In Re: Sanjay Kumar Singh and Ram Prakash Kushwaha

S.S. Tiwari, J.—Present contempt proceeding has its genesis in the Reference made to this Court by Sri Husain Ahmad Ansari, Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 10 Deoria for initiation of proceeding u/s 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 punishable u/s 12 of the Act. Upon receipt of reference, it would appear, the matter was processed by the office and initially, the matter was placed before the Administrative Judge Deoria who opined in the following words.

Recommended for initiation of contempt proceedings as prayed.

The matter, thereafter, was processed and placed before Hon. Chief Justice who appended the approval vide order dated 21.7.2006 and it is in this backdrop that the matter came to be referred on judicial side and notices were initially issued to three persons namely Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ram Prasad Kushwaha and Shekhar Gupta Advocates. Subsequently, by means of order dated 20.11.2006 the notice issued against Chandrashekhar Gupta was recalled and the matter was ordered to be listed on 18.12.2006 for framing of charges against the contemnors Sanjai Kumar Singh and Ram Prasad Kushwaha. The charges were framed vide order dated 18.12.2006 by the Bench consisting of Hon. S.S. Kulshrestha and Hon. A.K. Roopanwal.

The charges framed against the contemnors may be abstracted below.

Firstly, that on 31 May 2006 Sri Hussain Ahmed Ansari, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoria was the Presiding officer of Court no. 10. On that date 93 cases were listed in that court. He disposed of a large number of cases and injunction applications were also taken up buy him from 6.30 am to 12.30 p.m. When he retired in his chamber, it was at about 2 p.m. He was looking into the application 6 C moved in suit No. 1110 of 2006, Smt. Pushpa Devi v. Anil Kumar. You entered in his chamber without taking permission and you both (Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh and Sri Shekhar Gupta) threatened the Presiding officer by making objectionable gestures and asked him to modify the order passed in O.S. No. 1072 of 2006 Pradeep v. Sitaram and thereby committed contempt of court punishable u/s 2C of the Contempt of Court Act 1971.

Secondly, that when the Presiding officer declined to modify his order passed in O.S. No. 1072 of 2006 Pradeep v. Sitaram and told you that if you are aggrieved with the order may assail it in higher court in the competent forum, on it you made allegation against stenographer of that court that he demanded Rs. 10,000/-. As such allegation of demanding Rs. 10,000/- was only to scandalize the court and lower its dignity and also to lower the authority of the court, thus you have hereby committed contempt of court punishable u/s 2C(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971. Charges have been read over to the contemnors, they may file their counter affidavit within four weeks.

In the aftermath of framing of charges, the contemnors filed their separate counter affidavits. It is substantially stated in para 4 that he and R.P. Kushwasha canvassed their arguments on injunction application and thereafter, the file was retained by the presiding officer for orders. In the meantime, J.P. Srivastava, steno to the officer went inside and on return, made a demand for Rs. 10,000/- in return for granting the injunction order. The contemnors, it is averred, made a written complaint to the Presiding officer on 31.5.2006. When the officer retired to chamber, he sent for the contemnors who immediately went inside the chambers and were baffled at the behaviour of the officer who insisted for withdrawing the application but being amenable to his advice, the contemnors it is further alleged, declined to withdraw the application and instead demanded enquiry and action against the stenographer. This infuriated the officer who torn the application to pieces and threw the same at Sri Kushwaha. Thereafter, he made a written complaint to the Bar Association and also stated the facts on affidavit which was submitted at the end of President Bar Association On 31.5.2006 an emergency meeting was convened and conduct of the officer was deprecated. It is also averred that resolution dated 3.6.2006 was also transmitted to District Judge, to Hon. Chief Justice and also to Bar Council. A detailed representation it is also averred was also sent to Administrative Judge and instead of taking action for redressal of grievance, he received the contempt notice. He also touched upon legal aspects stating that it was not a case constituting contempt. The counter affidavit filed by Kushwaha contemnor is more or less on the same lines. Both the contemnors it would appear from the record, filed apology as contained in affidavits which were ordered to be placed on record vide order dated 12.12.2008 in which both the counsel apologized profusely for what has happened.

Sri V.K. Srivastava, appearing for the contemnors pleaded for merciful view stating that the contemnors have already submitted unqualified apology and they are repentant for what has happened. He also prayed for discharge of the contemnors stating that the contemnors are fairly senior and they have already suffered for their repeated presence in this Court for the last four years which has had a chastening effect on them. He also submitted that what has happened was a mere aberration and was not intended and that the contemnors are not addicted to using contemptuous language or making scurrilous attacks. Lastly he submitted that the contemnors may be afforded an opportunity to prove their mettle as officers of the court. He submitted that the contemnors never intended to show disrespect to the officer presiding the court and they should be purged of the charges.

Here in this case, we are pained at what has been happened in subordinate courts where judicial officers are finding it difficult to transact judicial business in a fearless, and agreeable circumstances. The incidence of attacks on judicial officers have registered a noticeable increase. However, we proceed further with the case indicating to ourselves the piece of advice that the Court should not be over or hypersensitive and should not exercise this jurisdiction on any exaggerated notion of the dignity of the Judges and must act with the dispassionate dignity and decorum which befits the high office. At the same time, we would like to say that the Court is the protector of public justice.

Before we proceed further, we must make it clear that the apology is not a amulet to be worn to ward off the action looming large against the contemnor as a last resort. The apology, in order to dilute the gravity of the offence, we must say, should be voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and contribution and it should be tendered at the earliest opportunity.

It would be borne out from the record that the contemnors filed their respective counter affidavits in which they denied the overt contemptuous action attributed to them attended with averments that after the hearing was over on injunction application, the file was retained by the officer for orders. Subsequently, the stenographer attached to the court offered to obtain for them the favourable order in case a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid. They further averred that when they refused to gratify the demand and instead moved application, they were sent for by the officer who appeared and they were amazed at the behaviour of the officer who initially asked them to withdraw the application and subsequently tore it off into pieces and threw the pieces at them. They also referred to complaint made in the matter and also the resolution adopted by the Bar and subsequent representations made to the District Judge, the Administrative Judge and also the Chief Justice. There is nothing on record to show that the officer approached the District Judge instead of the officer. If the stenographer had demanded money, the proper course open to him was to make appropriate complaint to the District Judge. It does not appear plausible that the contemnors made application to the Civil Judge. The complaint as alleged by them, had the insinuation against the officer as if the stenographer had acted at the instance of the officer in demanding illegal gratification. It was much later that detailed representations were made by the contemnors addressed to the District Judge, the Administrative Judge and the Chief Justice and it cannot be ruled out that the representations were made by the contemnors after getting awareness that the contempt proceedings are being referred to High Court against them and to screen themselves they scripted the complaints and sent the same onward for action. Be that as it may, it was not open to him to behave aggressively as they have done. Besides, it would also appear that the contemnors moved the application 6816 of 2008 in which they prayed for summoning the officer and also the stenographers and for permitting them to cross examine them.

It would thus crystallize that the contemnors throughout the contempt proceeding took belligerent stand and with punishment looming large on their head, they have tendered the apology as a last resort in the event of this Court finding them guilty of having committed contempt of Court. There could not be both justification and apology as the apology tendered though unqualified, appears to be a tactful move when in tight corner to ward off the action by the Court.

Before we proceed further, we would like to quip here that if the judiciary has to perform its function in a fair and free manner, the dignity and authority of the court has to be respected by all concerned failing which the very constitutional scheme and public faith in the judiciary would run the risk of being eroded. Since the contemnor is an Advocate, the matter requires to be considered with a little more seriousness. An Advocate, we feel called to say, is not not exempt from ordinary disability which the law imposes and his position is not inviolable and his privileges cannot extend to interfere with the administration of justice. On the other hand he is expected to help in sub-serving the course of justice and not impede it in any manner. A legal practitioner has no doubt his duties towards his client but at the same time he has equally important duty and obligation upon him to cooperate with the court in the orderly and pure administration of justice. Any departure would be construed to be violative and neglecting his duties and obligations. A lawyer is a person educated and trained in law. The use of language has to be balanced and in fitness of things within the framework of the law of the land. He cannot and should not be reckless in use of language. There are barriers which must be known to a lawyer and it should not be crossed. He should not overstep the limits of decency and ethics in the matter of his behavior towards the court.

In Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi Vs. State of Gujarat and others, , the Apex Court held as under.

The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of court. The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.

In M.B. Sanghi, Adv. Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, the Apex Court observed as under:

The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned judge but also to the fair name of the 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 taming a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. The foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. It is high time that we realise that the much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system. An independent judiciary is of vital importance to any free society. Judicial independence was not achieved overnight. Since we have inherited this concept from the British, it would not be out of place to mention the struggle strong-willed judges like Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and many others had to put up with the Crown as well as the Parliament at considerable personal risk. And when a member of the profession like the appellant who should know better so lightly trifles with the much endeared concept of judicial independence to secure small gains it only betrays a lack of respect for the martyrs of judicial independence and for the institution itself. Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair name of the judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence.

As stated supra, the contemnors have denied to have behaved rudely as alleged amounting to interfering with the due administration of justice. It brooks no dispute that as to the incident that happened in court, the version of presiding officer is entitled to pre-eminence and obvious acceptance and only in rarest case it may be disregarded. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances, it is quite possible that after the contemnors indulged in scurrilous attack, on instinct of self preservation, they preferred the representation levelling allegations against the officer with the avowed object of screening themselves against possible action. Although they sought permission in the application cited above to cross examine the officer and also the stenographer, but at this stage, they tendered unqualified apology without insisting on their demand to cross examine the officer and the stenographer.

A Judge or Magistrate has a duty to discharge his/her judicial functions and he/she passes order in the manner as he/she likes fit to the best of his/her capability in the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders. In the present case, the conduct of the contemnors amounts to intimidating the court and lowering the authority and it clearly amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings which were being conducted by the Presiding officer. The power of the High Court of superintendence and control over the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution includes within its ambit the duty protect members of the subordinate courts. In the above conspectus, the charges related to criminal contempt framed against the contemnors are fully established.

In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation to say that the charges of criminal contempt established against a practising lawyer cannot be taken with a pinch of salt who carries the trapping of an officer of the Court whose duty is to assist the Court and uphold the majesty of law and dignity of the person manning the court. No judicial system can tolerate such ignoble act and conduct of a practising Advocate. The crucial question that remains is what would be the appropriate punishment to the contemnor.

In connection with whether the apology commends itself for acceptance or not, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Preetam Pal v. High Court M.P. 1993 (1) SCC 529 in which the Apex Court observed as under:

To punish an advocate for contempt of court, no doubt must be regarded as an extreme measure, but to preserve the proceedings of the courts from being deflected or interfered with, and to keep the streams of justice pure, serene and undefiled, it becomes the duty of the court though painful to punish the contemnor in order to preserve its dignity. No one can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt if his act or conduct in relation to court or court proceedings interferes with is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice.

In L.D. Jaikwal Vs. State of U.P., the Apex Court described the apology as a paper apology and refused to accept it in the following words:

We do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest imputations against him has to do, is to go ahead and scandalize him, and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs him practically nothing. If such an apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a ''licence'' to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with impunity. It will be rather difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care for their self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay such a price for it. And no sitting judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were to be counte-nanced, advocates who can cow down the Judges, and make them fail in line with their wishes, by threats of character assassination and persecution, will be preferred by the liti-gants to the advocates who are mindful of professional ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of courts.

In the above perspective, it cannot be ruled out that the contemnor set up the entire theory in order to save his skin. In this view of the matter, the apology offered does not commend to us for acceptance and it is turned down.

Reverting to the case in hand, we are of the firm opinion that the apology tendered by the contemnors does not exude bona fide or manifest genuineness ostensibly for the reasons that the apology has been tendered at a stage when the contemnors sensed that their goose was cooked. As stated supra, in vindication of his stand, they refer to various actions taken by them against the officer including the complaints made to the District Judge and also to the Administrative Judge, the Chief Justice attended with complaint made to Bar Association. It is in this conspectus, we feel compelled to say that the apology submitted in this case, does not seem to inspire a real contriteness on the part of the contemnors but the same is used as a device to screen themselves from the rigours of law. The Apex in the aforesaid judgment in M.S. Singhvi has rightly observed that the incidence of contempt is ever on the increase. There is a felt need to curb such incidence. To cap it all, the majesty and dignity of the court has to be preserved. It should not be forgotten that frequent attacks on the dignity of the courts would shake the very foundation of the judiciary. The courts have to perform judicial functions in responsible yet disagreeable ambiance and they require utmost protection. The attack made on presiding officers disparaging in character and derogatory to his/her dignity would vitally shake the confidence of the public in him/her. The vitriolic attacks made on the officer were much more than mere insult and in effect they scandalized the court in such a way as to create distrust in the popular mind and impair confidence of the people in court. The administration of justice must remain independent, clean, fearless and impartial. If an Advocate uses the vile of browbeating the Presiding officer by his toxic vitriolic attack, it is indeed disquieting and should not be viewed with equanimity. In the above perspective, it cannot be ruled out that the contemnors set up the entire theory in order to save their skin. In this view of the matter, the apology offered does not commend to us for acceptance and it is turned down.

In the above conspectus, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnors are held guilty of criminal contempt.

We accordingly convict him u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, on the point of sentence, looking to the fact, the contemnors have not been involved earlier, it would suffice to say that imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice and therefore, we sentence each of the contemnors to a fine which we quantify at Rs. 5000/-. The contemnors shall pay the fine within 2 months. In default, it is directed that the contemnors shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

The case is directed to be listed in the second week of May 2010 for ensuring compliance.