State of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Seetharamaiah

A suo motu proceeding for contempt was initiated against the respondent on the basis of the report made by the District Judge, Guntur of the happening in his Court on 22-9-1995. In initiating the proceedings, the contents of the copy of the letter addressed by the respondent to the Chairman of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh was also taken note of. It appears from the report of the District Judge that on 20-9-1995 at about 12.30 p.m. when the Sessions Judge had completed examination of witnesses in a Sessions case and was calling for other works, a junior advocate S. Anjaneyulu asked for adjournment in a complaint case under the Essential Commodities Act. The move was refused by the Sessions Judge since written arguments in the case had already been filed and one adjournment had also been earlier granted. In refusing the adjournment, the learned Sessions Judge observed that such adjournments would give rise to unnecessary, criticism and sending of petition against him. At the time the respondent, who is the Public Prosecutor, was present in the Court. The Sessions case in which he was appearing was already over by then. On the observation being made. by the Sessions Judge, he stood up and asked for clarification from the Sessions Judge as to why he was referring to sending of petitions. The Sessions Judge replied that it was the respondent who had sent petitions to the Honourable the Chief Justice without verifying with him about anything of the alleged utterances of the Sri D. Koteswara Rao in connection with empanelment of Public Prosecutors. He observed that in his service career, it was for the first time that he had received a petition of that nature. At this the respondent shouted in loud voice hurling challenges at the Sessions Judge to which the Sessions Judge also shouted back.

The District Judge in his report stated that realising the petition was not only mischievous but also motivated for extraneous reasons, he had started suspecting the respondents to have heavy stakes in the Public Prosecutor''s post. According to the report, that was the real reason for the conduct exhibited by the respondent.

The proceeding being initiated and notice issued, the respondent has appeared and filed an affidavit stating that the occurrence had occurred in exchange of words resulting in sudden spurt of emotion as he happens to be a patient of blood pressure. The occurrence was without any motive or intention and he offers unconditional apology and begs to be relieved from the contempt proceedings.

This Court passed an order on 30-1-1996, on the submission made by Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, that the respondent would offer apology to the District Judge and report the matter to the Court and the District Judge was also directed to furnish information to the Court of any apology if it is tendered by the respondent. In pursuance of the direction; the District Judge has sent intimation of the respondent having tendered written apology in public court at 11 a.m. on 31-1-1996. The apology offered by the respondent is also enclosed to the report.

The advocates of the Court are the officers of the Courts charged with solemn duty of upholding the dignity of the Court far which they are as much responsible as the Presiding Officers. The Bench and the Bar comprise one unit of the institution of the judiciary and any discord between the two would result not only in malfunctioning of the system but would also send wrong signals to the litigant public and constitute an erosion of value which have been upheld for centuries. The dignity of the Court is the dignity of the law which is ever higher than howsoever high a person may be and it goes without question that the presiding officer of the Court represents that dignity which demands all the deference due to it. Shouting at, the court is belittling the dignity of the Court which cannot ever be permitted as that would herald a dwindling of the faith of the public in the effectiveness of the system itself. It is unwholesome for any member of the Bar to lose his temper and bring about a situation in the public Court which can afford justifiable inference to be made of the action being voluntary and intended at lowering the prestige of judiciary. The fact that whatever had happened on that date was also later on re-affirmed and reasserted by the respondent in his application to the Chairman of the State Bar Council calling for protection, exhibits that the so-called spurt of emotion was again reiterated at cooler moments.

Considering such fact we would have ordinarily not accepted the apology tendered but since the respondent, on sane advice, has offered the apology and there has been no instance of his being a habitual practice of the conduct exhibited, we fell it sufficient to close this case by cautioning the respondent not to resort to such activities in future and that any further occurrence of the nature would be necessarily viewed with seriousness. With administration of this caution, the proceeding is closed and the rule is discharged.

Order accordingly.