K.K. Jha 'Kamal' and Another and Tanzeem E. Sufia vs Shri Pankaj Kumar Additional District Judge Vth and Others

M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.—The history leading to the initiation of the contempt proceedings against K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' a lawyer

practicing in this Court as well as against his client Ashok Kumar Gupta, the contemners is a chequered one. The details are as follows:

(a) A title suit was filed by the respondent 3 against Ashok Kumar Gupta, the second contemner, the Secretary, Tanzeem-e-Sufia, in the year

1983. Ultimately, this suit was decreed. The said decree was put in execution in Execution Case No. 12 of 1984 in the Court of Sub Judge-I,

Giridih.

(b) One Ram Lakhan Prasad, an advocate, respondent 2 continued to appear on behalf of the decree holders. An objection was raised in

execution petition on behalf of the said Ashok Kumar Gupta, Secretary that the entire decree and the orders passed in Execution Proceeding was

a nullity, because the said Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad did not file any vakalatnama before pleading the case on behalf of the respondent-decree

holders.

(c) The said objection was disallowed by the Sub Judge I, Giridih and ultimately final order was passed to proceed with the execution.

(d) Challenging this order, Ashok Kumar Gupta, the Secretary defendant in the suit, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Giridih being M.A.

No. 23 of 2004.

(e) The above appeal was heard by the Vth Additional District Judge. Giridih. The matter was argued at length by both the parties.

(f) Ultimately, on 21.12.2005. the learned Vth Additional District Judge. Giridih passed a reasoned order holding the Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad

was entitled to appear and plead on behalf of the respondent-decree holders and confirmed the orders passed by the Sub Judge.

(g) Thereupon the said Ashok Kumar Gupta, the appellant therein chose to file review petition before the same Judge raising the very same points.

Again the matter was heard.

(h) Ultimately, the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Giridih dismissed the review application through a detailed and elaborate order dated

16.9.2006.

Strangely, instead of challenging the aforesaid order dated 21.12.2005 in the appeal and the order dated 16.9.2006 passed in review

application before appropriate forum, Ashok Kumar Gupta, the second contemner through counsel Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', the first contemner

had chosen to file the writ petition before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India registered as W.P. (C) No. 7126 of

2006 making two prayers:

(i) Seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed in Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 2004 dated 21.12.2005 and the order

passed in Review dated 16.9.2005 by Vth Additional District Judge on the ground of mala fide.

(ii) Seeking for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Governor of State of Jharkhand to accord sanction for criminal prosecution as

against Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the Vth Additional District Judge, Giridih u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the said Judge for

the offence u/s 219 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the aforesaid orders dated 21.12.2005 and 16.9.2006 were passed by him

illegally and against the materials on record.

This writ petition came up for hearing before the Bench of Hon''ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli on 21.12.2006. The learned single Judge found

that there are serious allegations made against the Vth Additional District Judge, Giridih who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the writ petition.

He further found that the allegation made in the writ petition are not aimed simply to challenge the judgment rendered by Mr. Pankaj Kumar,

respondent No. 1 in a dignified and legal manner but rather intended to be used as a pressure tactics to scandalize the Court and undermine the

majesty of law. He as well noticed various serious allegations against the judicial officer, who was sought to be prosecuted for the offence u/s 219

of the Indian Penal Code on obtaining the sanction of the Governor u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', the

counsel for the writ petition Ashok Kumar Gupta argued at length. The learned single Judge, during the course of the hearing asked the (earned

counsel, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' appearing for the writ petitioner to point out the materials on record to substantiate these allegations made in the

writ petition against the judicial officer.

However, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner did not point out any material to substantiate such serious

allegations. He simply referred to some documents. As a matter of fact, there is specific allegation in the writ petition that the judicial order passed

by the respondent No. 1-judicial officer was mala fide: same is a deliberate judicial order favouring respondents 2 and 3, the decree holders and in

complete partiality and knowing fully well that by passing illegal order he showed favour to the respondents 2 and 3-decree holders at the cost of

principles of impartiality and thereby he committed judicial dishonesty.

After going through the documents referred to by the learned Counsel, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal''. the learned single Judge found that there is no

material at all whatsoever in the writ petition or the documents filed along with that to support the said serious allegations made against the

Presiding Officer-respondent No. 1, who has been impleaded as a party in the writ petition.

On having found that these allegations made in the writ petition are apparently contemptuous in nature and tend to scandalize the Presiding

Officer of the District Court and lower its authority, the learned single Judge. prima facie, was satisfied that the allegations levelled against the

Presiding Officer constitute criminal contempt. Since in terms of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the criminal contempt matter has to be

heard by a Bench of not less than two Hon''ble Judges, the learned single Judge passed an order directing the Registry to place the matter before

the Hon''ble Chief Justice to post it before the appropriate Bench for initiating appropriate contempt proceedings against the writ petitioner,

namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta, the Secretary of Tanzeem-e-Sufia.

After the above order was dictated in the open Court, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, began to threaten the

learned single Judge in a most derogative manner challenging his authority for having issued the contempt against the writ petitioner, his client.

Immediately, the learned single Judge, on noticing the unbecoming behaviour of the counsel, passed the following order:

After the above order was passed in the Open Court. Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner threatened the

Court by saying that ""by initiating contempt proceedings, the controversy will not die down and it will flare up"". He used these words in a most

offensive and derogatory manner in the Open Court in full view of a large number of lawyers including some senior members of the Bar. He further

remarked that he is already facing two Contempts and is ready to face another. This action on the part of the learned Advocate is itself

contemptuous. I am constrained to initiate proceedings for contempt against Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', Advocate, to protect the majesty of law and

dignity of the Court. Slave this action amounts to Criminal Contempt, I direct the Registry to place this matter also before Hon''ble the Chief Justice

for consideration by an appropriate Larger Bench. Proceedings against Mr. Jha will be placed as a separate contempt proceedings. I feel that

personal appearance of Mr. Jha is necessary before the Bench. He is directed to furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Thousand) before the Jt. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court with an undertaking to appear before the appropriate Bench when the matter is listed.

The Registrar will communicate to Mr. Jha the date of listing of the matter before the appropriate Larger Bench after obtaining instructions from

Hon''ble the Chief Justice.

The next day, i.e., on 22.12.2006. the Joint Registrar (List and Computers) of this Court placed the file before the Chief Justice through a note

for a direction for initiating criminal contempt against both Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, the writ petitioner and against Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' his

lawyer, as directed by the order dated 21.12.2006 in the writ petition No. 7126 of 2006. The Chief Justice, by the Administrative order dated

22.12.2006 directed for instituting the contempt proceeding against both of them and directed for posting the matter before the Larger Bench of 5

(five) Judges to be presided over by the Chief Justice on 5.1.2007.

In the meantime, on 4.1.2007, a Letter Patent Appeal has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-contemner, Ashok Kumar Gupta through the

same counsel, K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' challenging the order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the learned single Judge Justice Permod Kohli initiating

contempt proceedings against both. Ultimately, both Letters Patent Appeal and the contempt matters came up before the five Judge''s Bench on

5.1.2007 as already directed.

Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', the counsel contemner was present. He made his sub missions before the Larger Bench. After hearing Mr. K.K. Jha

''Kamal'', the counsel contemner appearing for the contemner-petitioner; the Larger Bench felt that there is prima facie material to initiate contempt

proceedings against both of them and accordingly issued show-cause notice to them. Since an advocate is involved in the contempt proceedings,

the Larger Bench thought it fit to issue notice to the Presidents of various advocates Associations. Bar Council and the Advocate-General for

seeking their assistance in the disposal of the contempt matter against the counsel of this Court. In the same order, the Larger Bench felt that

Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order of learned single Judge, is not maintainable as no orders have been passed by the Single Judge under

Rule 17 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules and the learned single Judge merely referred the matter to the Chief Justice to post it before the

appropriate Bench for initiating contempt proceeding and passing further appropriate orders as there are materials for contempt and, accordingly,

dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. The said order passed by the Larger Bench on 5.1.2007 is as follows:

2./5.1.2007. On going through the order passed by the learned single Judge, we feel that it is a fit case where the contempt proceedings are to be

initiated, not only against the petitioner but also against the counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, let notice in the contempt matter go

to the petitioner as well as his counsel Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', asking for the show-cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt.

When we issue notice to the counsel for the positioner, who is an experienced lawyer, we do it with heavy heart. In this matter, the issue relates to

the conduct of a lawyer appearing in the Court and the conduct of the party who filed the affidavit which would indicate that very scandalising

allegations have been made against a lower Court Judge as well as he High Court Judge. Since the issue relates to unbecoming behaviour of the

counsel, who is practicing in this High Court for a long number of years, it would be better to seek assistance from the President of all the Lawyers

Associations and Bar Council, to decide the same.

So, issue notice also to Mr. B.P. Pan-dey. President, State Bar Council at Jharkhand, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, President of Advocates'' Association, Mr.

M. Sohail Anwar, President Bar Association, Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad, President of Lawyers'' Association. Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned

Advocate-General to assist the Court in coming to a proper conclusion.

At this stage, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, President of Advocates'' Association and Mr. R.K. Prasad, President of Lawyers'' Association would request this

Court to post the matter in the next week for hearing so that they may take efforts to make the counsel to realize the mistake committed by him and

to file the appropriate affidavit.

Accordingly, post the matter on 15th January, 2007 at 2.30 p.m.

As far as Letters Patent Appeals is concerned, we feel that it is not maintainable, since the proceedings are not at all initiated under Rule 17 of the

Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001 by the learned single Judge. On the other hand, the learned single Judge having found materials of contempt,

referred the matter to the Chief Justice to post it before the appropriate Bench for passing further order. The Chief Justice, by Administrative

order, posted the entertaining the Letters Patent Appeal. The Letter Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Thus, the contempt matter was ordered to be posted on 15.1.2007. Accordingly, the matter came up on 15.1.2007. On that day, the

Contemner, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' appeared before this Court and filed an affidavit tendering unqualified apology and also requested this Court to

pardon him in a forgive and forget spirit. He also submitted that he is prepared to file a similar affidavit before the learned single Judge, Justice

Permod Kohli as he completely surrenders to his jurisdiction. The Larger Bench also felt that it would be better for the contemner to appear before

Hon''ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli in whose Court the unfortunate incident had occurred for tendering unqualified apology as desired by the

counsel contemner.

The Advocate-General as well as the Associations'' Presidents also suggested that the conduct of the experienced lawyer before Hon''ble Mr.

Justice Permod Kohli was highly unfortunate and it should not happen in the future and the contemner-advocate, a senior member of bar, having

realised his mistake fully can be allowed to file the affidavit before Hon''ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli. Accordingly, this Court directed the

contemner counsel to appear before Justice Permod Kohli on 17.1.2007 and file necessary affidavit. This Court further requested Justice Permod

Kohli to entertain his affidavit and also record his impression based on the said affidavit so that this Bench may pass further orders.

On 17.1.2007, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal''. the contemner, appeared before the Court of Justice Permod Kohli. He filed the affidavit tendering

apology. Apart from the affidavits filed, he also tendered unconditional apology in the open Court and expressed his regrets for his behaviour

before the Court on 21.12.2006, while arguing the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. He further submitted before the learned single

Judge that his conduct was spontaneous and without any intention and as he surrendered himself before the Court, he can be pardoned.

Justice Permod Kohli, after hearing him and after perusing his affidavit, recorded his impression as under:

4./17.01.2007. This contempt matter has been posted before the pursuant to the directions and observations of Hon''ble 5-Judges Bench,

indicated to the order dated 15th January,2007. Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', the contemners: has appeared before this Court pursuant to the directions

of the Larger Bench. He has filed two affidavits, tendering apology.

Apart from the affidavits filed, he has also tendered unconditional apology in the open Court and expressed his regrets for the behaviour on 21st

December. 2006, while arguing W.P. (C) No. 7126 of 2006 on behalf of the writ petitioner. Mr. Jha has further submitted that it was spontaneous

and without any intention and he surrenders himself before the Court.

Let me place on record my feelings : On the day of occurrence, I was disturbed when I was constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against a

Senior Lawyer of this Court. This was the most painful and unpleasant moment for me as a Judge of this Court. But under the given circumstances,

I had no option but to initiate contempt against Mr. Jha to protect the dignity of this Court and uphold the majesty of law. From Mr. Jha''s

appearance today and his submissions made at the Bar, it appears that he is remorseful and feels sorry for his behaviour.

In view of the above circumstances let the matter be placed before Hon''ble Larger Bench on the date fixed. Mr. Jha is directed to appear before

the Bench on the date fixed i.e. 15th January, 2007.

As far the contempt against the writ petitioner is concerned, the matter may be considered by the Larger Bench.

Thus, the learned single Judge ordered the matter to be placed before the Larger Bench. Accordingly, on 18.1.2007, the matter came up

before the Larger Bench. The Contemner Counsel appeared before this Court and submitted that already he has filed an affidavit tendering

apology before Justice Permod Kohli. Noticing that his client, another contemner did not appear in the Court, the Larger Bench insisted for

presence of the writ petitioner as well. Then, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', learned Counsel submitted that the entire writ petition involving the contempt

proceeding has been drafted by him and he owes his responsibility for the same. He assured that he will file the affidavit of the party as well as by

himself tendering unconditional apology for having made allegations against the Additional District Judge in the writ petition on the next hearing. The

various President of Associations also requested this Court to allow the petitioner- contemner as well as Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal''. the contemner to

file the necessary affidavits tendering apology with regard to the allegations made against the Additional District Judge. Accordingly, they were

permitted. The matter was directed to be posted on 7.2.2007.

On 7.2.2007, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', the contemner counsel, instead of filing his affidavit, as the counsel as well as that of the party as

undertaken by him, filed an application being I.A. No. 183 of 2007, seeking clarification from the Bench as to whether the affidavits tendering

apology are to be filed before the concerned Additional District Judge or before this Court. The Larger Bench explained to the counsel-contemner

that no clarification is necessary as he has to file the affidavit before the learned Additional District Judge tendering apology for the unsavory

remarks made against him in the writ petition. Then. Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' wanted the Larger Bench to pass such an order so that it may be

followed. Since specific direction was sought to be issued, as desired by the con-temner-counsel, the Court passed an order on 7.2.2007 that

both the contemners, namely, the writ petitioner as well as the counsel for the petitioner-contemner shall be present before the Court of Additional

District Judge and file the necessary affidavit tendering apology for making contemptuous allegations as against the Additional District Judge in the

writ petition. The following is the order passed on 7.2.2007:

6/7.2.2007. On 18.1.2007, this Court, as requested by Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', the Contemner, directed him as well his client, Ashok Kumar

Gupta, petitioner in the writ petition, to file an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for having made the unsavoury allegation against the District

Judge. Now, a clarification petition [I.A. (Cr.) No. 183 of 2007] has been filed, seeking clarification with reference to the filing of the affidavit

either before this Court or before the concerned Judge of the District Judge against whom allegation has been made.

As indicated in the order dated 18.1.2007, we have specifically mentioned that Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', counsel for the petitioner-contemner has

owned the responsibility of drafting the writ petition and, therefore, we thought it fit to direct both. Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', the counsel, as well as

Ashok Kumar Gupta, the petitioner-contemner to file an affidavit tendering unconditional apology. Therefore, there is no clarification necessary.

However, in view of the petition, seeking for clarification, it would be proper to direct both contemners, the petitioner as well as the counsel for the

contemner; Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' to file the said affidavit(s) tendering unconditional apology before the District Judge concerned within two

weeks from this date. So, both are directed to appear before the District Court concerned within two weeks from today and file an affidavit

tendering unconditional apology. Thereafter both the contemners shall be present before this Court and file an affidavit with regard to the

compliance of the order of this Court and on that basis, further orders will be passed by this Court.

The interlocutory application [I.A. (Cr.) No. 183 of 2007] seeking clarification stands disposed of.

Post these matters on 28.2.2007 at 2.30 p.m.

Even before the next date, i.e., 28.2.2007, the contemner counsel requested for some more time for reporting compliance of the order dated

7.2.2007. As requested by him, it was directed to be posted on 26.3.2007.

In the meantime, on 27.2.2007. Ashok Kumar Gupta, the writ petitioner-contemner alone appeared before the Court of Additional District

Judge and filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for having made allegation against the Additional District Judge, in the writ petition as

per the order of this Court dated 7.2.2007.

As fixed earlier, the matter again came up on 26.3.2007 before the Larger Bench. At that time, it was noticed that the contemner-counsel did

not appear before the Court of Additional District Judge and did not file the required affidavit tendering apology in compliance with the order dated

7.2.2007. On the other hand, to the shock and surprise of the Larger Bench, the contemner-counsel filed an application dated 12.3.2007, before

this Court justifying the contents of the writ petition, again making serious allegation against the Additional District Judge and seeking for the recall

or modification of our order dated 7.2.2007. He made further allegation against the said Pankaj Kumar, respondent No. 1 judicial officer as well

as the Joint Registrar of this Court, as if they both colluded together to list the writ petition before the particular Single Judge, i.e., Justice Permod

Kohli. The relevant paragraphs in his application filed on 12.3.2007 in I.A. No. 395 of 2007 are to be quoted:

That from the aforesaid principles of law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court, it is clear that even High Court and Supreme Court Judges are

not immune from criminal prosecution and the question of immunity against the subordinate judicial officers in the background of the principle is not

permissible, in accordance with law, laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

That, thus Hon''ble High Court has power to control the subordinate judicial both judicially and administratively under Articles 227 and 235,

respectively of the Constitution of India and if Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta has invoked this Judicial Power of this Hon''ble Court, as advised under

Article 227 and drafted by the alleged contemner lawyer, the question of contempt committed by him does not and cannot arise, in the facts and

circumstances of this case, stated hereinafter. It was proper for this Hon''ble Court to examine the allegations against Shri Pankaj Kumar and if it

was found not sustainable in accordance with law the same should have been dismissed, or it would have found sustainable in accordance with

law, the direction, as prayed for should have been issued by this Hon''ble Court to the Governor of State of Jharkhand to respect of Shri Pankaj

Kumar. But without examining the same in its entirety, this Hon''ble Court headed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Kohli took entirely different view,

contrary to law, as laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court; as aforesaid and started criminal contempt proceedings against the alleged contemner

lawyer; as well as his client Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, which has led to this controversy as well as this criminal contempt proceedings, which is not

sustainable in accordance with law, in accordance with legal opinion by the alleged contemner lawyer.

That, it is made clear that the alleged contemner lawyer has no respect for a lawyer, for a litigant public as well as for a Judge, who have no

respect for majesty of law. In the legal opinion of the alleged contemner lawyer Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad, the Advocate of Giridih Civil Court. Sri

Md. Ayub Quaish, the alleged forged Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the Decree Holders, as litigant public and Shri Pankaj Kumar has no

respect for law and hence it is very difficult for judicial conscience of the alleged contemner lawyer to bow before him for seeking apology against

his judicial conscience. The alleged contemner lawyer states that he will have no problem if he falls in the eyes and estimation of others but he will

be restless in leading his life if he falls in his own eyes and estimation. Seeking apology from Shri Pankaj Kumar will lead to this situation which

cannot be tolerated by the alleged contemner lawyer at any price to be paid by him, for this purpose, in the following facts and circumstances of

this case:

That Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad, the Advocate of Giridih Court has been appearing in the Execution Case No. 12/84, pending before the Sub-

Judge I, Giridih and in the Court of Shri Pankaj Kumar, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 23/2003, since the year 1984, the year of starting execution

proceedings, arising out of Title Suit No. 6/83. This fact is proved by the order dated 27.2.2003, passed in Execution Case No. 12/84, by the

then learned Sub-Judge-I, Giridih.

That Shri Md. Ayub Quaish is using his forged Power of Attorney dated 2.6.2003, before all the Courts such as High Court, Supreme Court and

in the Court of Shri Pankaj Kumar, since 2.6.2003.

That it is also relevant to state here that one Mr. Shakil, one of the decree holders in the aforesaid execution proceedings has stated in his evidence

before the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Giridih that it is not Md. Ayub Quaish but it is he who is having Power of Attorney in his favour on 2.6.2003 by

decree holders executed.

That the learned District Judge, Giridih vide his order dated 25.3.2003, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13/2003 has held that the Power of Attorney

executed on 2.6.2003, in favour of Md. Ayub Quaish is a forged document in view of the fact that one Bibi Maliman, one of the executors of the

Power of Attorney had died in the year 1991, itself, whereas her thumb-impression was given in the Power of Attorney executed on 2.6.2003.

This finding of fact was given by learned District Judge, Giridih, on the basis of a document produced by Railway Authority.

That it is relevant to state here that in the opinion of the alleged contemner lawyer, the judicial behaviour of the present Hon''ble Chief Justice is

par excellence, because the alleged contemner lawyer has his personal experience as lawyer; arguing in his Court that whenever any matter is

argued before his Court, he hears patiently, considers the law cited by the counsel and thereafter passes judicial orders, in accordance with law

and thus not only the alleged contemner lawyer but the entire members of Jharkhand High Court Bar are satisfied with his Judicial behaviour.

That in view of the aforesaid judicial behaviour of the Hon''ble Chief Justice, Sri Pankaj Kumar became panic and though that if this matter is

heard by Hon''ble Chief Justice in that event he may fall in trouble and so he in collusion with Sri Manoranjan Kavi got this case listed before

Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Kohli. which has led to this present controversy and present criminal contempt proceedings against the alleged contemner

lawyer and his client.

Thus, it is clear that through this affidavit, seeking for modification of the order dated 7.2.2007, he wanted to justify the contents of the writ

petition containing contemptuous allegations made against the Additional District Judge and insisted that the same to be heard and orders to be

passed on merits. But surprisingly, the contemner-petitioner then engaged another counsel Mr. P.C. Tripathy, a senior member of the Bar and filed

an affidavit before this Bench stating that he had engaged and instructed Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' only to file appeal and had never instructed to file

writ petition seeking sanction for prosecution against the Additional District Judge nor he had given any particular as against the Additional District

Judge and he simply signed the affidavit as instructed by his counsel Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' after payment of the due fees as he was in the bona

fide belief that the counsel for the petitioner would take up the matter before the High Court by way of an appeal. According to the affidavit filed

by the contemner-petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta, in LA. No. 765 of 2007 filed on 12.4.2007, the entire drafting was done by Mr. K.K. Jha

''Kamal'' the counsel and he is neither the author nor responsible for the unsavory allegations made in the writ petition against respondent No. 1,

the Additional District Judge. The serious allegations against respondent No. 1 were made on his behalf in the writ affidavit without his consent or

knowledge or permission. However, in obedience to the order dated 7.2.2007, he went and appeared before the concerned Additional District

Judge respondent No. 1 and filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology as directed by this Court. He also requested for permission for

withdrawing the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order of learned Additional District Judge before the appropriate forum.

This statement made by the writ petitioner-contemner, through his affidavit filed now, must be true, since on the earlier hearing, the counsel-

contemner himself owed responsibility stating that he alone is responsible for drafting writ petition. Earlier, he categorically admitted that the

contemner-petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta was merely rubber stamp and he did not know anything and it is he who drafted the entire writ petition.

Strangely, the present stand of the counsel contemner is that the allegations contained in the writ petition, as against the respondent No. 1 judicial

officer are correct and justified and he is ready to argue writ petition on merits and as such there is no necessity to appear before the Additional

District Judge and to file an affidavit of apology as it would be against his conscience.

After hearing the parties and going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition W.P. (C) No. 7126 of 2006,

praying for sanction for prosecution as against the Additional District Judge, who passed judicial order, cannot be entertained. Further, writ

petitioner himself now seeks permission for withdrawal of the writ petition with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the order.

However, instead of allowing the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, we think it fit to dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable.

Accordingly, W.P. (C) No. 7126 of 2006 is dismissed. As requested by the writ petitioner through his present counsel, it is open to him to

approach the appropriate forum for challenging the order of Additional District Judge, if so advised.

Now the question arises for consideration is whether the contemner-petitioner and contemner-counsel, who made unsavoury allegations

against the judicial officer in the writ petition, and the contemner counsel who threatened the learned single Judge, have committed contempt.

There are two aspects in this matter-(i) The drafting and filing of the writ petition, making contemptuous allegations against the judicial officer

by the writ petitioner as well as the counsel for the petitioner constituting contempt (ii) threatening the single Judge by Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal''

warning of serious consequences for issuing contempt notice against his client in the open Court in full view of lawyers and others, constituting

contempt against the counsel-contemner. Both the aspects are to be examined/considered together as they are relatable to each other.

In regard to the first aspect of the matter, both contemner-petitioner as well as the contemner-counsel are to be held liable for contempt for

having drafted the writ petition, signed and filed the same in the Court making unsavoury allegations against the judicial officer, if they are

established to be contumacious.

In so far as the second aspect is concerned, contemner-counsel alone is responsible for the words uttered in a threatening tone in the open

Court as against the learned single Judge.

In regard to the liability of the both counsel and client, as mentioned in the first aspect, relating to the contumacious allegations made against the

judicial officer in the writ petition, it is to be stated that the counsel for the contemner himself owed the responsibility for having drafted the writ

petition and admitted that the writ petitioner was only a rubber stamp. The contemner writ petitioner also has filed an affidavit before this Court that

he did not know the contents of the writ petition and reposing trust in his counsel, he simply signed the affidavit, as directed by his counsel, and he

never gave any instructions to his counsel with reference to the alleged allegations as against the judicial officers. However, as indicated above, as

directed by this Court, the contemner-petitioner without any delay rushed to the District Court and filed the affidavit before the Additional District

Judge, tendering unconditional apology for having filed such a writ petition. To the said effect, he has filed affidavit before this Court also. In both

the affidavits filed by the contemner-petitioner, it is categorically stated that he did not know the contents of the petition:

the counsel contemner has never explained to him the nature of the contents and he never instructed his counsel to make those scurrilous allegations

against respondent No. 1, the judicial officer in the writ petition. This is not disputed by the contemner counsel, as he himself openly admitted

before this Court on earlier hearings that he only drafted the writ petition and he owed full responsibility for the contents of the petition.

In view of the above stand taken by the parties, there is no difficulty in holding that the contemner-counsel alone is responsible and liable for

the consequences in respect of the first aspect of the matter, if it is established that the said act constitutes contempt. In view of the above and also

in view of his tendering unqualified apology, we do not want to proceed against the second contemner-Ashok Kumar Gupta further and we drop

the contempt proceeding against him. He is, accordingly, discharged from the proceeding.

Let us now analyse about the first aspect against the counsel-contemner. For this purpose the relevant portions of the scurrilous allegations

made in the writ petition drafted by the counsel on record are quoted as under:

Pages 3 and 4 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Hon''ble Governor of the State of Jharkhand through and on behalf of the

respondent No. 4 to accord sanction for criminal prosecution of the respondent No. 1, for his judicial action/orders, as aforesaid, u/s 197 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in view of the fact that the learned respondent No. 1 is falling/has fallen in the net of provision of Section 219

of the Indian Penal Code, which is quoted below for ready reference and perusal of this Hon''ble Court, on the ground that the aforesaid judicial

orders passed by him is illegal, mala fide, contrary to law and the materials on judicial record, deliberate judicial order favouring the respondents

No. 2 and 3 and in complete partiality, keeping in waste paper basket the well settled law as well as established principle of impartiality, which is

the core quality of a Judge presiding over a judicial proceeding. The facts on judicial record as stated hereinafter will show that the respondent No.

1 has deliberately ignored to follow the order passed by his superior authority, such as, learned District Judge, Giridih and this Hon''ble Court

knowing it fully well that he is passing illegal order to show favour to the respondents No. 2 and 3.

Page 18 & 19. That, despite the fact that the respondent No. 1 had within his knowledge the order dated 27.2.2003, he did not give any finding

on the order dated 27.2.2003 in his order dated 21.12.2005, deliberately, mala fidely, illegally and in collusion with the respondents No. 2 and 3

for extraneous considerations, such as either on the pairvi of the son of the respondent No. 2 who is an Additional District Judge, a co-ordinate

rank of Judicial Officer within the jurisdiction of this Hon''ble Court or by taking money from the respondent No. 3 or for any other extraneous

consideration best known to the respondent No. 1 to be explained by him before this Hon''ble Court.

Page 44. From the following statements in the order dated 16.9.2006 it is clear that the respondent No. 1 has deliberately refused to consider and

take into account the order dated 19.9.2003 passed by the District Judge, Giridih. In Misc. Case No. 83/2003 and the deposition of one of the

decree holders, namely, Shakil Ahmad which was on judicial record even at the time of arguing by the appellant the petition dated 4.7.2005 which

was disposed of by the respondent No. 1 on 21.12.2005 and also at the time of arguing review applications dated 7.1.2006 and 21.1.2006 which

was disposed of by respondent No. 1 (judicial officer) on 16.9.2006.

Page 45. The order dated 16.9.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1 is contrary to the materials on judicial records of this case and it can be

safely said that order dated 16.9.2006 on this issue is deliberate, violation of law, illegal, mala fide, contrary to law and to show judicial favour to

the decree holders/respondents at the cost of principle of impartially maintained by the respondent No. 1 and hence this part of the order dated

16.9.2006 u/s 219 of the IPC and the respondent No. 1 deserves criminal prosecution for violation of Section 219 of IPC.

Page 46 and 49. Despite there evidence on judicial record prior to 6.7.2005 and 7.1.2006 as well as 21.1.2006 (because the aforesaid deposition

of Md. Shakil Ahmad took place on 18.3.2004/5.4.2004) the respondent No. 1 deliberately refused to take into consideration. Because, had it

been considered by him, he could not have shown judicial favour to the decree holders/respondents at the cost of impartiality which he was

supposed to maintain and the claim of Power of Attorney holder Md. Ayub Quaish, the respondent No. 3 would have been falsified, because he is

not one of the decree holders and thus the respondent No. 1 passed illegal, mala fide, partial judicial order contrary to law and hence the judicial

order/action of the respondent No. 1 falls in the net of Section 219 of IPC.

Page 75. But yet it is relevant to show as to how the respondent No. 1 has committed judicial dishonesty, partially by ignoring the finding of fact by

the learned Sub-Judge-I, Giridih, which is in favour of the petitioner in his order dated 21.12.2005 and 16.9.2006 and has repeatedly referred in

his orders dated 21.12.2005 and 16.9.2006, the finding of fact which is in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner.

Page 81. Yet by referring repeatedly in his impugned orders that the petitioner as appellant has failed to examine any witness in support of his,

aforesaid contention, is sheerly his judicial dishonesty and partiality shown to the decree holders, throwing the principle of impartiality into waste

paper basket, which he is supposed to maintain as a judge and thus it can be safely concluded that he has passed the aforesaid impugned orders

deliberately and knowingly that those are illegal orders.

Page 100. That, now, it is relevant to comment upon the attempt of the petitioner to get the respondent No. 1 criminally prosecuted by the

direction of this Hon''ble Court for the purpose of granting sanction u/s 197 of CrPC. In this context Section 219 of IPC has already been quoted

hereinbefore and hence it need not be repeated by the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of this case the learned respondent No. 1

deserves to be criminally prosecuted in terms of prayer made by the petitioner.

Page 105. Apart from that, the other portion of the impugned orders have been also passed by deliberately and knowingly ignoring the materials

on judicial records and hence it cannot be said that those orders have been passed in good faith and hence Section 219 of IPC is attracted against

the learned respondent No. 1 for action against him in accordance with criminal law of the land after obtaining sanction u/s 197, CrPC from the

competent authority.

Page 106 It cannot be presumed that the learned respondent No. 1 as a superior judicial officer has no mental ability to know the law and in the

circumstances, petitioner has no option but to conclude that the learned respondent No. 1 has passed aforesaid judicial orders illegally, mala fidely,

contrary to law and materials on judicial record knowing fully well that he is passing illegal, mala fide and partial orders showing favour to the

respondent No. 2 as a lawyer and respondent No. 3 as apparently forged power of attorney holders on behalf of all the decree holders, excepting

decree holders No. 2(a), 2(b) (the substituted legal heirs of decree holder No. 2) and 6 in collusion with each other.

The above paragraphs given in the affidavit in the writ petition, admittedly drafted by the counsel contemner, would clearly indicate that there is

specific assertion in the affidavit that the judicial orders passed by the learned respondent No. 1, the judicial officer, is a deliberate, mala fide order

for the purpose of favouring the respondents No. 2 and 3 and in complete partiality and the act of judicial officer is judicially dispensed as the

order was passed by the judicial officer knowing fully well that he is passing illegal, mala fide and partial order and these orders had been passed

either in collusion with the respondent No. 3 for extraneous consideration such as either on the influence of the son of the respondent No. 2 or by

taking money from the respondent No. 3 or for any other extraneous consideration.

Thus, it is clear that in the writ petition a very serious allegations have been made to the effect that the mala fide order had been passed by the

judicial officer in order to show judicial favour in favour of the decree holders by committing judicial dishonesty by either getting money or for

extraneous consideration.

On noticing these paragraphs, learned single Judge has correctly asked the counsel-contemner as to the details of the materials available on

record to level such serious allegations against the judicial officer. Counsel-contemner was not able to point out any material. He simply referred to

various earlier orders.

After hearing the counsel-contemner, the learned single Judge went through entire records and found that there is no material whatsoever to

support the said allegations against the Presiding Officer-respondent No. 1, who has been impleaded as a party by name. Since these allegations

are apparently contemptuous in nature and as these allegations, if read in its entirety, tend to scandalize the Court and lower its authority and also

aims at to interfere with the administration of justice, learned single Judge passed an order referring the matter to the Larger Bench in view of

Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act finding that the allegations prima facie constitute a contempt.

As a matter of fact when the matter came up before this Court on the first occasion before the Larger Bench on 5.1.2007, the Larger Bench

advised the counsel-contemner not to resort to this sort of filing writ petition making allegations against the judicial officers as it would give a wrong

message to the junior members of the Bar and it may not be proper for a senior lawyer like Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' to file such a writ petition

against judicial officer seeking for the sanction for prosecution against him instead of filing appropriate petition or appeal challenging the said order.

Then, as indicated above, all the Association Presidents as well as Advocate-General, intervened in this matter and requested this Court that they

would make Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' to realize his mistake and ensure that he would tender unconditional apology. Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' also

agreed to file affidavit of apology for the same. Accordingly, on 15.1.2007, he filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology and requested this

Court to pardon him in a forgive and forget spirit. As requested by him and as suggested by the Presidents of the various Associations and

Advocate-General, he was allowed to file similar affidavit before Justice Permod Kohli before whom contempt was committed by the counsel

contemner. Accordingly, he filed affidavits, tendering apology on 17.1.2007 before Justice Permod Kohli. Justice Permod Kohli also recorded his

impression on hearing him as well as on perusal of the affidavits, that Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' became remorseful. However, the learned single

Judge felt that contempt with regard to the contents of the writ petition as against the judicial officer has to be proceeded with.

In that view, this Court directed both the petitioner a well as counsel-contemner to file similar affidavits tendering apology to the Additional

District Judge in respect of the allegations made against him in the writ petition. Then a petition, seeking clarification of the order was filed by the

counsel contemner, being I.A. No. 187 of 2007, on 7.2.2007 as to whether the said affidavit is to be filed before this Court or before the

Additional District Judge against whom allegations have been made. Then, this Court by order dated 7.2.2007 gave specific direction as requested

by the counsel contemner and the contemner-petitioner directing that both of them must appear before the Additional District Judge and tender

unconditional apology for the scurrilous allegations made against him in the writ petition. This Court had a hope on that day that both would comply

with the said direction and in that event, this Court would close the matter without proceeding further. But, unfortunately, counsel-con-temner did

not chose to obey this order. On the other hand, his client, the writ petitioner, changed his counsel and rushed to the District Court and filed an

affidavit of apology in compliance of the orders of this Court. To make the matter worse, the contemner-counsel has now filed a petition before

this Court in I.A. No. 395 of 2007 on 12.3.2007 seeking for recall of the order dated 7.2.2007 and I.A. No. 832 of 2007 on 20.4.2007

emphatically justifying his stand taken in writ petition and asking for dropping of the instant criminal proceeding against the contemner-lawyer. He

supported the unsavoury allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed to consider the merits of the writ petition as judicial order dated

21.12.2005 and 16.9.2006 are illegal and direction be issued for sanction u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the

Additional District Judge.

It is quite strange to notice that even after the writ petitioner, who appeared before this Court through other senior lawyer categorically

asserted through the affidavit that he had never given such an instruction to the counsel contemner, the counsel contemner has been insisting this

Court that the allegations made against the first respondent in the writ petition is justified and he must be heard on merits. This stand is taken by the

counsel contemner, even after the change of counsel by the client contemner, who prayed for permission to withdraw the writ petition. This is quite

unfortunate.

This time, the Presidents of various Associations and Advocate-General have neither supported the cause of the counsel- contemner nor

pleaded anything in favour of the counsel contemner. Ultimately, the counsel-contemner has to singularly stand before this Court without any

support either from the Bar or from his client. The monstrous feature is even then, he did not realize his mistake and on the other hand he is

persistent in submitting that he is justified in making those allegations in the writ petition against the Additional District Judge, who passed the

judicial order.

Further he again made several allegations against the registry and other judicial officers in the affidavit, seeking for recalling the order dated

7.2.2007. dated 12.3.2007 (LA. No. 395 of 2007). Even though he tendered unconditional apology before Hon''ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli on

15.1.2007, in his affidavit dated 12.3.2007 before this Court, he ventured to again make allegations against Hon''ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli as

well as the registry. In this affidavit he narrated the circumstances under which he could not obey the direction of this Court. The relevant portions

are as follows:

Page 3 and 4, Para 2. That it is stated and submitted that the alleged contemner lawyer has not been able to obey the direction of this Hon''ble

Court vide its order dated 7.2.2007 for the following reasons and accordingly wants that the same be recalled/ modified, so far the alleged

contemner lawyer is concerned, in view of the fact that his client Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta has left him and without his advise has tendered

unconditional apology, before the learned Court of Additional District Judge of Giridih, Shri Pankaj Kumar and the alleged contemner lawyer has

nothing to say in the matter, on behalf of his client, in view of the aforesaid development, without his knowledge, consultation and advise, as his

lawyer.

Page 4 and 5, Para 3. That at the outset. It is made clear that the alleged contemner lawyer had owned the responsibility of directing the writ

petition but had not admitted in any view of the matter that the said writ application was contemptuous and contained unsavoury allegations against

the leaned Additional District Judge, Giridih, namely, Shri Pankaj Kumar, who will be hereinafter to be referred in short as ""Shri Pankaj Kumar"".

Page 5 and 6, Para 4. That in the said writ application the alleged contemner lawyer has simply made allegations of passing deliberate, illegal

Judicial Orders in face of materials on judicial records concerned and had prayed before this Hon''ble Court that his Judicial Orders dated

21.12.2005 and 16.9.2006, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 23/2003, be set aside, if it is found that it is illegal order as well as had also

prayed that whether that Judicial Order was passed deliberately, or not, should be examined by this Hon''ble Court and if it is found that the

aforesaid orders were passed deliberately and knowingly, to be illegal orders passed by learned Sri Pankaj Kumar, then it should also be

examined as to whether this type of Judicial Orders is attracting the ingredients of Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code and if it is found that it

attracts, in that event a prayer was made in judicial side of this Hon''ble Court to direct the Governor of State of Jharkhand to accord sanction for

his criminal prosecution, u/s 219 of the Indian Penal Code, in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by his client Shri

Ashok Kumar Gupta and in the Legal Opinion of the alleged contemner lawyer, there is nothing illegality involved in the demand and no unsavoury

remark has been made against the learned Shri Pankaj Kumar but only facts on judicial record in a very polite and submissive but assertive

language has been mentioned.

Page 13, Para 6. That, thus Hon''ble High Court has power to control the subordinate judicial both judicially and administratively under Article 227

and 235, respectively of the Constitution of India and if Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta has invoked this Judicial Power of this Hon''ble Court, as

advised under Article 227 and drafted by the alleged contemner lawyer, the question of contempt committed by him does not and cannot arise, in

the facts and circumstances of this case, stated hereinafter. It was proper for this Hon''ble Court to examine the allegations against Shri Pankaj

Kumar and if it was found got sustainable in accordance with less than same should have been dismissed or it would have found sustainable in

accordance with law, the direction, as prayed for should have been issued by this Hon''ble Court to the Governor of State of Jharkhand in respect

of Shri Pankaj Kumar. But without examining the same in its entirety, this Hon''ble Court headed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Kohli took entirely

different view, contrary to law, as laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court, as aforesaid and started criminal contempt proceedings against the

alleged contemner lawyer: as well as his client Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, which has led to this controversy as well as this criminal contempt

proceedings, which is not sustainable in accordance with law. In accordance with legal opinion by the alleged contemner lawyer.

Page 15 and 16. Para 7...Shri Pankaj Kumar has no respect for law and hence it is very difficult for judicial conscience of the alleged contemner

lawyer to bow before him for seeking apology against his judicial consciences.... Seeking apology from Shri Pankaj Kumar will lead to this

situation which cannot be tolerated by the alleged contemner lawyer at any price to be paid by him for this purpose.

Page 24, Para 13. That Shri Pankaj Kumar had played not only a role in his Court, contrary to law but had also effected the administration of

justice before the Hon''ble Court because when the matter was brought before this Hon''ble Court against him by filing the writ application vide

W.P. (S) No. 7126 of 2006, Sri Pankaj Kumar in collusion with Sri Manoranjan Kavi the then Registrar (Listing and Computer) got it listed

before Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Kohli on 21.12.2006, despite the notifications dated 18.12.2006, 9.12.2006 and 20.12.2006, wherein it was

notified that in pending matter, in which the Judicial Officer is either petitioner or respondent shall be heard by a Division Bench, headed by the

Hon''ble Chief Justice.

Page 25,'' Para 14. That it is relevant to state here that in the opinion of the alleged contemner lawyer, the judicial behaviour of the present Hon''ble

Chief Justice is par excellence, because the alleged contemner lawyer has his personal experience as lawyer; arguing in his Court that whenever

any matter is argued before his Court, he hears patiently, considers the law cited by the counsel and thereafter passes judicial orders, in

accordance with law and thus not only the alleged contemner lawyer but the entire members of Jharkhand High Court Bar are satisfied with his

judicial behaviour.

Pages 25 and 26, Para 15. That in view of the aforesaid judicial behaviour of the Hon''ble Chief Justice, Sri Pankaj Kumar became panicy and

though that if this matter is heard by Hon''ble Chief Justice, in that event he may fall in trouble and so he in collusion with Sri Manoranjan Kavi got

this case listed before Hon''ble Justice P. Kohli, which has led to this present controversy and present criminal contempt proceedings against the

alleged contemner lawyer and his client.

Page 27, Para 16. That, thereafter the alleged contemner lawyer issued a notice to Sri Manoranjan Kavi, seeking his clarification as to how despite

notification dated 18.12.2006, 19.12.2006 and 20.12.2006 by him on behalf of the Hon''ble Chief Justice, this case was listed before Hon''ble

Mr. Justice P. Kohli on 21.12.2006 and the said clarification is still awaited and Mr. Manoranjan Kavi has not replied to the same which may lead

to the conclusion that he is a party in listing this case on 21.12.2006, before Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Kohli, at the instance of Sri Pankaj Kumar.

So, these paragraphs contained in the affidavit filed by the contemner lawyer would indicate that even after he appeared before Justice Permod

Kohli and tendered unconditional apology, he never realized his offensive action, but on the other hand tried to justify his move of drafting and filing

of writ petition containing unsavoury allegations against the judicial officer without any basis.

The counsel-contemner, having tendered unconditional apology before Justice Permod Kohli on 15.1.2007 for his act of contempt, it is quite

painful to see that he has now chosen to file an affidavit in I.A. No. 395 of 2007 on 12.3.2007 criticising and commenting about the act of Justice

Kohli initiating contempt proceeding against his client and himself. Once he accepted that he only drafted writ petition, then he must own

responsibility by placing materials to show and explain under what circumstances he made the very serious allegations against the judicial officer

alleging that he has been dishonest and passed order for some consideration inclusive of money. Further he wanted to justify his action by requiring

this Court to go into the matter in deep even though the client has not supported him by stating that he had never given instructions to make such

allegations against a Judge. As indicated above, his client engaged another senior counsel and filed affidavit, tendering apology before both the

Additional District Judge as well as before this Court and also seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file appeal before

the appropriate forum. When that is the fact situation, we are at a loss to understand as to how the erstwhile counsel for the petitioner, who is a

contemner-lawyer can persuade and insist this Court to go into the veracity of the allegations made against the judicial officer in the writ petition

filed by the contemner client. This attitude depicts the conduct of the lawyer, who is bent upon accusing, insulting and threatening both Judge of

subordinate judiciary as well as Judge of High Court, which is quite unbecoming.

As indicated above, when the contempt proceedings were initiated on 5.1.2007, he filed I.A. No. 49 of 2007 on 12.1.2007 requesting to

drop the proceedings against him and his client in a forgive and forget spirit. On 5.1.2007 he filed an affidavit before the learned single Judge

tendering unconditional apology and prayed to forgive him. On 18.1.2007 before this Bench, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' accepted that he only drafted

the writ petition and he alone was responsible for the same. On that day he requested for adjournment for filing affidavit on his behalf as well as on

behalf of the writ petitioner tendering unqualified apology. Then he filed I.A. No. 183 of 2007 seeking clarification with reference to the filing of the

affidavit of apology whether before this Court or before the concerned Judge of the District Court. On 7.2.2007 it was clarified that he and the

writ petitioner should file affidavits before the concerned Additional District Judge and then file an affidavit before this Court to this effect. This

order was passed only at his instance.

But, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' on coming to know that his client rushed to the Additional District Court and filed unconditional apology and

engaged a new counsel has now suddenly changed his attitude and filed I.A. No. 395 of 2007 on 12.3.2007 for recalling the order dated

7.2.2007 not only justifying his action, but again making serious allegations against the Additional District Judge as well as the Registry as contained

in paragraph 15 of his affidavit. He specifically stated that Shri Pankaj Kumar, the Additional District Judge, in order to avoid the writ petition

being taken up by the First Bench, colluded with Shri Manoranjan Kavi, the Joint registrar, and got listed this case before Hon''ble Mr. Justice

Permod Kohli, which has led to the present criminal contempt proceeding.

In this context it is pertinent to note that the Court records would show that Mr. Manoranjan Kavi, the Joint Registrar had, in fact, placed the

writ petition before the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice made administrative order for posting it in the regular writ Court being Writ Petition

(Civil) Court before Hon''ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli through endorsement dated 20.12.2006. As such, the allegation is baseless. This shows

the continued attitude of the counsel contemner to make reckless allegation against the Additional District Judge and the Joint Registrar of this

Court.

We are pained to notice this sort of attitude of making allegation after allegation by an experienced lawyer against the Judges and the registry

inspite of the fact that he tendered unconditional apology before Hon''ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli. When the affidavit was filed on 12.3.2007

before this Court, his client, the writ petitioner was no more his client. When such being the case how could the counsel-contemner assert in the

Court on 12.3.2007 that the case was listed purposely before Hon''ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli and how could he request this Court to go into

the merits of the writ petition as against the order of the Additional District Judge? As a matter of fact, as stated earlier, his client after having

tendered unconditional apology before Additional District Judge by obeying the order dated 7.2.2007 of this Court and through another Senior

Counsel filed an affidavit before this Court requesting not to decide on the merits of the writ petition but to allow him to withdraw the writ petition

to enable him to file the appeal before the appropriate forum. In this situation, how could the counsel-contemner insist this Bench to decide on

merits of the writ petition?

In Act, Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta in his reply affidavit to the affidavit of counsel-contemner dated 12.3.2007 in I.A. No. 765 of 2007 on

12.4.2007, specifically denied having given any instruction for making any such allegations in the said LA. No. 395 of 2007 filed on 12.3.2007 by

Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal''. Inspite of this, another affidavit has been filed by Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' in I.A. No. 832 of 2007 on 20.4.2007 seeking

for dropping the contempt proceeding in the light of the earlier affidavit filed by him on 12.3.2007 in LA. No. 395 of 2007 after considering the

merits of the writ petition. Could we expect this sort of behaviour from a senior lawyer practicing in this High Court?

From the above, one thing is clear, i.e., Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', the counsel-contemner has not only filed writ petition making very serious

allegations against the judicial officers without any material whatsoever but also obtained signature from the contemner-writ petitioner without

getting his consent or instruction for filing such writ petition as against the judicial officer. Is it not an improper conduct on the part of the lawyer?

Further, as indicted above, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' originally appeared and tendered apology before the learned single Judge who initiated

contempt against both, but subsequently he changed his stand and has taken a new stand by stating that his act of drafting the writ petition, making

allegations against judicial officers, is perfectly justified and he also further went to the extent of saying that the initiation of proceedings by Hon''ble

Mr. Justice Permod Kohli is not sustainable in law. Why should there be a sudden change from his earlier stand? On whose behalf, he could insist

for arguing the writ petition on merits when his client does not want to pursue the writ petition?

As a matter of fact, he made more contemptuous statements in the said affidavit seeking for the recall of the order dated 7.2.2007, particularly,

in paragraphs 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18, not only against the learned single Judge, but also against Manoranjan Kavi, Joint Registrar (List and

Computers) and again against the Additional District Judge.

In the last day''s argument, the contemner-counsel in an emphatic tone declared in the open Court that he is ready to face any consequences,

but he is not ready to tender apology before the Additional District Judge. It is apparent from this conduct that the contemner-counsel has not only

scandalized learned Additional District Judge by using contemptuous words in the writ petition and declined to tender apology for the same, but

also threatened the learned single Judge in the open Court, the moment the contempt proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner by

stating in a most offensive manner that controversy would not die down by issuance of contempt notice and rather it would flare up.

Having obtained the clarification order from this Court showing an inclination to this Court that both himself and his client were prepared to go

to Additional District Judge and file their apology, the contemner-counsel has not cared to obey the order of this Court. On the other hand, he said

in the open Court in the challenging tone that he is prepared to face any consequences and he will not obey the order of this Court and he will not

go to Additional District Judge and file an affidavit tendering apology. This was not the earlier stand taken by the counsel-contemner, when he

sought the said direction from this Court. Thus, it is clear that the action, conduct and behaviour of the counsel-contemner is unbecoming of an

advocate. He deliberately made an attempt to scandalize the Court of law by drafting and filing the writ petition, making derogatory, wild and

unfounded allegations against the Additional District Judge in the writ petition and also against the Registry of this Court through the further

affidavits filed before this Court. Therefore, in respect of the first aspect of the contempt, it has to be held that, counsel-contemner is author of writ

petition and responsible for the contumacious allegations made against the judicial officer.

In respect of the second aspect of the contempt, there is no dispute that the counsel-contemner committed contempt of the learned single

Judge of this Court as the counsel-contemner himself admitted the same and tendered his apology. However, we cannot accept his apology for the

contempt committed before the learned single Judge''s Court in view of the subsequent incidents narrated above and also for the reason that we

feel the act of tendering unqualified apology by the counsel-contemner before the learned single Judge and before us is merely an eye wash as the

feeling of tendering apology did not come from his heart. Further, to accept any apology for a conduct of this kind and to condone it would

tantamount to a failure on the part of this Court to uphold the majesty of the law, the dignity of the Court and to maintain the confidence of the

people in the judiciary. The Court will be failing in its duty to protect the interests of justice against the attempts to denigrate and lower the authority

of the judicial officers entrusted with the sacred task of administration of justice. A failure on the part of this Court to punish the offender on an

occasion such as this would thus be a failure to perform one of its essential duties solemnly entrusted to it by the Constitution and the people.

At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to the various observations made by the Supreme Court while dealing with the cases where the

advocate committed the contempt of Court. They are as follows:

In the Constitution Bench judgment in Brahma Prakash Sharma and Others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed as

follows:

If, however, the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by

such Court. It can be punished summarily as contempt.One is a wrong done to the Judge personally while the other is a wrong done to the public.

It will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge

or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court''s administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause

embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. It is well established that it is not necessary on prove

affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement; it is enough if it is

likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law.

In S. Mulgookar''s case AIR 1978 SC 727 the Supreme Court observed as follows:

If the Court considers the attack on the Judge or Judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of

the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him who challenges the supermacy of the rule of law by fouling its

source and stream.

The Supreme Court in M.B. Sanghi, Adv. Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, , while dealing with an appeal filed by the

contemner-advocate, observed as follows:

The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements who fall 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 in not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge but also to be fair name of the judiciary.

It is high time that we realize 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.

The Supreme Court in the case of Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar, observed as follows:

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 contemner in order to preserve its dignity.

The Supreme Court in In Re: Roshan Lal Ahuja, , observed as follows:

The aspertions and allegations made by the contemner in the offending documents, including the note for directions'' undoubtedly have the effect of

scandalizing the Court in relation to its judicial functioning and undermining its dignity. They are an affront to the majesty of law. He has permitted

himself the liberty of casting aspersions, wholly unjustified and uncalled for, on the integrity and fairness of the Judges of this Court in the discharge

of their judicial functions. He has, thereby, attempted to interfere with the administration of justice. The contemner appears to be addicted to using

contemptuous language so as to browbeat the Court. We find, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the contemner guilty of having committed

a gross criminal contempt of this Court.

If a person committing such a gross contempt of Court were to get the impression that he will get off lightly it would be a most unfortunate state of

affairs. Sympathy in such a case would be totally misplaced-mercy has no meaning. His action calls for deterrent punishment so that it also serves

as an example to others and there is no repetition of such a contempt by any other person.

The Supreme Court in In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner), observed as follows:

The stance taken by the contemner is that he was performing his duty as an outspoken and fearless member of the Bar. He seems to be labouring

under a grave misunderstanding. Braveness is not outspokenness and arrogance is not fearlessness. Use of intemperate language is not assertion of

right nor is a threat an argument. Humility is not servility and Courtesty and politeness are not lack of dignity, self-restraint and respectful attitude

towards the Court presentation of correct facts and law with a balanced mind and without overstatement, suppression, distortion or embellishment

are requisites of good advocacy. A lawyer has to be a gentleman first. His most valuable asset is the respect and goodwill he enjoys among his

colleagues and in the Court.

The contemner has obviously misunderstood his function both as a lawyer representing the interests of his client and as an officer of the Court.

Indeed, he has not tried to defend the said acts in either of his capacities. On the other hand, he has tried to deny them. Hence, much need not

been said on this subject to remind him of his duties in both the capacities. It is, however, necessary to observe that by indulging in the said acts, he

has positively abused his position both as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court and has done distinct disservice to the litigants in general and to

the profession of law and the administration of justice in particular. It pains us to note that the contemner is not only a senior member of the legal

profession, but holds the high offices of the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, Member of the Bar Council of U.P., Chairman and Member.

Executive Council and Academic Council of the National Law School University of India at Bangalore and President of the High Court Bar

Association, Allahabad. Both as a senior member of the profession and as holder of the said high offices, special and additional duties were cost

upon him to conduct himself as a model lawyer and officer of the Court and to help strengthen the administration of justice by upholding the dignity

and the majesty of the Court. It was in fact expected of him to be serious in maintaining the rule of law and in strengthening the people''s confidence

in the judicial institutions. To our dismay, we find that he has acted exactly contrary to his obligations and has in reality set a bad example to others

while at the same time contributing to weakening of the confidence of the people in the Courts.

In the case of In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others, the Supreme Court observed:

The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although

the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be

maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the Court. The legal profession is different from other professions in that

what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilized society.... The society has

a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour.... If the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalized. No service will be two small in

making the system efficient effective and credible. The casualness and indifference with which some members practice the profession are certainly

not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige either of the profession or of the institution they are serving.... The present trend

unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from outside....

In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another, the Supreme Court observed:

...whenever a Court of record records its finding about the conduct of an advocate while finding him guilty of committing contempt of Court and

desires or refers the matter to be considered by the Bar Council concerned, appropriate action should be initiated by the Bar Council concerned in

accordance with law with a view to maintain the dignity of the Courts and to uphold the majesty of law and professional standards and etiquette.

The Supreme Court in In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, would make following observation while dealing with the contempt committed

by the advocate:

Any action on the part of a litigant be he a lawyer appearing to person which has the tendency to interfere with or obstruct the due course of justice

has to be dealt with sternly and firmly to uphold the majesty of law. No one can be permitted to intimidate or terrorise judges by making

scandalous unwarranted and baseless imputations against them in the discharge of their judicial functions so as to secure orders which the litigant

''wants''

Objective criticism is permissible provided it is made with detachment in a dignified language and respectful tone. The liberty of expression cannot

be treated as a licence to scandalize the Court and instead of criticizing the judgment to criticize the Judge who delivered it.

Imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation of the Court and would be contempt of Court. Even imputation

of lack of impartiality of fairness to a judge in the discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt.

A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can fairly and reasonably be submitted on

behalf of his client.... At the same time, a member of the Bar is an officer of the Court and gives a duty to the Court in which he is appearing. He

must uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything to bring the Court itself into disrepute....

In the Constitution Bench judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , the Supreme Court observed:

In a given case, it may be possible for this Court or the High Court, to prevent the contemner advocate to appear before it till he purges himself of

the contempt but that is much different from suspending or revoking his licence or debarring him to practice as an advocate. In a case of

contemptuous, contumacious, unbecoming or blameworthy conduct of an Advocate-on-Record, this Court possesses jurisdiction, under the

Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his privilege to practice as an Advocate-on-Record because that privilege is conferred by this Court and

the power to grant the privilege includes the power to revoke or suspend it. The withdrawal of that privilege, however, does not amount to

suspending or revoking his licence to practice as an advocate in other Courts or Tribunals.

In Radha Mohan Lal Vs. Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), the Supreme Court would observe as follows:

It should be widely made known that counsel who file applications or pleadings containing matter scandalizing the Court without reasonably

satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are

themselves nothing guilty of contempt of Court.

An advocate is not merely an agent or servant of his client. He is an officer of the Court. He owes a duty towards the Court. There can be nothing

more serious than an act of an advocate if it tends to impede, obstruct or prevent the administration of law or it destroys the confidence of the

people in such administration.

In the case of Bar Council of India Vs. High Court of Kerala, , the Supreme Court observed:

An advocate does not enjoy absolute privilege when acting in the course of his professional duties. The dignity of the Court is required to be

maintained in all situations.... An advocate in no circumstances is expected to descend to the level of appearing to support his view in a vulgar

brawl.

In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in various cases and law laid down in these decisions, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the counsel-contemner has committed the contempt of the Court of the Additional District Judge and also of this Court.

So, these things would make it clear that Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' takes it granted that the Court hearing him are bound to give relief and

whenever he does not get relief, he tries to bully, coerce and undermine the Court by exerting hostile attitude and making unscrupulous comments.

If such a contemner is not dealt with properly, it will send a very wrong message to the persons concerned with the administration of justice

and will pose a threat to the entire justice delivery system.

While expressing that it is highly painful to convict Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' an experienced lawyer practicing in this Court for several years for

contempt, this Larger Bench is conscious of the fact that this Larger Bench has been specially constituted to deal with the contempt against the

advocate by taking a serious view of the matter. As a matter of fact on several occasions and on various dates we actually expressed our

reluctance to convict him and impose consequent punishment as he is a practicing lawyer. But our reluctance was not taken in the right spirit by

Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', rather he became emboldened to say that he would not obey the orders of this Court as his conscience would not permit

for the same and he is prepared to face any consequence for the violation of the order.

This statement made by the counsel-contemner in the open Court challenging this Larger Bench would disclose his indifferent attitude in the

matter. He has no regrets for his utterance and his conduct. When that being his attitude, it becomes the duty of this Larger Bench to take

appropriate action against the lawyer for contempt, mainly for preserving its dignity.

No one, including an Advocate, who, himself, is an officer of the Court can claim immunity from the operation of law of contempt, if his

conduct in relation to the Court interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice.

Whoever the person may be, however high he may be, no one is above the law notwithstanding how powerful and how rich he may be. For

achieving the purpose of the rule of law, the Constitution has assigned the special task to the judiciary in the country. It is only through the Courts

that the rule of law unfolds its contents and establishes its concept. For the judiciary to perform its duty and functions effectively and true to the

spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. It is not the

question of insulting a Judge of this institution, but it is a matter of defying the institution and the'' judicial system as a whole. In case dignity of

judiciary is not maintained, where this institution will stand?

The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The Judiciary is the guardian to protect and ensure the rule of law. Hence, judiciary is

not only the third pillar, it is 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 individuals and institutions including the executive and the Legislature act within the framework of not only the law

but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to

peaceful and orderly development of the society. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain 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 diminishing the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the

Courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of punishing those who indulge in acts whether inside 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.

The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the

foundation itself is 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.

Humility and courtesy are the basic qualities of a lawyer. Humility is not servility and courtesy is not lack of dignity. Self-restraint and respectful

attitude towards the Court are the requisites of good advocacy. A lawyer has to be a gentleman first. His most valuable asset is the respect and

goodwill he enjoys among his colleagues and in the Court.

From the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, as referred to above, it is manifestly clear that the strong arm of the law in the public

interest and public justice, has to necessarily strike a blow on the counsel contemner, in order to preserve dignity of the Court as no one including

an advocate can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt, if his act or conduct is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice.

For the reasons discussed above, we are to conclude that it has been established that the counsel-contemner, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'', has

made scurrilous remarks without instructions from his client and any supporting material whatsoever, in the writ petition drafted by him, against the

Additional District Judge and also commented in threatening words against the learned single Judge of this Court. Consequently, we find the

contemner, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' guilty of the offence u/s 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The question now is what punishment should be meted out to the contemner? While awarding punishment, this Court has to necessarily keep in

view the gravity of the act of contempt committed by the contemner. Further, the past conduct also has to be taken into account while imposing

punishment.

The past records of the contemnor-counsel go to reveal that on earlier two occasions, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' was punished for contempt of

Court by the Benches of this Court. In Original Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11, 13 and 15 of 1995(R). the Division Bench of Patna High Court,

Ranchi Bench, Ranchi consisting of the then Chief Justice, Justice D.P. Wadhwa and Justice S.N. Jha convicted the contemner counsel K.K. Jha

''Kamal'' for the offence of contempt by order dated 7th February, 1996. They found him guilty of the criminal contempt of Court and accordingly

convicted him and awarded punishment to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months on the charge that he made a derogatory

remarks against the sitting Judges, Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay, Justice H.K. Hemchoudhary, Justice Gurusharan Sharma. In another contempt

proceeding being Cont. (Cr.) Case No. 9 of 2001, the Division Bench of Justice Laxman Uraon and Justice Vikramaditya Prasad found him guilty

for the charges of contempt for scandalizing the Judges of High Court, past and present and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in

default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months by the order dated 30th July, 2002. In this matter he made derogatory allegations against

Justice Satyeshwar Roy, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice V.K. Gupta (as their Lordships then were). Despite the action taken by the High Court on

the earlier occasions, the counsel-contemner has not cared to mend his ways and change his attitude.

As per the penal Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, a person who has been held guilty for contempt of Court may be punished to a

term of simple imprisonment which may extend a period of six months or with a fine which may extend upto Rupees Two Thousand or both. As

indicated in the above paragraph, he was earlier convicted and sentenced in one case with fine as well as in another case he was convicted and

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Therefore, this time we deem it appropriate to impose sufficient punishment.

Accordingly, we sentence the counsel-contemner, K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Before parting with this case, this Bench is constrained to discharge one more duty. The Supreme Court while dealing with a similar situation,

as reported in Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another, (Constitution Bench) would stress the necessity for not only

convicting the lawyer for contempt of Court, but also to refer the misconduct of the advocate to the Bar Council to take appropriate action.

The following are the guidelines and observations given to the High Courts and the Bar Council of India and Bar Councils of State:

(i) An Advocate, who is found guilty of contempt of Court, may also, as already noticed, be guilty of professional misconduct in a given case, but it

is for the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India, to punish that advocate by either debarring him from practice or suspending his licence,

as may be warranted, in the facts and circumstances of each case.

(ii) We do not entertain any doubt that the Bar Council of the State or bar Council of India, as the case may be, when apprised of the established

contumacious conduct of an advocate by the High Court or by this Court, would rise to the occasion, and take appropriate action against such an

advocate. Therefore, the Bar Council must, whenever facts warrant, rise to the occasion and discharge its duties, uninfluenced by the position of

the contemner advocate.

(iii) The High Courts also have to draw the attention of the Bar Council of the State to a case of professional misconduct of a contemner advocate

to enable the State Bar Council to proceed in the manner prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. There is no justification to

assume that the Bar Councils would not rise to the occasion, as they are equally responsible to uphold the dignity of the Courts and the majesty of

law and prevent any interference in the administration of justice.

(iv) Whenever a Court of record records its finding about the conduct of an advocate while finding him guilty of committing contempt of Court, it

can as well refer the matter to be considered by the Bar Council concerned for taking appropriate action in accordance with law with a view to

maintain the dignity of the Courts and to uphold the majesty of law and professional standards and etiquette.

In the light of the above mandates, this Larger Bench feels that besides imposing conviction and sentence on the counsel contemner, it is a fit

case where there shall be a reference of the matter to be considered by the Bar Council to take appropriate action against the contemner in

accordance with law as, in our view, he has abused his professional privileges while practicing as a advocate and his conduct is highly

contumacious. In this matter, as indicated above, we have already issued notice to the State Bar Council''s Chairman to assist this Court. Since the

State Bar Council is a party in this matter, this Court feels that it would be better to refer the matter to the Bar Council of India to take appropriate

action against the counsel contemner in accordance with the rules and regulations under the Bar Council Act. Accordingly, the same is ordered.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the Bar Council of India for necessary action by following the required procedure.

While concluding this, we deem it appropriate to impose one more restriction on the counsel contemner, as suggested by the Supreme Court in

the Constitution Bench Judgment in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , on his appearance before the Courts in this

jurisdiction in view of the continuous contumacious conduct of the counsel contemner with the result he was convicted and condemned by the

Judges of this Court as well as the Chief Justice of this Court earlier. The Supreme Court in the above decision would categorically observe as

follows:

In a given case, it may be possible for this Court or the High Court, to prevent the contemner advocate to appear before it till he purges himself of

the contempt but that is much different from suspending or revoking his licence or debarring him to practice as an advocate. In a case of

contemptuous, contumacious, unbecoming or blameworthy conduct of an advocate-on-Record, this Court possesses jurisdiction, under the

Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his privilege to practice as an advocate-on-Record because that privilege is conferred by this Court and

the power to grant the privilege includes the power to revoke or suspend it. The withdrawal of that privilege, however, does not amount to

suspending or revoking his licence to practice as an advocate in other Courts or Tribunals.

In view of the above suggestion given by the Supreme Court, this Court feels that it would be appropriate to direct the counsel-contemner, Mr.

K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' not to appear before any of the Courts under this jurisdiction till he purges himself of the contempt. This order does not mean

that his licence is revoked or he has been debarred from complete practice as an advocate, as this sort of order can be passed only by the Bar

Council after conducting inquiry. Therefore, we make it clear that this restriction would only be confined to his appearance before the Courts under

this jurisdiction. It would be open to him to have a chamber practice. Consequently, we are constrained to pass this order in order to see that this

Court as well as the Subordinate Courts would not have to face this sort of situation causing mental torture at the hands of the contemner counsel

in the future.

At the end, we have to make a special reference of appreciation to the service rendered by the learned Advocate-General, Mr. S.B. Gadodia;

Mr. B.P. Pandey, Chairman, State Bar Council at Jharkhand; Mr. P.P.N. Roy, President of Advocates'' Association; Mr. M. Sohail Anwar,

President, Bar Association; Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad, President of Lawyers'' Association. Only due to the effective assistance rendered by these

senior lawyers, who took into consideration both the majesty of law as well as the dignity of the Bar, we are able to arrive at the final conclusion

and discharge this painful duty without any difficulty.

To sum up:

(i) Ashok Kumar Gupta, the second contemner is discharged from the contempt proceedings in view of findings recorded hereinabove and in view

of the unconditional apology tendered by him.

(ii) The counsel contemner, Mr. K.K. Jha ''Kamal'' is convicted for the offence of criminal contempt and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months;

(iii) The matter is referred to the Bar Council of India to take appropriate action under the Bar Council of India Act against the counsel contemner

by following the required procedure in accordance with the law as he has abused his professional privileges while practicing as an advocate. The

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the Bar Council of India;

(iv) The counsel-contemner is restrained to make appearance before the Courts under this jurisdiction till he purges himself of the contempt but this

order would not restrict his chamber practice as an advocate, if any.

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

I agree.

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

I agree.

R.K. Merathia, J.

I agree.

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

I agree.