In Re: Shri Vyas Muni Singh

R.S. Garg, J.—This matter came up for consideration before me as earlier ordered.

Shri Tarkeshwar Nath Singh, Advocate appeared before the Court and submitted that Shri Vyas Muni Singh, who is no more in the world, respected the Courts and the Counsel himself respects the Judge in person apart from respecting the Court and the procedure. He also submitted that while dying Shri Vyas Muni Singh told him that the matter should be brought to a logical end. With tears in eyes Shri Tarkeshwar Nath Singh expressed his grief in the memory of his senior and at the same time showed his absolute respect towards the Court.

While the Court was hearing him Shri Ram Uday Kumar Singh, Advocate, yet another junior colleague of Shri Vyas Muni Singh appeared on the scene and said that because of the torture suffered by Shri Vyas Muni Singh in light of the notices issued by this Court Shri Vyas Muni Singh died. He also submitted that deceased gained Shahadat (martyrdom). When this Court asked him as to what he really wanted to say, he repeated the same.

I fail to understand that what should I do in a matter like this. Shri Tarkeshwar Nath Singh says that the matter has be-come infructuous and he further says that he reposes absolute confidence in the Court and shows fullest respect towards the Judge, while another junior colleague says that issuance of the notice caused torture to the deceased and as a result of the notice he died.

C.W.J.C. No. 14435 of 2002 was taken up for consideration on 10.4.2003. In the said matter this Court passed an order. When the Counsel did not stop, this Court imposed cost of Rs. 500/- on the Counsel. After the said order was passed the Counsel started creating a scene in the Court by saying that the period of ten days should commence after the period of appeal. The Court asked him that the order has already been passed and it should be taken to be final. The Counsel went on saying that he was making a request to the Court. Despite repeated requests by the Court not to disturb the clay''s work, the Counsel did not stop. Thereafter on 10.4.2003 this Court issued a notice to late Shri Vyas Muni Singh to show cause as to why contempt proceeding be not drawn against him. The matter came up for consideration. An application for transfer was filed in the Court, at the same time a reply was also filed. This Court observed on 6.5.2003 that particular statement made in the show cause were bad. It is recorded in the transfer application:

(i) "Unfortunately, reaction adverse to the show cause appeared to be shown by Your Lordship when the case was taken up on 29.4 2003."

(ii) "That Your Lordship observations appeared to the Petitioner that the contempt proceedings may be heard by another Hon''ble Judge in the interest of proper administration of justice."

Thereafter the matter relating to transfer was heard. On 21.7.2003 an order was passed by this Court though rejecting the application seeking transfer of the matter but again observed particular statements from the show cause, which are as under:

(i) "The Hon''ble Single Judge looked at the case file and glanced towards the learned standing Counsel appearing for the State and started dictating the order."

(ii) "But he (the Counsel) could not do so on the obvious gesture shown by the Hon''ble Presiding Judge, and, had to take his seat."

(iii) "But the Hon''ble Judge showed obvious anguish and loudly asked the noticee to sit down. The noticee quietly obeyed. The remaining part of the order which appears at page-3 and upto the middle of page-4 (of the order dated 10.4.2003) was dictated without any assistance of the noticee."

(iv) "On this the Presiding Judge slapped the fine/cost on the notice merely for an humble request to advance his own submissions in perspective and after the fine/cost order was dictated, noticee shocked and surprised, again made an earnest request for enabling him to go in appeal and to keep the order so far as it related to deposit of cost in abeyance."

(vi) "That the Hon''ble Judge him self, (alongwith lawyers and others present in Court room) is witness to the unfortunate incident as to how a scene was created and by whom."

This Court observed that the Court was unable to understand that by making this statement what particular defence was sought to be raised by the noticee and against whom he was raising the fingers of allegation, against whom he was saying that he created the scene in the Court. This Court required the noticee to state on oath that what was the meaning of this statement, "that how a scene was created and by whom".

(vii) "Moreover, the facts noted in the order, though do not contain the full and complete version of the incident does not show any action on the parte the noticee to justify that the notice created a scene in Court."

(viii) "That noticee hopefully (sic) pected that order dictated without hearing either sides and without having a bearing of the facts of the matter and the reliefs prayed for, alongwith the other part of the order dictated in a fit (sic) anger (emphasis supplied) after the Hon''ble Judge would retire in his chambers and would recall it and the matter would be listed again under the heading for admission"

This Court in proceeding dated 21.7.2003 had recorded that at number of (sic) places, false, derogatory and contempts (sic)our allegations were made against a Judge and this in itself is further contempt but the Court left the matter to the discretion of the noticee. This Court observed that peprsonal allegations made against the Judge would not tarnish his image nor would put him at loss. This Court also made a request to the noticee to mend his behaviour and not to make such loose comments against a sitting Judge of this Court because the Judges otherwise are also human being and some day some Judge may put the noticee to hard task. This Court also recorded from the show cause, it is reiterated that the order was dictated without hearing the parties." It is also stated (sic) the show cause, "As a matter of fact, the Respondent State did not oppose the relief prayed for." It is also recorded in the show cause, "it is another aspect that the noticee was not permitted to open his mouth to explain his case in its perspective."

With all that this Court again adjourned the case. The case was adjourned (sic)4th August, 2003. On 4th August, 2003 the matter was adjourned at the request of the Counsel for the noticee. The matter was taken up on 27.8.2003. On 27.8.2003, it was reported that the noticee had suffered with cerebral haemorrhage and he is admitted in the I.C.U. The matter was again adjourned.

I must record all these very proceedings to make my position clear that the show cause notice was directed to be issued on 10.4.2003. The noticee has filed his show cause on 28.4.2003. Thereafter another application was filed on 5.5.2003. Again an supplementary affidavit was filed on 10.5.2003. Thereafter an additional affidavit was filed on 4.8.2003. On 19.8.2003 yet another affidavit was filed. On 26.8.2003, yet another application was filed (sic) form of an affidavit. I am recording all these to show that after receiving the notices, the noticee had filed as many as five affidavits/counters. It is most unfortunate that it is being projected through the media, television and newspapers that immediately after receiving the notice or after hearing the order issuing the notice Late Shri Vyas Muni Singh suffered a cerebral haemorrhage in the Court. It is sought to be canvassed before the public that after the notice was issued immediately there after the Counsel suffered and thereafter he was to be admitted in the hospital. I do not wish to say anything in my favour but to crease out the wrinkles, it is necessary even for a Judge of this Court to submit an explanation to the public that whatever is being projected against him is false and false to the knowledge of all those who are involved in it.

One could understand the truthfulness of the propaganda had the deceased suffered some ailment on 10.4.2003 or immediately thereafter. He had suffered the cerebral haemorrhage somewhere in the last week of August, almost after four and half months of the issuance of notice and despite all that if his death is to be shouldered by me I do not mind that. I am really surprised and shocked to hear the arguments of another junior colleague of Late Shri Vyas Muni Singh that because of the notice Mr. Vyas Muni Singh was tortured and died as a martyr. The death is the end of the life, it is inevitable. One who has come has to go someday, neither man standing on that side nor the man sitting on this side would survive for ever but it is unpalatable even for a man like me to shoulder the burden of death of Mr. Vyas Muni Singh. I pay my homage to him. Let his soul rest in peace.

The matter is finished.