(Delivered by Hon. Imtiyaz Murtaza J.) Present Contempt proceeding has its basis in the Reference made by Sri T.A. Siddique, District Judge Jaunpur, whereby a request has been made to initiate contempt proceeding under section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against contemnor Gyanendra Singh, a practising Advocate of Civil Courts Jaunpur bearing Enrollment/Registration No 2792/77 vide letter dated 6.8.2010 addressed to Registrar General of the Court.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that on 2.8.2010 at 2.35 pm, when the court was already seized of proceeding in ST No 100 of 2010 and was waiting for arrival of District Government Counsel (Crl) for recording of statement of Seema in camera in the aforesaid Sessions trial, the contemnor came at the dais and began to make enquires from the court asking as to what happened to his application. When the court demanded to know from him, which application he was talking about, he replied that he had moved a bail application in which he wanted earlier date or a hearing today itself. When the Court asked him to make enquiries from the clerk concerned, he retorted that he would not go to the clerk and the court would have to hear the application just now upon which he was informed that the bail applications had been heard in pre-lunch sessions and appropriate orders passed thereon. The District Judge conveyed information to him that the court was already seized of the Sessions trial in which camera proceeding has commenced. This information of the Court infuriated the contemnor who flung accusation at the court stating that the Presiding officer was working according to his whims and was not granting relief in bail matters to the lawyers. When the contemnor was asked not to cast aspersion upon the court as it was a judicial matter and related to judicial discretion, the contemnor flew into rage and made the remarks which included-"they (lawyers) would not allow the court to function and they would see how the court carried on judicial transaction; the courts would be pad-locked; that in case the Presiding officer was not amenable to what the lawyers wanted, the working of the courts would be brought to naught; that perhaps, the presiding officer (Distt Judge) was not aware about what type of lawyers here are."
On 21.5.2007, it would transpire, the matter was put up before the Administrative Judge Jaunpur who appended the following remarks:
"Place before Hon'ble the Chief Justice with the recommendation to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt."
Hon. Chief Justice vide order dated 5.10.2010 appended approval to the Reference with the direction to list the Reference before the Appropriate Bench. It is in this conspectus that the matter has come up before the Bench.
Sri K.N.Tripathi and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Advocates appeared for the contemnor and pleaded for merciful view in the matter. On being called upon to argue the case on merit of the case, he referred to apology stating that the contemnor has already tendered the apology and prayed for discharge taking a benign view further urging that that the contemnor was fairly senior having been enrolled as Advocate in the year 1977 attended with submission that he can not be said to be addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks nor is there any previous instance of his showing disrespect to the court . Ultimately, he stated that the contemnors should be given a chance to expiate their deviant behaviour if it be so.
Before proceeding further, we would like to quip here that it is settled in law by catena of decisions that the power under the contempt of Courts Act has to be exercised very sparingly and with utmost caution when the Court is convinced that the acts of the contemnor tend to adversely affect the administration of justice or impede its course or shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. It is also well settled that the power may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty and dignity of the courts of law.
In the counter affidavit filed by the contemnor namely Gyanendra Singh sworn on 9.2.2011, the contemnor in Para 4 has averred that relation between him and the District Judge has always been very cordial. In para 5, he has denied the incident to have at all happened as alleged by the Distt Judge. In para 6, he has narrated the matter in his own words like this. He averred that bail application filed on behalf of his father in law had been rejected by the Distt Judge on 2.8.2010. In para 7 he averred that on 2.8.2010, bail application on behalf of Maniram husband had been filed before the court in which 16.8.2010 was fixed by the Distt Judge. In para 8, he averred that since bail application of his father in law had already been rejected, the bail application on behalf of Maniram was also likely to meet the same fate and therefore, he had moved an expedite application on 3.8.2010 with the request to hear and pass the order thereon the same day. In para 10, he averred that as was the practice that the bail applications were heard after lunch at 2 pm, he reached the court, the District Judge asked all other counsel present in the court to leave the court upon which he made a mention to the court to hear the expedite application. The District Judge asked him to enquire from Reader and when he approached the Reader who told him that the application has been rejected by the Distt Judge in chambers. When he again made a mention to the Court, the Distt Judge rudely asked him to leave the court so that camera proceedings may be commenced.. In para 12, he has averred that he clarified to the court that he was not interfering in the court proceeding and requested the court to prepone the date as date fixed after 14 days would too long a date. In para 13, he averred that he left the court stating that he would take up the matter with the higher authorities in the High Court. In para 14, it is averred that thereafter, the local bar took up the matter with the Distt Judge requesting him to give short dates in the bail matters, upon which the Distt Judge started giving short dates and the matter amicably ended there. In subsequent paragraphs, the contemnor has stated that he was a very senior Advocate and he was being engaged by junior advocate in almost 90% cases and he has already put in 33 years of fair and clean hand practice. Lastly, the contemnor has solicited to be discharged by accepting his unconditional apology in the matter.
We have gone through the various papers including the counter affidavits sworn and filed by contemnor and from scrutiny of the materials on record, it is obvious that the contemnor has denied the manner as alleged by the District Judge, and has also denied the allegation that the contemnor in any way interfered with the functioning of the courts or used any derogatory words, he has given the version of incident in his own words from which it is inferable that there was exchange of words between him and the court when the court denied to entertain his request. The District Judge in his reference has alleged that the bail applications were heard before lunch and appropriate orders were passed thereon in Court. The contemnor to the contrary, has alleged that the orders on bail applications including the orders on his expedite applications were passed by the District Judge ensconced in the Chambers and behind his back sans any hearing. The contemnor has admitted the fact that the camera proceeding was about to commence and the District Judge had asked all the lawyers including the contemnor to leave the court. The contemnor has stated that immediately he made a mention to the court upon which he asked him to enquire about the fate of the application from the Reader of the Court. The District Judge in his reference has stated that he asked the contemnor to enquire about the orders from the clerk concerned and he has named the clerk concerned. The contemnor has admitted that he again asked the court to fix an early date or dispose of the application the same day as the fate of the application was known to him upon which the District Judge again asked him to leave the court as he was to record the statement of a lady in camera proceeding. Reacting to it, the contemnor, made certain utterances which was to the effect that he would report the matter to the High Court. On the other hand the District Judge has given precise account of what the contemnor actually uttered in court. The actual words uttered by the contemnor are reproduced below.
"Hum Log Adalat Chalne Nahi Denge, Dekhteh Hai Ki Aap Adalat Mei Kaise Kaam Karte Hai, Adalat Mei Tala Lagwa Denge. Agar Aap Hum Logo Ki Baat Bahi Sunenge Toh Adalat Puri Tarah Se Thup Kar Denge, Aap Hum Logo Ko Nahi Jaante Hai."
Although the contemnor has denied to have uttered the words as ascribed to him and instead took shelter behind the plea that since, while leaving the court, he had uttered that he would report the matter to the High Court, the District Judge was annoyed and erroneously gave an exaggerated version of the incident. In connection with this submission, we will have to flash back to recount the sequence of events. The genesis of the matter was the Expedite application of the own relative of the contemnor in which he wanted to prepone the date fixed or to hear and dispose the bail application the same day. Admittedly, since the District Judge had already taken up the bail matters and had passed the orders thereon in pre-lunch sessions and was to record the statement of a lady in camera proceeding, he asked the contemnor to leave the court and enquire about the fate of the application from the clerk concerned. This was not relished by the contemnor. The genesis leading to exchange of words between him and the court has not been denied by the contemnor. The contemnor has not levelled any allegation against the District Judge of being prejudiced except saying that he used to give long dates in the matters to the detriment of the interest of the clients who were languishing in jail. At this stage, it may also be recalled that it is settled position by a catena of decisions that the version of the presiding officer in such cases is entitled to pre-eminence. In the facts and circumstances, we have no reason to discredit the version of the officer as contained in the Referencet and rather, we have no hesitation to hold that the theme set up by the contemnors is not believable. In the conspectus of the above facts and also considering the facts on record and regard being had to the over all circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is nothing on record to prop up the contentions that the contemnors did not utter those words or the incident did not occur in the manner as enumerated by the District Judge in the Reference made to this Court.
It is stated in his affidavit by the contemnor that he merely highlighted the inconvenience being caused to litigant public and also apprised him of the grievances of the Bar as a senior member of the Bar advising him not to give long dates in such cases and thereafter, he appeared in various cases before the court and each time, and each time, there was no lack of cordiality between the court and the members of the Bar. The contemnor being lawyer belongs to a noble profession and is governed by Advocates Act and trained in law. A lawyer has certain duties towards the court bearing in mind the dignity and prestige of the court. The sequence of events given by the contemnor itself raises a natural inference that at the time of incident, the contemnor must have interrupted the proceedings of the court and uttered words as complained of in the Reference. The contempt becomes graver when the contemnor is an Advocate- well trained in law and acquainted with the niceties and intricacies of legal proceeding and the aura and majesty of law court. The counter affidavit filed by the contemnor was sworn on 9th Feb 2011 while the affidavit embodying unconditional apology was sworn on 6th April 2011. No doubt the apology tendered is unconditional one but it is subsequent to the counter affidavit in which he denied the incident and rather, held the District Judge liable to whatever had happened in the court. By this reckoning, the apology, be it unconditional, cannot be said to be real contriteness coming from the very core of the heart of the contemnor. From the counter affidavit, it leaves no manner of doubt that the contemnor made all out efforts to put the blame on the District Judge and did not seem to be repentant for his acts which scandalized the court and undermined the dignity in the public estimation.
In so far as the averments made in the counter affidavit that there was general grievance of the local bar that the District Judge was giving long dates, is concerned, we may refer to a circular of this court which is C.L. No. 83/ve-58 dated 28th Oct 1980 and C.L. No. 85/Ve-58 Admn. (G) dated 26th Dec 1981. and the same being relevant is quoted below.
"Monthly meeting of all the Presiding Officers of Civil and Criminal Courts.- Once in two or three months the President and the Secretary of the District Bar Association should also be invited to the monthly meeting of the Presiding officers for discussing matters touching the Bench and the Bar."
We have referred to circular supra in which it is clearly postulated that the District Judge shall invite President and Secretary of the Bar to discuss the working of various courts in the Judgeship. In case the contemnor had any grievance against the alleged wanton behaviour to the detriment of the interest of the lawyers and litigant public, the matter could well be taken up in the meeting with the District Judge and still, the District Judge was not heeding the advice of the Bar, the Bar could well refer the matter to this Court on administrative side. The conduct of the contemnor in interrupting the camera proceeding and in threatening the District Judge while the judicial work was being transacted, was certainly contumacious. The District Judge is the head of district judiciary and he acts as a watch-dog and representative of the High Court. The contemnor, we are of the considered view, exceeded the bounds and acted in a manner which was clearly an interference with the working of the court besides impairing the dignity and majesty of the court.
Before we proceed further, we would like to quip here that if the judiciary has to perform its function in a fair and free manner, the dignity and authority of the court has to be respected by all concerned failing which the very constitutional scheme and public faith in the judiciary would run the risk of being eroded. Since the contemnor is an Advocate, the matter requires to be considered with a little more seriousness. An Advocate, we feel called to say, is not exempt from ordinary disability which the law imposes and his position is not inviolable and his privileges cannot extend to interfere with the administration of justice. On the other hand he is expected to help in sub-serving the course of justice and not impede it in any manner. A legal practitioner has no doubt his duties towards his client but at the same time he has equally important duty and obligation upon him to cooperate with the court in the orderly and pure administration of justice. Being an Advocate, he should allow himself to be over-pursuaded by a litigant. Any departure would be construed to be violative and neglecting his duties and obligations. A lawyer is a person educated and trained in law. The use of language has to be balanced and in fitness of things within the framework of the law of the land. He cannot and should not be reckless in the use of language. There are barriers which must be known to a lawyer and it should not be crossed. He should not overstep the limits of decency and ethics in the matter of his behavior towards the court.
In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. 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 v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (1991) 3 SCC 600 the Apex Court observed as under:
"The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned judge but also to the fair name of the judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. The foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. It is high time that we 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. 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."
The foundation of judicial system which is founded 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, the much cherished judicial independence which is of vital significance to any free society 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 tendency of browbeating the judicial officers into submission is on the increase and when there is deliberate attempt to scandalize, it not only shakes the confidence of the litigating public in the system but causes damages to the reputation of the presiding judge and brings disgrace to the fair name of the judiciary.
A Judge or Magistrate has a duty to discharge his judicial functions and he passes order in the manner as he likes fit to the best of his capability in the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders or to make the court run on his dictate. In the present case, the conduct of the contemnor amounts to intimidating the court and lowering the authority and it clearly amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings which were being conducted by the Presiding officer. The power of the High Court of superintendence and control over the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution includes within its ambit the duty protect members of the subordinate courts. In the above conspectus, the charge related to criminal contempt framed against the contemnor is fully established.
In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation to say that the charges of criminal contempt established against a practising lawyer cannot be taken lightly who carries the trapping of an officer of the Court whose duty is to assist the Court and uphold the majesty of law and dignity of the person manning the court. No judicial system can tolerate such ignoble act and conduct of a practising Advocate. The crucial question that remains is what would be the appropriate punishment to the contemnor.
Now we come to deal with the apology whether it commends itself to be accepted or not. Before we proceed further, we would also not flinch from saying that the apology is not to be used as a weapon of defence forged always to be used as a shield to protect the contemnor as a last resort. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. The apology, in order to dilute the gravity of the offence, it has repeatedly been ruled in catena of decisions, should be voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and real contrition and it should be tendered at the earliest opportunity. It is worthy of notice here that the counter affidavit filed by the contemnor was sworn on 9th Feb 2011 while the affidavit embodying unconditional apology was sworn on 6th April 2011. No doubt the apology tendered is unconditional one but it is subsequent to the counter affidavit in which he denied the incident and rather, held the District Judge liable to whatever had happened in the court. By this reckoning, the apology, be it unconditional, cannot be said to be real contriteness coming from the very core of the heart of the contemnor. From the counter affidavit, it leaves no manner of doubt that the contemnor made all out efforts to put the blame on the District Judge and did not seem to be repentant for his acts which scandalized the court and undermined the dignity in the public estimation.
The decision of the Apex Court in Preetam Pal v. High Court M.P. 1993 (1) SCC 529 being relevant on the point under discussion is excerpted as under:
"To punish an advocate for contempt of court, no doubt must be regarded as an extreme measure, but to preserve the proceedings of the courts from being deflected or interfered with, and to keep the streams of justice pure, serene and undefiled, it becomes the duty of the court though painful to punish the contemnor in order to preserve its dignity. No one can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt if his act or conduct in relation to court or court proceedings interferes with is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice."
The another decision worth quoting is L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., [ 1984] 3 SCC 405, in which the Apex Court described the apology as a 'paper apology and r refused to accept it in the following words:
"We do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest imputations against him has to do, is to go ahead and scandalize him, and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs him practically nothing. If such an apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a 'license' to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with impunity. It will be rather difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care for their self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay such a price for it. And no sitting Judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of the fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an Advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were to be countenanced, advocates who can cow down the Judges, and make them fall in line with their wishes, by threats of character assassination and persecution, will be preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of Courts."
In the above perspective, as stated supra, the apology offered does not commend to us for acceptance and it is turned down.
As a result of foregoing discussion, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnor namely, Gyanendra Singh is held guilty of criminal contempt.
We accordingly convict contemnor under section 2 (c ) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
On the point of sentence, it is worthy of notice that the contemnor is a senior member of the Bar and he has put in 33 years of practice. Looking to his seniority in the Bar and also looking to his age, we limit the sentence to fine only which we quantify at Rs 1000/- forthwith. In default, the contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days.
The matter shall be listed before this Court in the third week of July 2011 for appropriate orders.
MH May 25.....2011