In Re: Ram Kumar Singh

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Sri Ram Kumar Singh, Contemnor has filed an affidavit of reply to the charge and stated at the Bar that he does not propose to file anything further and the matter may be heard.

We have heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special counsel appointed by the Court to assist it and the Contemnor in person.

The Contemnor-R.K. Singh served notice dated 21.08.2014 under Section 80 C.P.C. which is addressed to the following:

"1. Dhananjai Yashwant Chandrachud, the Chief Justice Allahabad High Court, Allahabad.

The Chief Justice of India.

The Supreme Court of India through its Registrar."

The contents of notice, in brief, are that he is a practicing Advocate in Allahabad since 1983. He sent a notice dated 21.07.2014 to noticee No. 3, i.e., Supreme Court of India through its Registrar making a complaint against the Chief Justice of this Court alleging that he is a pro-Government Chief Justice.

In the notice dated 21.07.2014, sent by Contemnor to Supreme Court, allegations were made that noticee No. 1 has pro-Government character. Noticee No. 2 is the head of noticee No. 3 and is responsible for every wrong or right administration of noticee No. 3, therefore, is also made party in the notice.

The notice dated 21.08.2014 is being given since the noticees failed to give any lawful response. By abuse of their power they have injured reputation and profession of notice giver. It was also stated that noticees have caused irreparable loss of reputation to notice giver together with financial loss of Rs. 1,000/-. In the penultimate paragraph it was stated that noticee No. 1 be declared pro-Government officer and unfit for administration as Chief Justice; noticee No. 2 is acting in aid of noticee No. 1 and noticee No. 3 has been captured by corrupt gang of persons and that it has become a place/office where illegal acts and men of power are legalized.

On 26.07.2010 a notice was served in Inquiry No. 18 of 2014 upon the Contemnor, which, according to him, was wrongly served, hence returned by him on the same day. It is alleged that inquiry was set up on a false complaint made under the name of R.K. Singh, without giving full address and enrollment number. In the said complaint it was stated that due to pressure of Chief Justice, who wanted to appoint his own person on Class-III posts at Hardoi Judgeship, the complaint was made.

The actual contents of penultimate paragraph numbered as (a), (b) and (c) in the notice dated 21.08.2014 are reproduced as under:

"(a) That the Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud be declared Pro-government officer and that he is unfit for administration as C.J.

(b) That opposite party No. 2 is acting in aid of opposite party No. 1.

(c) That opposite party No. 3 has been captured by the corrupt gang of persons and that it has become place/office where illegal acts of men of power are legalized."

The language of notice and its contents apparently show a blatant disregard not only to this Court but Supreme Court also and there was a clear attempt to undermine the authority of Chief Justices as well as Courts making serious allegations.

This notice dated 21.08.2014 was placed before Litigation Committee consisting of Hon''ble Arun Tandon, J., Chairman and Hon''ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J., Member, who after examination of document, prima facie found that it tantamounts to ex facie contempt and, therefore, expressed their opinion of placing matter before appropriate Bench having jurisdiction to hear criminal contempt matters, so as to examine and do the needful in accordance with law.

Pursuant thereto, the matter was registered as Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 19 of 2014 and came up before a Division Bench consisting of Hon''ble Devendra Pratap Singh and Hon''ble Kalimullah Khan, JJ. On 05.12.2014 the Court issued notice to Contemnor directing him to appear in person.

On 28.01.2015 the Contemnor was granted time to file reply and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel was nominated to assist the Court. No reply whatsoever was filed by Contemnor, hence this Court on 06.04.2015 framed following charge:

"That you Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate, sent notice dated 21.08.2014 under Section 80 of code of Civil Procedure to Dr. Dhananjay Yashwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, stating therein that present Chief Justice is pro-government Officer, pressurised the office for making appointment of his own persons etc. By writing so, you have by words written, not only scandalized the Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad but also undermined authority of this Court. You have committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(c) Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of Act, 1971."

Today the Contemnor has filed his affidavit in reply wherein also there is no remorse or apology to what he has said but in fact the contents of notice whereupon contempt proceedings were drawn have been reiterated in further detail in various paragraphs of the affidavit.

In the last paragraph of affidavit he said that though copy of charge framed against him was directed to be supplied on 06.04.2015 but it has not been provided to him till date. The affidavit of reply, therefore, may not be specific being based on general idea. We pointed out this aspect to the Contemnor and enquired, whether he has gone through the charge and wants some further opportunity or time to give reply but he declined and stated that whatever he wants to say has been given in the form of affidavit and the Court should pass final order in the matter. Hence, we proceed to decide this matter.

After a careful perusal of the affidavit, though the Contemnor on his own has not argued anything except of saying that whatever he has submitted in the affidavit, be considered by Court and appropriate order be passed but, on our own, having gone through the contents of affidavit thoroughly, we find that the Contemnor has raised following issues in defence:

"(I) The allegations against Hon''ble Chief Justice are in respect of act in administrative capacity and, therefore, does not amount contempt.

(II) The allegations made are founded on truth.

(III) Sending notice to Hon''ble Chief Justice of this Court as well as the Apex Court does not amount to publication and it is the Court who has made it public by issuing notice, therefore, he is not responsible."

The contents of notice which we have already noticed above makes it clear that the Contemnor has gone to the extent of making sweeping and wild allegations against the highest judicial authority in the State as well as the Country. The defence taken in this regard is that no judicial proceedings and orders are referred and the allegations are in respect to the functioning of Hon''ble Chief Justice in administrative functions, hence it will not amount to a criminal contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1971").

We propose to consider this issue first.

Section 2(c) defines "criminal contempt" as under:

"2(c) "criminal contempt" means that 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 tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;"

Publication of any matter or doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court is one aspect within the ambit of term "criminal contempt" vide clause (i). In this clause whether this publication or act of Contemnor which has the effect of scandalizing or lowering the authority or tends to scandalize or tends to lower the authority, has been committed in judicial proceedings or otherwise is not a necessary condition as no such words have been used therein.

In clause (ii) something which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere the due course of any judicial proceedings amounts to criminal contempt.

Clause (iii) deals with another situation where publication or any other act of Contemnor interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner also amounts to criminal contempt.

At the first flush one may have an impression that all the three clauses in substance talk of similar situation or conditions but in fact they are different.

A similar argument as has been advanced in the present case by Contemnor, was also raised in Rachapudi Subba Rao Vs. Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 755 : (1981) CriLJ 315 : (1981) 2 SCC 577 : (1981) SCC(Cri) 566 : (1981) 2 SCR 320 . In paras 13 and 16 the Court said:

"13. It is noteworthy, that in the categorisation of contempt in the three Sub-clauses (i) to (iii), only category (ii) refers to "judicial proceeding". Scandalizing of Court in its administrative capacity will also be covered by sub-clauses (i) and (iii). The phrase "administration of justice" in Sub-clause (iii) is far winder in scope than "course of any judicial proceeding", The last words "in any other manner" of Sub-clause (iii) further extend its ambit and give it a residuary character. Although Sub-clauses (i) to (iii) describe three distinct species of ''criminal contempt'', they are not always mutually exclusive. Interference of tendency to interfere with any judicial proceeding or administration of justice is a common element of Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii). This element is not required to be established of a criminal contempt of the kind falling under Sub-clause (i).

In the instant case, the contempt committed, though not in connection with any pending proceeding, primarily and squarely falls under Sub-clause (i) though the aforesaid residuary phrase in Sub-clause (iii) may also be attracted. Unfounded imputation of mala fides, bias, prejudice or ridiculing the performance of a Judge or casting aspersions on his integrity as has been done by the appellant in the notice in question-are always considered to mean scandalising the Court, and lowering the authority of his court by bringing him and his office into disrespect and disrepute. Vilification of the Judge, even in administrative matters or decided judicial matters, may amount to "criminal contempt" under Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(c) as it lowers or tends to lower the authority or dignity of the Court by undermining public confidence in the capacity of the judge to mete out even-handed and impartial justice."

(emphasis added)

The exposition of law laid down in the above judgment is a complete answer to the first objection raised by Contemnor that if the allegations are made in reference to administrative functions of the Judges, it would not amount to a criminal contempt. This defence, therefore, has no substance and is rejected.

The second ground of defence taken by petitioner, in fact, brings into picture Section 13(b) of Act, 1971, as substituted by Act 6 of 2006. It reads as under:

"13. Contempt not publishable in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force-

(a) ....

(b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide."

When the Contemnor was required to show as to how he substantiate his allegations, except of referring to his averments contained in affidavit, he did not place anything further before this Court.

We have gone through the entire affidavit carefully but do not find anything which may substantiate wild allegations made by Contemnor against the Chief Justice of this Court. In para 4 of the affidavit, he has referred to some orders passed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba in Contempt No. 1924 of 2010 pending at Lucknow and it is said that the order was not complied by the office. Similarly it is alleged that in Writ Petitions No. 7200 (SS) of 2013 and 4367 (SS) of 2013 order was passed by Court on 04.03.2014 but flouted by ministerial staff for the benefit of Government. The Contemnor applied for inspection of record but the same not sent to inspection. It is further said that the State Government made a false statement in the affidavit filed before Hon''ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba and order for discharge was passed in Contempt No. 1924 of 2010. Having said so, the Contemnor has said:

"The government is so assured by the Hon''ble CJ that it hardly cares for the standing orders against it."

What is the basis for making such reckless allegation, is not disclosed in the entire affidavit.

In para 5 he admits that in notice dated 21.08.2014, sent under Section 80 C.P.C., he has made allegations against the Chief Justice as (a) pro-Government Chief Justice; and, (b) addicted of mal administration for his wards.

In para 6 the Contemnor has said that in Writ Petition No. 1298 (M/S) of 2013, while admitting proceedings have been stayed upon false ground of pendency of civil suit in the Civil Court though no suit is pending in Civil Court. We could not understand as to what for reference of aforesaid writ petition and the orders passed therein has been made though the same do not justify allegations made against the Chief Justice.

In para 9 of the affidavit it is said that the Chief Justice interdicted with the right of deponent to inspect record of Writ Petition No. 4367 (SS) of 2013 and this was told to him by a Clerk of the Service Section on mobile phone. The name of the Clerk is not disclosed. No evidence placed to fortify this assertion.

We required the Contemnor, whether he proposes to adduce any evidence to prove the statement made in para 9 but he did not make any such request and remains silent. The allegations, therefore, in para 9 are clearly unsubstantiated and vague.

In para 10 it is said that there was a Contempt No. 18 of 2014 but the Chief Justice has got the record destroyed and created new case of Contempt No. 19 of 2014 (present one) for vengeance against deponent.

In this regard we called upon the record of Contempt No. 18 of 2014 and the report submitted by Computer Section through Sri Pramod Kumar, Section Officer (Fresh Filing), explained the entire thing as under:

"It is humbly submitted that no criminal contempt exists ever bearing No. CRCL 18/2014 as the number was wrongly generated and the same number has been used to feed to CRLP No. 22481/2014.

On 20/11/2014 a criminal contempt was brought by an official of Contempt Section. After generating number CRCL 18/2014 (encl. 1), it came to our knowledge that the case belonged to Lucknow Jurisdiction and hence the file was returned back to the section.

Since the number was generated and file was returned back to contempt section and as no other criminal contempt was available in the section at that day in which number 18/2014 could be used and therefore the same has been used for feeding CRLP 22481/2014 (encl. 2) as per past practice.

On the next day the same file came back to the fresh filing section and official of contempt section explained that this Hon''ble High court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and this file should be registered and given a criminal contempt number. This time a new No. CRCL 19/2014 (encl. 3) was generated automatically by the computer and assigned to the file.

It is further humbly submitted that a case number is always generated automatically by the computer system during entry of a fresh case and once a case number generated and converted to any other case type/number then the older number cannot be used or regenerated in any circumstances and whenever anybody try to access that old case number, computer always gives message of "case number changed" (encl. 4)."

Thus there is no separate Contempt No. 18 of 2014 as such but in fact this very contempt application was earlier registered as Contempt No. 18 of 2014 and after deleting this number for the reasons stated in aforesaid report, it has been re-registered as Contempt Application No. 19 of 2014. The allegations made otherwise are apparently unfounded and baseless.

In para 11 of the affidavit the averments are nothing but a sermon alleging corruption prevalent in the judiciary and reads as under:

"(11) That the main purpose of the judiciary was the eradication of corruption. The standing corruption is bad blot upon the breast of the judiciary despite the people of India ornated it in advance with full honour, freedom and powers. The standing corruption is quite evidence of the failure of the judiciary in it''s the sole cause and purpose. It is maintaining it''s dignity on the terror of punishment with power under the Contempt of Courts Act. It has used the weapon against the world''s sixth topmost social thinker Arundhati Roy, Dr. D.C. Saxena, the pressmen and Advocates who have burden of the society to raise and point out the evils growing in the institutions. It is very unfortunate and painful that we have given all powers under whims of sentiments and made so law that provides absolute dictatorship to the judges to act at their pleasure in good faith or the bad faith. It is not the object of the Contempt Courts Act that the alarm by the victim at his theft be taken as scandalization of the courts to punish him. The Act is not passed to kill the truth. In the circumstances of the country where there are so shocking declarations of the ex-minister Hon''ble Mr. Shanti Bhushan and the Hon''ble Ex- Justice Mr. Markanday Katju against the so many Chief Justices, the use of Act as weapon shall not maintain the repute and dignity of the courts. It is not bare allegation and a malafide motion for an insult to our courts but it is the whole truth that the judiciary is suffering from corruption. It is perusable in newspapers of repute where it is repeated severally, but in very suppressed language due to fear of the power. The Hon''ble Ex-Justice of India Mr. B.N. Kripal, while inauguration, has also acknowledged presence of corruption in judiciary. It is the time for the judges to maintain dignity upon the stand of their model morals. True honour is a thing, the extortion of which is impossible."

Then again in para 12 of the affidavit, allegations have been made against the Chief Justice and relevant extract is reproduced as under:

"12. That the Chief Justice of the High Court has not examined about any alleged fact nor he has stopped continuity of the mischief. He has obstructed the fair institution of the suit. He cannot disprove an allegation. The settled purpose of notice is to attract at the faults and to cure them. It is bad to take that the notice is delivered to insult to Him."

In para 13 it is said that a contempt petition filed by Contemnor on 19.08.2014 against the officials of State Government was returned as defective since details of Advocates on Roll pertaining to Contemnor were not disclosed. Commenting adversely upon the provisions relating to Advocate Roll the Contemnor has proceeded to say as under:

"This very act is sufficiently relevant to the pro-government character of the Hon''ble chief Justice."

In para 15 the Contemnor has alleged that Clerks are indulged in corruption and accept big bribe but again has brought here also the Hon''ble Chief Justice alleging that all these corruptions are going under his shade. The relevant assertions made in para 15 are reproduced as under:

"That under the shade of the Hon''ble C.J. the clerks are at the top of the corruption. They accept big bribes and nullify the orders of the courts for the looser parties."

In order to fortify the aforesaid allegations made in para 15 he has referred to some proceedings in Complaint Case No. 6693 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, which pertains to the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Hardoi. We do not find as to how something done in the District Judgeship can justify allegations made against Chief Justice in para 15 of the affidavit.

Similarly, in the remaining paragraphs also we do not find anything which may be considered to be substantial fact to show that allegations made by Contemnor are founded on truth. Whatever inference the Contemnor may have drawn on his own but the wild reckless allegations made against the Chief Justice on account of such inferences cannot be justified in any manner. These allegations are such which impeaches upon the magisterial authority of the Hon''ble Chief Justice as also impartiality, independence and authority of the Court in particular. These allegations apparently are capable of eroding public confidence in the Head of the highest institution of Justice in the State as well as the institution itself. We have no hesitation, therefore, to reject the ground of defence No. 2, as above, and to hold that the present Contemnor is clearly guilty of committing criminal contempt. He has not tendered any apology or remorse. On the contrary, on given opportunity he has enlarged and extended the width of his allegations in his affidavit of reply which were noticed above.

So far as ground No. 3 is concerned, we apparently do not find any basis therein inasmuch as by the act and words in writing the Contemnor has not only endeavored to scandalize the authority of Hon''ble Chief Justice as also the Court but has also attempted to lower down the same and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has not committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of Act, 1971.

Here is a case where taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances as also the conduct of Contemnor we are of the view that any lenient or sympathetic approach, if adopted by the Court, would give a wrong massage to all concerned and may cause serious damage to the authority of the Court. The allegations are apparently scandalous and lowers down the authority of the Court. We, therefore, hold the Contemnor guilty of criminal contempt.

On the question of sentence also we give opportunity to Contemnor but he flatly said that it is for the Court to pass any order as it likes.

In our view, Contemnor deserves a severe punishment under the statute. We sentence him for simple imprisonment of four months and also impose fine of Rs. 1,500/-. In case of nonpayment of fine, he shall undergo 15 days further simple imprisonment. We also direct that the Contemnor shall not enter the premises of District Judgeship at Allahabad as well as this Court including Lucknow Bench for a period of six months, which shall commence w.e.f. 14.05.2015.

The contempt application is disposed of accordingly.