend our order of punishment of sentence of simple imprisonment made against the contemnor for a period of two months to enable him to file appeal under Section 19 of Act 1971, if so advised. In case no appeal is filed, and if filed and no otherwise order is passed by the appellate court, the contemnor shall surrender himself after expiry of the period of two months i.e. on 27.7.2015 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna who shall take steps for getting the sentence served out by the contemnor.

So far as amount of fine is concerned, the contemnor may deposit the same either in this Court or with the District Judge Kushinagar or with the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kushinagar at Padrauna by 31.7.2015.