Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
(delivered by Hon'ble N.A. Moonis, J.) The present proceeding has been initiated on the basis of a reference of the District Judge, Gautambudh Nagar dated 17.10.2006 against Janak Singh Tomar, Advocate, Civil Court, Gautambudh Nagar under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the Act. Initially the matter was placed before the Administrative Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, who given his comment on 7.12.2006 as follows;
"Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for taking a decision as to whether cognizance should be taken or not."
The matter thereafter was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice who had approved the matter to be placed before the court of contempt jurisdiction on 2.2.2007. This is how the matter came up on the judicial side and the notice was issued to Janak Singh Tomar to show cause as to why he may not be prosecuted for contempt by order dated 19.2.2007. The charges were framed in the presence of the contemnor on 26.9.2007 by the Bench comprising of Hon'ble K.S. Rakhra,J. and Hon'ble S.C. Nigam,J, which is being reproduced below;
"That you made the following statement in Civil Revision No. 34 of 2006 before the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar;
"YAH KI AADESH DINAK 19.7.2006 GAIR KANOONI, SAAJISHI, EVAM NYANYK SHAKTI KA BHRASHTHACHAR KE PHAL SWAROOP KHULA DURUPYOG AUR KABIL KAIMI NAHI HAI......IS VADD KO KEVAL BHRASTHACHAR KI TAKAT SE TATHA NYAYIK ADHIKARIYO KE NYAYIK DURUPAYOG KAR MAMLE KO LAMBIT RAKHA GAYA HAI......NOIDA SE SAMBHANDHIT BHRASTHA ADHIKARIGARN BHARAT VARSH KE KISI NYAYIK ADHIKARI YA ANYA ADHIKARI KO KHARIDNE KI TAKAT RAKHNE KA DAVA KARTHE HAI TATHA JIN NYAYIK ADHIKARIYO NE UPROKT VAD SUNA HAI, UNKE SE KUCHH NE APNE KO UPAR SE PURA SANRAKSHAN MILNE KA DAVA KIYA HAI. IS PRAKAR BHRASTHACHAR KI YEH DOR BAHUT BADE DAIRE MAIN PHAILI HUYI HAI."
Your aforesaid statement in civil revision No.34 of 2006 scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the court and it also interferes with, the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructs the administration of justice which amounts to criminal contempt as defined in Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and you are, therefore, liable to be punished under Section 12 read with Sections 10 and 15 of the Act. You are hereby required to file an affidavit in support of your defence within fifteen days."
The aforesaid contemptuous remarks made by the contemnor before the court of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. The contemnor had filed a Suit No. 547 of 2001 (Janak Singh Tomar Vs. NOIDA and others) before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar and during the pendency of the suit an application was moved by him (Application No. 147-C-2) with a prayer that "either the suit be decreed as no issue is made out or the Chief Legal Advisor and Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA be summoned in person to clarify their stand then suitable order be passed." The trial court rejected the application against which a civil revision was filed in which the revisionist has uttered the aforesaid scurrilous remarks challenging the integrity and ability of the judge. The District Judge observed that the above averments can by no stretch of imagination be held to be a fair comment on the merits of the case and they are deliberate, motivated and a calculated attempt has been made to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public to impair the administration of judgeship or to tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and further held that revisionist has committed a criminal contempt of court by using objectionable and intemperate language. The contemnor had appeared in person before this court on 8.12.2010 and preferred to argue the case personally. There was no expression of tendering any apology for using the contemptuous language before the court below, instead he submitted that the contempt proceedings ought not to have been initiated against him as the notices had not been served upon him properly. He has challenged the proceeding a technical ground that this court has no jurisdiction as no cognizance under the proviso to Section 10 of the Act has been taken. It was further contended that the entire proceeding is wholly unjust and illegal motivated with malice and a similar matter is sub judice before the Apex Court and under the gaze of Central Bureau of Investigation.
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has contended that the tendency of intimidating the Presiding Officer to get favourable order is on increase in recent times and there is a need to curb such incidences to preserve the dignity of the court otherwise it would shake the confidence of the public. The administration of justice should remain independent, clear and fearless. It is further argued that instead of tendering any apology, the contemnor has made a vague attempt to show that he was not properly served with the notice initiating the contempt proceedings, which is unsustainable. The mandatory requirement to serve a notice with the copy of the reference by the subordinate court was given according to Rule 6 of Chapter XXXV-E of the High Court Rules framed under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contention that a similar matter is pending before the Apex Court, if any, has no bearing upon the present proceeding. The contemnor is guilty of criminal contempt and as such he is liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
It is borne out from the record that the show cause notice dated 19.2.2007 was duly served upon him in accordance with the rules as prescribed under the High Court Rules along with copy of the reference on the basis of which contempt proceedings have been initiated. Several affidavits have also been filed from time to time by the counsel appearing on his behalf and it appears that he has not at all repentant upon his conduct and behaviour with the Presiding Officer. The order-sheet shows the conduct of the contemnor right from the beginning. After issuance of the show cause notice he avoided to appear before the court on one pretext or the other despite dates having been fixed for his appearance on the ground of his ailment or that he was not aware about the date fixed. The adjournments have been sought on his behalf by the learned counsel appearing for him. On account of non-appearance on the date fixed this court has issued bailable and non-bailable warrants on several occasions. The notices have been served at his changed address also on account of which the matter has lingered on since then.
At this juncture it is worth to mention the definition of Criminal Contempt as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Criminal Contempt Act;
"2 (c) Criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act prescribes the punishment for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. While Section 15 sub clause 2 of the Act prescribes that the High Court may take action in the case of any criminal contempt of its subordinate court on a reference made to it by the subordinate court and every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. Further more Section 23 of the Act provides rule making power relating to its procedure and therefore under the Allahabad High Court Rules, Chapter XXXV-E has been framed thereunder to govern the presentation and hearing of cases coming to the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Rule 6 prescribes with regard to the notice when an order has been made issuing notice to any person to show cause as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. A date for hearing and notice thereof in the prescribed form is given to the person concerned. The notice is accompanied by copies of the application, motion and the affidavit or a copy of the reference by a subordinate court as the case may be and requires the person concerned to appear unless otherwise ordered in person before the court at the time and on the date fixed therein to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. The notice of proceedings under Section 15 of the Act was served personally on the person charged unless the court for the reasons to be recorded directs otherwise. The aforesaid requirement of fulfilling the mandatory provisions of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act has fully been complied with in the present case and it is entirely wrong to say that the contemnor has not been served the notices along with the reference and therefore the entire proceeding does not suffer from any procedural defect.
We have gone through the several affidavits filed by the contemnor and it leaves no manner of doubt that he has made all efforts to put the blame on the Presiding Officer without the remotest feeling of tendering any apology. Since the very inception the matter has been lingered on account of seeking adjournment by the contemnor on one pretext or the other which amounts to causing interference in the administration of justice. No judicial system can tolerate such a conduct of an Advocate who himself claiming to be the Member of the Bar since last 30 years has forgotten the aura and majesty of court of law. The contemptuous remarks made by the contemnor before the Presiding Officer amounts to intimidating the court to seek a favourable order therefore he has crossed all limits of decency and ethics, which was calculated to obstruct the due course of justice. In Delhi Judicial Service Association Vs. State of Gujrat 1991 4 SCC 406 the Apex Court held as under;
"The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of Court. The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with."
In N.B. Sanghvi Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana 1991 (3) SCC 600 observed as under;
"The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge but also to the fair name of the judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. The foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging, and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. It is high time that we realise that the much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system. An independent judiciary is of vital importance to any free society. Judicial independence was not achieved overnight. Since we have inherited this concept from the British, it would not be out of place to mention the struggle strong willed Judges like Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and many others had to put up with the Crown as well as the Parliament at considerable personal risk. And when a member of the profession like the appellant who should know better so lightly trifles with the much endeared concept of judicial independence to secure small gains. It only betrays a lack of respect for the martyrs of judicial independence and for the institution itself. Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair name of the judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence."
In the present case the version of the Presiding Officer is entitled to preference and acceptance and cannot be disregarded. The conduct of the contemnor amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings, which were being conducted by the Presiding Officer. The power of the High Court of superintendence and control over the subordinate courts under Article 235 of the Constitution includes within its ambit the duty to protect the members of the subordinate courts. The charges related to criminal contempt prima facie against the contemnor is fully established and as such it cannot be taken very lightly. The conduct of the contemnor cannot be ignored and he cannot claim any immunity from the operation of law of contempt when his act and conduct during the course of court proceeding was calculated to obstruct the due course of justice.
In the above perspective, the contemnor has set up the entire story only in order to screen himself from the rigours of law. His aggressive behaviour, use of disrespectful language to secure a desired order and making derogatory remarks against the Presiding Officer loom at large. It is also painful that a very senior lawyer like the contemnor had resorted to scurrilous attack on the Presiding Officer, which has not only brought down the image of the Presiding Officer but has also shaken the confidence of the public, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the charges of criminal contempt are fully established against the practising lawyer. Therefore to up hold the dignity of court and in the interest of justice we convict Janak Singh Tomar under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default the contemnor shall undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. The punishment so imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 60 days so as to enable the contemnor to approach if so advised the Apex Court. In case no stay order is furnished after the expiry of 60 days by the contemnor he should be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.
As a result of the aforesaid discussion the reference made to this court is allowed and the contemnor is held guilty. The matter shall be listed before the appropriate court in the last week of March 2011 for ensuring compliance.
Order Date :- 25.1.2011 Shahnawaz