Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. This criminal contempt application has been registered and this Court has proceeded against Parmanand Gupta, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as 'Contemnor') practising in District Judgeship, Maharajganj, pursuant to reference made by Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Maharajganj vide letter dated 11.9.2014.
2. Facts, disclosed in reference letter dated 11.9.2014, are that on 6.9.2014 at 12:50 PM, he (Presiding Officer of Court) was conducting judicial proceedings in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2000 (State v. Chulhai and others, Police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, when Contemnor came inside the Court and shouted loudly stating following: -
Þlkys rqeus esjh i=koyh fdju nsoh cuke lqHkk"k pUnz vkfn esa lkjs iSls fQDl djk fn;s gks esjh Qhl dgkWa ls feysxhAß "Saale (an abusive term), you have caused to be fixed the entire money pertaining to my file Kiran Devi Vs. Subhash Chandra. Where shall I get my fees from?" (English Translation by Court)
3. Presiding Officer intervened and said that he (Contemnor) is uttering unparliamentary and abusive language whereupon Contemnor further said as under:
Þeknjpksn] Hkks"k.khokys tt rqEgsa QkM dj j[k nwaxk ,oa ckgj ns[k ywaxkAß "Madarchod, Bhosdiwale (abusive terms), you judge! I'll tear you apart and see you outside." (English Translation by Court)
4. Aforesaid act of Contemnor was in the presence of litigants and advocates etc. and has lowered down Court's authority and amounts to criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1971).
5. Reference is forwarded by District Judge, Maharajganj vide letter dated 11.9.2014. Thereafter, matter was examined on administrative side and finding a prima facie case of criminal contempt, Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 14.1.2015 directed it to be placed before appropriate Court. Criminal contempt application was registered and came up before Court on 10.2.2015. Observing that Contemnor's conduct falls within the purview of "criminal contempt" of Court, it issued notice directing Contemnor to explain why he may not be charged for committing contempt of Court.
6. Contemnor appeared before Court and was also represented by Shri Pradeep Kumar - VI and Shri Anil Tewari, Advocates.
7. On 7.4.2015, the Court charged Contemnor as under: -
"Sri Yogendra Ram Gupta, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. II, Maharajganj when he was hearing at 12.50 p.m., the Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2000, (State v. Sri Chulhai and others P.S. Nichlaul, District Maharajganj), in the meantime Sri Parmanand Gupta, Advocate of Motor Vehicle Accident shouted loudly in the Court and said that "Saale Tumne Meri Patravali Kiran Devi Banam Subhash Chandra Aadi mein Sare Paise Fix Kara Diye Ho Meri Fees Kahan Se Milegi". On it, it was told by the concerned officer that why he was using indecent and unparliamentary language in the Court then Sri Paramanand Gupta, Advocate remarked like this that "Madarchod, Bhoshdiwale Judge, Tumhe Phade Kar Rakh Doonga Evam Bahar Dekh Loonga.
The aforesaid act falls within the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") as it amounts not only to scandalize the Court but also by using indecent words it has resulted in lowering down the dignity and authority of the Court. Therefore you are liable to be punished under Section 12 of Act, 1971."
8. Contemnor filed reply to the charge vide affidavit sworn on 11.5.2015 (in the affidavit, date is wrongly mentioned as 11.5.2014). He also filed a miscellaneous application requesting this Court to summon 52 persons, whose details shall be given at later stage to examine as witnesses. Court allowed the said application and summons were issued to all these 52 witnesses proposed to be examined by Contemnor.
9. On 14.9.2015, S/Shri Pashupati Nath Gupta, Krishna Mohan Agrawal, Kaushal Kishore Pandey and Ravi Shanker Tripathi were examined as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, respectively. On 15.9.2015, four more persons, namely, S/Shri Tarkeshwar Tiwari, Rudra Pratap Singh, Shambhu Sharan Pandey and Jagdish Patel were examined as PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8, respectively. Shri Anil Tewari, learned counsel for Contemnor, thereafter made statement before Court that he is not willing to examine remaining witnesses and they may be discharged. Court passed order accordingly on 15.9.2015 discharging remaining witnesses. Thereafter, it was heard finally on 4.11.2015.
10. Shri Sudhir Mehrotra, who was nominated by Court as amicus curie, assisted and advanced submissions in support of charge, while Shri Anil Tewari, Advocate appearing for Contemnor refuted allegations and advanced submissions in defence of Contemnor.
11. We have already noted charge framed against Contemnor, which is founded upon the reference made by subordinate Court. In the affidavit filed by Contemnor in reply to charge, it is stated that no such incident, as stated by Reference Court actually occurred in which Contemnor was involved. Reference was made for other reasons. There has been resentment with regard to behaviour of Presiding Officer towards lawyers and litigants. Contemnor was counsel in two cases i.e. Motor Accident Claim Petition (hereinafter referred to as 'MACP') No.68 of 2012 (Kiran v. Ziauddin and others) and MACP No.76 of 2012 (Vandana v. Wahid and others). Both these claim petitions were decided vide judgment dated 31.5.2014 and 29.11.2013. Contemnor had filed applications for withdrawal of money on behalf of claimants, which were registered as Misc. Case Nos.18 of 2014 and 21 of 2014. They were fixed for final disposal on 23.8.2014. Contemnor appeared before Court on the date fixed along with his clients. Presiding Officer of Court behaved with applicants of those cases in improper and insulting manner. On the request of Contemnor, matter was cooled down. Both applications were decided on 23.8.2014. Contemnor did not move any application complaining about behaviour of Presiding Officer. However, his clients Smt. Kiran Devi and Shri Shambhu Prasad made some complaints against behaviour of Presiding Officer in Bar Association. Shri Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Secretary, Bar Association, Civil Court, Maharajganj vide letter dated 25.8.2014, forwarded said application/complaints of Smt. Kiran Devi and Shri Shambhu Prasad to District Judge, Maharajganj. Copy of those complaints have been filed collectively along with letter of Secretary, Bar Association, Civil Court, Maharajganj dated 25.8.2014 as Annexure 1 to the affidavit. Presiding Officer required Contemnor to meet him in chamber. Contemnor does not remember the exact date. Then he came to know about the factum of said complaint. Presiding Officer was of the view that same was made at the behest of Contemnor. Presiding Officer was very much annoyed. Nothing thereafter happened. Contemnor only came to know of reference only after receiving notice. The incident dated 6.9.2014 has never happened. Contemnor was not present in Court premises itself on 6.9.2014. Contemnor is Prabhari of Aap party of Lok Sabha, Maharajganj. On 6.9.2014, a meeting of executive body of the party was scheduled to commence at 11:00 AM. It continued till 3:00 PM. It was presided by Contemnor. Photo copy of minutes of said meeting is Annexure 2 to the affidavit. Contemnor has also filed affidavit of Shri Pashupati Nath Gupta confirming presence of Contemnor in the meeting. To the same effect is an affidavit of Shri Krishna Mohan Agarwal. Both these affidavits are Annexures 3 and 4 to the reply affidavit. Contemnor has complained about behaviour of Presiding Officer towards advocates and litigants being insulting and harassing. To support it, Contemnor has filed as Annexure 5, photo copies of 38 affidavits of advocates, named as under: -
1. Kaushal Kishor Pandey, son of Sri Chokat Pandey
2. Ravi Shankar Tripathi son of Sri Ram Preet Tripathi
3. Devi Prakash Sharma son of Sri Kashi Nath Sharma
4. Sushil Kumar Srivastava son of Sri Ramashankar Lal
5. Mahendra Singh son of Sri Jhingur Singh
6. Anirudh Patel son of sri Dukhharan Singh
7. Abhijeet Singh son of Sri Virendra Singh
8. Dinesh Kumar Gupta son of Sri Krishna Bihari Gupta
9. Rajeshwar Tiwari son of Sri Narsingh Tiwari
10. Dhananjay Patel son of Sri Shambhu Saran
11. Subhash Paswan son of Sri Rambriksha
12. Santosh Kumar Mishra son of Sri Janaradan Mishra
13. Arvind Kumar Dubey son of Sri Radhey Shyam Dubey
14. Damodar Pandey son of Ramvriksha Pandey
15. Ravish Kumar Tripathi son of Ramesh Chandra Tripathi
16. Anoop Kumar Singh son of Late Swadh Bihari Singh
17. Chandra Pal Yadav son of Sri Rudal Yadav
18. Jishan Akhtar son of Sri Akhtar Zama
19. Wahid Ali son of Late Bhullan Ansari
20. Zakir Husain son of Sri Saiyad Ali
21. Shiv Kumar Srivastava son of Sri Heera Lal Srivastava
22. Anil Kumar Srivastava son of Sri Devendra Lal
23. Ranjeet Singh son of Sri Surendra Nath Singh
24. Nand Lal Gupta son of Sri Mohan Lal Gupta
25. Ram Manoj son of Sri Ram Kishun
26. Sunil Mishra son of Dr. Indrajeet Mishra
27. Ram Niwas son of Late Algu
28. Rajeshwar Singh son of Sri Yogendra Singh
29. Sateshwar Singh son of Sri Yogendra Singh
30. Deena Nath Singh son of Shiv Bechan
31. Ziauddin Ansari son of Late Shahabuddin
32. Akaram son of Shri Istiyak Ahmad
33. Upendra Dubey son of Sri Onkar Nath Dubey
34. Manoj Kumar Pandey son of Sri Isranand Pandey
35. Indrasan Singh son of Sri Sirtaj Singh
36. Sanjay Kumar Pandey son of Sri Suresh Pandey
37. Kiran Kanti Tripathi son of Rajendra Mani Tripathi
38. Ajay Kumar Singh son of Sri Raghuvansh Singh"
12. In order to prove that no incident, as complained by Court below, occurred Contemnor has filed affidavit of Tarkeshwar Tiwari, Advocate appearing for one of the party in ST No.22 of 2004. Further, it is said that Shambhu Sharan Pandey, Devendra Pandey, Rudra Pratap Singh and Jagdish Patel were also present in Court on 6.9.2014. Photo copies of their affidavits have also been filed as Annexure 7 to the reply affidavit. It is also said that alleged incident claimed to have happened in presence of Sushil Kumar, Orderly; Sardar Husain; Ajay Kumar Yadav, Peshkar; Ainulhaq Huda, D.G.C. (Criminal), Court Muharrir and other police personnel. However, in the order sheet of Sessions Trial No.22 of 2000 reference has been given of Sri Ainulhaq Huda, D.G.C. (Criminal) though he was not deputed to said Court. He was discharging his duty in the Court of District Judge on 6.9.2014. Other persons named in order sheet are staff of Court. There is no independent person to prove allegations levelled against Contemnor. It is stated that all persons, named in order sheet be summoned by this Court. Reference is result of complaint made by Smt. Kiran Devi and Shri Shambhu Prasad and consequent move initiated by Bar Association. Presiding Officer has thought the said move as brain child of Contemnor and on account of annoyance the proceedings have been initiated. Contemnor has never complained against Presiding Officer. He is a regular law practitioner in the said Court and cannot take any chance to annoy Presiding Officer. Several cases of Contemnor were listed in other Courts also, but he could not appear in those cases due to party meeting presided by him. Some of these cases are detailed in paragraph 33 of the affidavit, which are Misc. Case No.191 of 2010 (Sawari Devi v. Hausila Prasad in the Court of District Judge); Misc. Case No. (Shehar Bano and others v. Rajesh and others in the Court of District Judge); and Misc. Case No.06 of 2013 (Mahesh v. Sarjad in the Court of Additional District Judge Ist).
13. As already stated, large numbers of photo copies of affidavits of advocates of Civil Court, Maharajganj have been filed. Details thereof as well as swearing dates of affidavits are given in the following chart: -
Sl.No.
Name Profession/Occupation Date of Affidavit 1 Pashupati Nath Gupta Social Worker 05/05/15 2 Krishna Mohan Agarwal District Level Secretary of AAP, Maharajganj 05/05/15 3 Kaushal Kishore Pandey Advocate 02/05/15 4 Ravi Shanker Tripathi Advocate 05/05/15 5 Devi Prakash Sharma Advocate 06/05/15 6 Sushil Kumar Srivastava Advocate 06/05/15 7 Mahendra Singh Advocate 05/05/15 8 Anirudh Patel Advocate 06/05/15 9 Abhijeet Singh Advocate 05/05/15 10 Dinesh Kumar Gupta Advocate 02/05/15 11 Rajeshwar Tiwari Advocate 04/05/15 12 Dhananjay Patel Advocate 04/05/15 13 Subhash Paswan Advocate 04/05/15 14 Santosh Kumar Mishra Advocate 04/05/15 15 Arvind Kumar Dubey Advocate 04/05/15 16 Damodar Pandey Advocate 02/05/15 17 Ravish Kumar Tripathi Advocate 02/05/15 18 Anoop Kumar Singh Advocate 04/05/15 19 Chandra Pal Yadav Advocate 05/05/15 20 Jishan Akhtar Advocate 05/05/15 21 Wahid Ali Advocate 05/05/15 22 Zakir Husain Advocate 05/05/15 23 Shiv Kumar Srivastava Advocate 05/05/15 24 Anil Kumar Srivastava Advocate 05/05/15 25 Ranjeet Singh Advocate 04/05/15 26 Nand Lal Gupta Advocate 04/05/15 27 Ram Manoj Advocate 04/05/15 28 Sunil Mishra Advocate 04/05/15 29 Ram Nivas Gupta Advocate 06/05/15 30 Rajeshwar Singh Advocate 06/05/15 31 Sateshwar Singh Advocate 06/05/15 32 Dina Nath Singh Advocate 06/05/15 33 Ziauddin Ansari Advocate 02/05/15 34 Wasim Akram Advocate 02/05/15 35 Upendra Dubey Advocate 06/05/15 36 Manoj Kumar Pandey Advocate 06/05/15 37 Indrasan Singh Advocate 06/05/15 38 Sanjay Kumar Pandey Advocate 05/05/15 39 Kiran Kanti Tripathi Advocate 06/05/15 40 Ajay Kumar Singh Advocate 05/05/15 41 Tarkeshwar Tiwari Advocate 02/05/15 42 Shambhu Sharan Pandey Advocate 02/05/15 43 Devendra Pandey Advocate 04/05/15 44 Rudra Pratap Singh Advocate 05/05/15
14. As already said, initially Contemnor proposed to examine 52 witnesses to support his defence and his request was accepted by this Court. Notices were also issued to all 52 persons. However, on 14.9.2015 four witnesses were examined and other four witnesses were examined on 15.9.2015. Thereafter, though many other witnesses were present, but Contemnor through his counsel made statement that he does not propose to examine other witnesses and on his request remaining witnesses were discharged.
15. There are two questions, which are to be examined by this Court; (1) "whether Contemnor visited concerned Court on 6.9.2014 and acted in the manner as complained by Presiding Officer of Court below"? (2) If answer of question no.1 is in affirmative i.e. against Contemnor, "whether act of Contemnor constitute 'criminal contempt' as defined under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971?
16. Photo copy of order sheet of concerned Court in Session Trial No.22 of 2000 is annexed with Reference and reads as under: -
"i=koyh l= ijh{k.k la0 [email protected] jkT; izfr pqYgkbZ vkfn 12-50 ih-,e- ij izLrqr gqbZA blh le; eksVj ;ku nq?kZVuk izfrdj ;kfpdkvksa ds vf/koDrk Jh ijekuUn xqIrk tksj tksj ls gYyk djrs gq, vk;s rFkk muds }kjk dgk x;k fd ^^lkys rqeus esjh i=koyh fdju nsoh ouke lqHkk"kpUnz vkfn ;kfpdk la0 [email protected] esa lkjs iSls fQDl djk fn;s gks] esjh Qhl dgka ls feysxhA^^ ftl ij esjs }kjk dgk x;k x;k fd vki bl rjg ls U;k;ky; d{k esa D;ksa ve;kZfnr o vlalnh; 'kCnks dk iz;ksx dj jgs gSaA blh ij vf/koDrk Jh ijekuUn xqIrk tksj tksj ls fpYykrs gq, Hkjh U;k;ky; esa xkyh nsus yxs fd ^^eknjpksn Hkks"k.kh okys tt rqEgs QkM+dj j[k nwaxk ,oa ckgj ns[k ywaxk^^ geykoj gq,A ml le; U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr vnZyh lq'khy dqekj] ljnkj gqlSu is'kdkj vt; dqekj ;kno] 'kkldh; vf/koDrk Jh ,suqy gd gqnk] dksVZ eksgfjZj ,oa reke iqfyl ds iSjohdkj tks leu cuk jgs Fks] vf/koDrk ijekuUn xqIrk dks idM+ dj ckgj fd;sA vU;Fkk og ?kVuk dks dqN Hkh vatke ns ldrk FkkA bl izdkj vf/koDrk Jh ijekuUn xqIrk us U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh dks lk'k; vo:) fd;k x;k ,oa vlalnh; o vHknz 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx dj U;k;ky; dk;Zokgh esa fo?u mRiUu djrs gq, U;k;ky; dh voekuuk fd;kA buds }kjk mPpkfjr 'kCnksa ls ;gh izrhr gks jgk Fkk fd o lk'k;] iwoZ fu/kkZfjr ;kstuk ds rgr U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh esa ok/kk Mkyus ,oa xUns 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx dj U;k;ky; dk vieku djus vk;s FksA mDr vf/koDrk Jh ijekuUn xqIrk ds bl d`R; ls okndkfj;ksa ,oa turk esa U;k;ky; dh xfjek rkj&rkj gqbZ gS ,oa U;k;ky; dh xfjek dks xaHkhj Bsl igqapk gSA vf/koDrk Jh ijekuUn xqIrk ds bl d`R; ls U;k;ky; dk dk;Z yxHkx ,d ?k.Vs izHkkfor gqvk rFkk muds }kjk tks vlalnh; o v'kksHkuh; 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k gS og U;k;ky; dh voekuuk dh Js.kkh esa vkrk gSA buds bl rjg ds nqZO;ogkj ls U;k;ky; esa vQjk rQjh ep x;h ,oa U;k;ky; dks vR;f/kd d"V lguk iM+kA Jh ijekuUn xqIrk ds iz;ksx fd;s x;s xUns 'kCn ls ok/; gksdj eq>s vR;f/kd d"V ds lkFk vkns'k i= esa vafdr djuk iM+kA mijksDr v'kksHkuh; gjdr ,oa rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, U;k;ky; ds voekuuk dk ;g izdj.k vf/koDrk Jh ijekuUn xqIrk ds fo:) bl vkns'k i= dh lr; izfrfyih ds lkFk ekuuh; mPpU;k;ky; bykgkckn ] }kjk ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh'k ds bl fouez vuqjks/k ds lkFk lknj izsf"kr fd;k tk jgk gS fd U;k;ky; dh xfjek dks cuk;s j[kus gsrq vko';d dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik dh tk; ftlls Hkfo"; esa U;kf;d dk;Zokgh ,oa U;k;ky; dh xfjek ds izfrdwy izHkko Mkyus okys ,sls vf/koDrk dks lh[k fey lds ,oa U;k;ky; dh xfjek cuh jgsA i=koyh esa vfHk;qDr t;izdk'k mifLFkr gSa ,oa 'ks"k vfHk;qDr dh gkftjh ekQh dh nj[kkLr dsoy vkt ds fy, Lohd`r gqbZA lk{kh mifLFkr ugh gSA i=koyh vR;ar iqjkuh gS tks ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr ikap izkphure 'kCnksa esa ls gSA vr% 'ks"k xokgksa dks ryc fd;s tkus gsrq ,l0ih0 dks i= fy[kk tk;A okLrs lk{; fnukad 20-9-2014 dks is'k gksA lk{kh ryc gksA"
"File of Sessions Trial No. 22/2000 State Vs. Chulhai and Otheres came to be presented at 12:50 pm. At the same time, Advocate Shri Parmanand Gupta pursuing motor accident claim petitions came shouting aloud and said, "Saale (an abusive term), you have caused to be fixed the entire money pertaining to my file Kiran Devi Vs. Subhash Chandra, Petition No. 153/2011. Where shall I get my fees from?" On this, I said that why are you this way using undignified and unparliamentary words in the Court room. Upon this only, Advocate Shri Parmanand Gupta started using abusive language in open Court shouting loudly, "Madarchod, Bhosdiwale (abusive terms), you judge! I'll tear you apart and see you outside." and got into aggression. At that time, those present in the Court Ardali Sushil Kumar, Sardar Hussain, Paishkar Ajay Kumar Yadav, Government Advocate Shri Ainul Haq Huda, Court Muharrir and pairvikar of several policemen who were preparing summons caught hold of Advocate Shri Parmanand Gupta and got him out otherwise he could have gone to any extent. In this way, the Court proceedings were intentionally interrupted by Advocate Shri Parmanand Gupta and he committed contempt of Court by intently obstructing the Court proceedings by way of using unparliamentary and indecent words. From the words used by him, it was evident that he has, with wilful and predetermined design, come to create obstruction in Court proceediings and to insult the Court by using filthy words. From this act of Advocate Shri Parmanand Gupta, the dignity of the Court has got shattered in the eyes of the litigants and the public and has got seriously affected.
The Court proceedings remained affected for around one hour due to this act of Shri Parmanand Gupta and the unparliamenary and undignified word used by him comes under the definition of 'contempt of the Court'. His misconduct of this sort caused disturbance in the Court and the Court had to suffer a great deal of agony. Aggrieved by the foul words used by Shri Parmanand Gupta, I had to mention them in the order-sheet with a lot of pain.
Taking in view the aforesaid undignified act, facts and circumstances, this issue of the contempt of the Court, along with true copy of the order sheet against the advocate Shri Parmanand Gupta, is being sent with all deference to the Hon'ble High Court through the Learned District Judge, requesting that necessary action may please be taken for upholding the dignity of the Court so that such an advocate, adversely affecting the judicial proceeding and the dignity of the Court, may have a lesson and the Court may continue to maintain its dignity.
As per records, accused Jai Prakash is present and the application seeking exemption to the rest of the accused from appearance stands allowed only for today. The witness is not present. The file is very old, which is one of the oldest words used in the Hon'ble High Court. So, a letter be written to S.P. summoning the rest of the witnesses. File be put up on 20.09.2014 for evidence. The witnesses be summoned." (English Translation by Court)
17. Presiding Officer has recorded incident in order sheet of case, which was in process when alleged incident took place. He has also noted that at the time Contemnor came to Court and created scene by abusing and showing indecent conduct, Sushil Kumar, Orderly; Sardar Husain; Ajay Kumar Yadav, Peshkar; Ainulhaq Huda, D.G.C. (Criminal) and Court Muharrif and other police personnels, who were making summons were present. They took out Contemnor outside the Court. Conduct and attitude of Contemnor was such as if he could have done any thing. Proceeding of case was also adjourned for 20.9.2014. Parties of case i.e. Chulhai and Jai Prakash have also put their signatures and thumb impressions on the margin of order sheet dated 6.9.2014 in Session Trial No.22 of 2000 acknowledging next date as 20.9.2014. There is not even a whisper in reply submitted by Contemnor that aforesaid proceedings in order were not written in the order sheet on 6.9.2014 and have been prepared at some other point of time.
18. We have also examined various documents placed on record in support of defence. Alleged complaints dated 23.8.2014 made by Smt. Kiran Devi and Shambhu Prasad are addressed to Adhyaksh, Bar Association, Civil Court, Maharajganj. Language of both complaints is substantially similar. Though these are photo copies but we find that in the complaints, alleged to have been made by Smt. Kiran Devi, her signature has been made at the bottom and not where her name is printed. Similarly, in the complaint of Shambhu Prasad, signature is away from the place where name is printed. Why complaints were made to Adhyaksh, Bar Association, Civil Court, Maharajganj and not to District Judge, Maharajganj is also beyond comprehension. The endorsement in complaint shows that copy is sent to District Judge, Maharajganj, but actually any copy was given to District Judge is not stated any where in the affidavit of Contemnor. Photo copy also shows that both these complaints were received personally by Shri Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Secretary, Bar Association, Civil Court, Maharajganj vide letter dated 23.8.2014. He forwarded said complaints on 25.8.2014 to District Judge. Secretary, Bar Association in his own letter added that oral complaints of concerned Presiding Officer regarding his behaviour were heard earlier also. None of the complainants of the alleged complaints have been examined by Contemnor to prove that these complainants were made by them and any such incident alleged to have occurred on 6.9.2014 actually happened or not. Admittedly, on 23.8.2014 Presiding Officer passed orders on the applications of Smt. Kiran Devi and Shambhu Prasad, not to liking of these litigants. However, those orders are not before us, therefore, we cannot examine the matter further on this aspect and we also do not find any necessity to do so.
19. First defence witness Pashupati Nath Gupta PW-1 has stated in oral deposition that meeting of 'AAP' party was commenced at 11:00 AM on 6.9.2014. Contemnor was present in said meeting. He reached there around 11:30 AM and meeting continued till 3:00 PM. He has endorsed photo copy of affidavit dated 5.5.2015 wherein he has further said that throughout the meeting, Parmanand Gupta was present and had not gone out. This fact has not been stated in examination in chief by Pashupati Nath Gupta.
20. Contemnor has claimed that he was not present in Court premises on 6.9.2014 since he was busy in meeting of Aam Admi Party (hereinafter referred to as 'AAP'), which he presided between 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM. Another witness Krishna Mohan Agarwal PW-2 was examined to prove this stand. He has stated that PW-2 Contemnor was present in the meeting of 6.9.2014, which commenced around 11:00AM and concluded at 3:00 PM. Contemnor reached in the meeting 15 to 20 minutes before its commencement and remained there till conclusion of meeting throughout. He did not leave the meeting. In support, he has also filed minutes register, which is marked as Ex.P-1. The aforesaid minutes Register does not show any time of commencement or conclusion of meeting. It contains only date. Regarding arrival of Contemnor in the meeting, Shri Krishna Mohan Agarwal - PW-2 has said that he came 15 to 20 minutes before i.e. around 10:40 or 10:45 AM while Pashupati Nath Gupta said that Contemnor reached at about 11:00 or 11:30 AM.
21. Contemnor has said that some of his cases were listed in the Court of District Judge and 1st Additional District Judge, but he did not attend and cases were adjourned. Adjournment of cases by itself does not show that contemnor did not attend Court. Order sheets of those cases have not been placed on record to support the defence that cases were adjourned due to non-appearance of Contemnor in concerned Courts.
22. Now, we take up affidavits of those Advocates, who have also been examined by Contemnor as PW-3 to PW-8.
23. Kaushal Kishore Pandey is an Advocate practising in Civil Court, Maharajganj. Photo copy of his affidavit sworn on 2.5.2015 is at page 29 of reply affidavit of Contemnor. Paras 3, 4, 5 of affidavit reads as under: -
"3- ;g fd ekuuh; vij ftyk tt dksVZ ua0 2 egjktxat Jh ;ksxsUnz jke xqIrk dk dk;ZO;ogkj vR;Ur [ksn tud gS muds }kjk vklu ij cSBdj iw.kZ dk;Zfnol ij vf/koDrkvksa dks fHkUu izdkj ds dVk{k o pksj csbeku cksyk tkrk gS o ve;kZfnr O;ogkj fd;k tkrk gS ftlls lHkh vf/koDrkvksa esa vR;Ur jks'k gS fdUrq ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh xfjek o ckj csap dh lnHkkouk dks ns[krs gq, dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha fd;k tkrk gSA 4- ;g fd fnukad 6-9-2014 dks dksVZ ua0 2 esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh v:fpiw.kZ ?kVuk ugha gqvk Fkk u gh Jh ijekuUn xqIrk ,MoksdsV ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk okn fookn gh gqvk Fkk u gh bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh pPkkZ gh FkkA 5- ;g fd Jh ijekuUn xqIrk ,MoksdsV ,d lkSE; O;ogkj dq'ky vf/koDrk gSa vkt rd fdlh Hkh izdkj ds okn & fookn esa mudh dksbZ lafyIrrk ugh jgk gSA"
"3. That the work and conduct of Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta, Hon'ble Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Maharajganj is utterly deplorable. While sitting on the dias on full working days, he tends to use different types of taunts against the advocates terming them to be thieves and dishonest persons, and behaves with them in an undignified manner; which has caused much resentment amidst all the advocates. But in view of the dignity of the Hon'ble Court and harmony between the bar and the bench, no complaint is made.
4. That on 08.09.2014, neither any untoward incident happened in Court No. 2 nor was there any type of heated exchange of words with Shri Parmanand Gupta, Advocate nor was any talk in this respect in the Court precincts.
5. That Shri Parmanand Gupta is a sober and good mannered advocate. He has not been involved in any type of heated exchange of words till date." (English Translation by Court)
24. In oral statement Shri Kaushal Kishore Pandey endorsed that he has filed aforesaid affidavit. He further said that Contemnor is a good Advocate and there is no complaint otherwise known to him. He himself has come to know that a complaint letter has been sent to Court against Contemnor and proceeding is pending. He said that Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Maharajganj used to make unnecessary comments against Advocates and some times used to say such thing, which does not suit to the majesty of Court. In cross examination, he said that there was a general rumour in Court that Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Maharajganj has made complaint against Contemnor. Nobody told Kaushal Kishore Pandey about the incident on 6.9.2014. He used to visit Court of Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta almost every day, but has not brought any document to prove it. On 6.9.2014, no case of Kaushal Kishore Pandey was listed in Court of Yogendra Ram Gupta. This admission shows that PW-3, Sri Pandey had no reason or occasion to be present in Reference Court.
25. Shri Ravi Shanker Tripathi - PW-4 has also deposed and verified his affidavit sworn on 5.5.2015. In paras 3, 4 and 5 of his affidavit he has said as under: -
"3- ;g fd ekuuh; vij ftyk tt dksVZ ua0 2 egjktxat Jh ;ksxsUnz jke xqIrk dk dk;Z O;ogkj vR;Ur [ksn tud gS muds }kjk vklu ij cSBdj iw.kZ dk;Zfnol ij vf/koDrkvksa dks fHkUu izdkj ds dVk{k o pksj csbeku cksyk tkrk gS o ve;kZfnr O;ogkj fd;k tkrk gS ftlls lHkh vf/koDrkvksa esa vR;Ur jks'k gS fdUrq ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh xfjek o ckj csap dh lnHkkouk dks ns[krs gq, dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha fd;k tkrk gSA 4- ;g fd fnukad 6-9-2014 dks dksVZ ua0 2 esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh v:fpiw.kZ ?kVuk ugha gqvk Fkk u gh Jh ijekuUn xqIrk ,MoksdsV ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk okn fookn gh gqvk Fkk u gh bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh pPkkZ gh FkkA"
5- ;g fd Jh ijekuUn xqIrk ,MoksdsV ,d lkSE; O;ogkj dq'ky vf/koDrk gSa vkt rd fdlh Hkh izdkj ds okn & fookn esa mudh dksbZ lafyIrrk ugh jgk gSA"
"3. That the work and conduct of Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta, Hon'ble Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Maharajganj is utterly deplorable. While sitting on the dias on full working days, he tends to use different types of taunts against the advocates terming them to be thieves and dishonest persons, and behaves with them in an undignified manner; which has caused much resentment amidst all the advocates. But in view of the dignity of the Hon'ble Court and harmony between the bar and the bench, no complaint is made.
4. That on 08.09.2014, neither any untoward incident happened in Court No. 2 nor was there any type of heated exchange of words with Shri Parmanand Gupta, Advocate nor was any talk in this respect in the Court precincts.
5. That Shri Parmanand Gupta is a sober and good mannered advocate. He has not been involved in any type of heated exchange of words till date." (English Translation by Court)
26. In oral deposition Shri Ravi Shanker Tripathi has said that no incident took place between Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta and Parmanand Gupta. He has further said that Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta used to make various kinds of allegation of Advocates while sitting in Court. He has explained it by saying that Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta states that Advocates are trying to get cases adjourned and do not take proper pain. He has not made any complaint about attitude of Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta.
27. He has also admitted that he has no case in Court of Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta and averments made in para 3 of his affidavit are founded on information he received. His oral deposition reads as under: -
"Jh ;ksxsUnz jke xqIrk vnkyr esa cSBdj odhyksa ds fo:) reke rjg ds vkjksi yxkrs gSa A ;s dgrs gSa fd odhy yksx eqdnek Vkyrs gSa vkSj iSjoh Bhd ls ugh djrs gSaA eSaus bl ckcr dHkh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha dh FkhA eq>s bl ?kVuk dh tkudkjh Jh ijekuUn xqIrk dks uksfVl gksus ds ckn gqbZA izfr'kiFk i= ds i`"B la[;k 31 dks ns[kdj dgk fd ;g gyQukek esjk gS ij ,slk geus dHkh ugh fy[kk fd bldh tkudkjh gesa uksfVl ds ckn gqbZA gekjk Jh ;ksxsUnz jke xqIrk dh vnkyr esa dksbZ ds'k ugha gSA 'kiFk i= ds i`"B la[;k 31 ij vius gyQukek ds iSjkxzkQ 3 dks ns[kdj dgk fd ;g rF; eSus lquus ds vk/kkj ij dgkA"
"Shri Yogendra Kumar Gupta, while sitting in the Court, tends to level several types of allegations against the advocates. He says that the advocates procrastinate the cases and do not pursue them properly. I never made any complaint in this respect.
I came to know about this incident after a notice having been given to Shri Parmanand Gupta. On seeing Paper 31 of the counter affidavit, he said, "This affidavit is mine. But I never wrote such that I came to know about it after the notice having been given. I have no case pending in the Court of Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta." On seeing Para 3 of his affidavit available on Page 31, he said that he had stated this thing on the basis of heresay. (English Translation by Court)
28. Shri Tarkeshwar Tiwari - PW-5 was counsel in ST No.22 of 2000. He said that his case was listed in Court of Shri Yogendra Ram Gupta on 6.9.2014. When it was called at 11:00 AM, he went to Court, and again went at 3:00 PM but by that time, it was already adjourned. Before him no altercation took place in the Court. He did not receive any information even subsequently. He endorsed of filing of affidavit, which is at page 106 of reply affidavit. He admitted that about the timings of case having been called at 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM, nothing has been said in the affidavit. Para 3 of affidavit reads as under: -
"3- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ fnukad 6-9-2014 dks U;k;ky; vij l= U;k;k/kh'k dksVZ ua0 2 esa ,l0Vh0 ua0 [email protected] LVsV cuke pqYgkbZ oxSjg ,oa LVsV cuke lk/kw vkfn eqdneksa ds is'kh ds lkFk esjs }kjk mDr U;k;ky; esa tc tc eSa jgk fdlh izdkj dh ?kVuk u ns[kk u fdlh 'kh?kz ckr dks lwukA"
"3. That on 06.09.2014, during appearance before the District & Sessions Court, Court No. 2 in S.T. No. 22/2000 State Vs. Chulhai & Others and in another case State Vs. Sadhu & Others, I, the deponent, neither saw any type of incident nor heard of any such thing as & when I remained present in the said Court. (English Translation by Court)
29. He has also admitted that he has not filed any document to prove that he was counsel in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2000. He further said that he did not get any information of the incident. However, regarding order sheet he has said nothing. There is not even a whisper that facts stated in order sheet are not correct or that the order sheet was not written on 6.9.2014 and parties to the case noted the date by putting on their signatures or thumb impression on the margin of order sheet dated 6.9.2014.
30. Shri Rudra Pratap Singh - PW-6 has also verified photo copy of affidavit. Here also para 3 reads as under: -
"3- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ fnukad 6-9-2014 dks ljdkj cuke oxSjg oXkSjg dh iSjoh gsrq ekuuh; vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k dksVZ ua0 2 egjktxat ds U;k;ky; esa yap vijkUg 1-30 cts rd mifLFkr Fkk mDr fnol esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; es fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ okn fookn ugha gqvk Fkk u gh bl izdkj dh ?kVuk gh ppkZ esa gh FkhA"
"3. That the deponent, so as to pursue the case State Vs. So-and-so, was present in the Court of Hon'ble Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Maharajganj post lunch till 1:30 pm on 06.09.2014. On the said day, neither any type of dispute had taken place in the Hon'ble Court nor was there any talk of this type of incident." (English Translation by Court)
31. In cross examination, he has said that neither details of cases (State v. Bhopal) has been mentioned in affidavit nor any thing has been said as to on which date the said case was listed in Court. He has also not mentioned time when he reached the Court.
32. Shri Shambhu Sharan Pandey, Advocate has endorsed his affidavit dated 2.5.2015. In cross examination, he has admitted that neither number of case (State v. Haider Ali) is mentioned in the affidavit given by him, nor any evidence has been placed on record that he was counsel in that case. He has also not given any evidence that the said case was listed in Court on 6.9.2014. He has mentioned in the affidavit that he was in Court up to 1:30 PM but when he came out from Court nothing is mentioned. Para 3 of affidavit reads as under: -
"3- ;g fd 'kiFkdrkZ fnukad 6-9-2014 dks ljdkj cuke gSnj vyh esa gsrq ekuuh; vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k dksVZ ua0 2 egjktxat ds U;k;ky; esa yap vijkUg 1-30 cts rd mifLFkr Fkk mDr fnol esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; es fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ okn fookn ugha gqvk Fkk u gh bl izdkj dh ?kVuk gh ppkZ esa gh FkhA"
Translation by Court "3. That the deponent, so as to pursue the case State Vs. Haider Ali, was present in the Court of Hon'ble Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Maharajganj post lunch till 1:30 pm on 06.09.2014. On the said day, neither any type of dispute had taken place in the Hon'ble Court nor was there any talk of this type of incident." (English Translation by Court)
33. Jagdish Patel - PW-8 is also an Advocate, whose affidavit has been filed by Contemnor along with his reply. In oral deposition Jagdish Patel has said that his case was listed in the Court of Yogendra Ram Gupta on 6.9.2014. He did not learn any thing about any incident between Yogendra Ram Gupta, Presiding Officer and Contemnor, and during the period when he was present in Court no incident took place. There are 10-11 Courts in Maharajganj. He was present in Court premises till 5:00 PM. Even after 6.9.2014, he did not hear any thing about the said incident. He further stated in examination in chief that behaviour of Presiding Officer was good and he had no complaint against his behaviour. Relevent extract of statement of Jagdish Patel is as under: -
"ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk O;ogkj Bhd gSA eq>s dHkh muds O;ogkj ls ihM+k ugh gqbZA"
"The behaviour of the Presiding Officer is proper. I never got pained over his behaviour." (English Translation by Court)
34. In cross examination Shri Jagdish Patel has said that his case (State v. Ram Kesar Station Hugli) was listed in Court for evidence. Since witnesses had not come, evidence could not be recorded. He visited Court around 12:00 to inquire whether any witness had come, but found no witness there, so he came back. Subsequently, his Assisting Advocate got next date noted.
35. Reference Court has specifically given date and time of the incident i.e. 12:50 PM on 6.9.2014 when Sessions Trial No.22 of 2000 was called. Eight advocates have been examined by Contemnor but none said that at 12:50 PM, he was present in Court. Either witnesses have made statement on the basis of information or that they did not hear any thing about the incident subsequently, therefore, they have inferred that no such incident took place. In some photo copies of affidavits of Advocates, who have not been examined, serious allegations have been levelled against Presiding Officer, but they have not been examined to acknowledge filing of affidavits and for cross-examination by Counsel Advocate appointed by Court for assistance. One witness i.e. Kaushal Kishore Pandey, Advocate has said that Presiding Officer used to make comments against Advocates and sometimes statements are not befitting to majesty of Court. PW-4 has also said that Presiding Officer of Court used to make several comments against Advocates, but then he has clarified in his examination in chief itself that Presiding Officer used to say that Advocates generally seek adjournment and do not make pairvi properly. It is also admitted by him that he has never made any complaint. Then third witness Jagdish Patel has specifically said that behaviour of Presiding Officer is good and he never felt hurt by his behaviour.
36. Contemnor has long standing at the bar. He also enjoys a political clout and is an influential member of a political party 'AAP', as he himself has admitted that on 6.9.2014 he was in the meeting and presided the same. PW-1 is a social worker and PW-2 is District Office Bearer of said political party. They have attempted to prove presence of Contemnor in party meeting between 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM but documentary evidence i.e. proceeding register Ex.P-1, which has been brought on record, does not mention any period of meeting at all. Even regarding arrival of Contemnor in the meeting there is contradiction in the time given by between PW-1 and PW-2. It only shows that meeting has taken place on 6.9.2014 but period of meeting is not proved by the minutes. Contemnor has not placed any thing on record to show that he did not attend any case listed in Court on 6.9.2014 and cases were adjourned on account of his absence. Presiding Officer has noted incident on the same date i.e. 6.9.2014 in the order sheet of Sessions Trial No.22 of 2000. The said order sheet as well as next date fixed therein has been noted by parties or their representatives in the aforesaid case by putting their signatures or thumb impression on the margin of order sheet. There is no suggestion or even whisper either in defence reply submitted by Contemnor or in affidavits, which Contemnor has collectively filed that said order sheet did not represent correct facts or that it was not recorded on 6.9.2014 and has been prepared subsequently. Contemnor has also said that Ainulhaq Huda, D.G.C. (Criminal) was not deputed in Court of Yogendra Ram Gupta, but neither his affidavit has been brought on record, nor he has been examined to show that he was not present in Court on 6.9.2014 at 12:50 PM when as per Reference the said incident took place. Even Tarkeshwar Tiwari, who claimed to be an Advocate in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2000 has not said that he was present in Court at 12:50 PM. He specifically said that the case was called on several occasions on 6.9.2014. He was present in Court when it was called at 11:00 AM and thereafter when he reached at 3:00 PM it was already adjourned. When the case was called on other occasions on same date, learned counsel Sri Tiwari was not present. His presence has also not been mentioned by Presiding Officer in order sheet dated 6.9.2014. Since Shri Tarkeshwar Tiwari was not present in Court at 12:50 PM, he is not a witness to the fact whether any incident had taken place at 12:50 PM on 6.9.2014 in the Court or not?"
37. Presiding Officer's reference dated 11.9.2014 has been forwarded by District Judge on the same date. Language said to have been uttered by Contemnor in Court against Presiding Officer is such, which no self-respecting person would like to utter or even tolerate to have uttered by some one else, easily.
38. In Re. Ajay Pandey, AIR 1997 SC 260 the Court said that superior Courts, i.e. High Court as also the Apex Court is bound to protect the Judges of subordinate Courts from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalize or have the tendency to scandalize, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any Court as also all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the Courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear.
39. In P.N. Duda Vs. P. Shiv Shankar and others 1988 (3) SCC 167 the Court said that justice is not a cloistered virtue. she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men. Administration of justice and Judges are open to public criticism and public scrutiny. Judges have their accountability to the society and their accountability must be judged by their conscience and oath of their office, that is, to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear and favour, but any criticism about the judicial system or the Judges which hampers the administration of justice or which erodes the faith in the objective approach of Judges and brings administration of justice into ridicule must be prevented. The Courts cannot ignore attempts made to decry or denigrate the judicial process, when it is done with quite seriousness.
40. The definition of Criminal Contempt under Section 2(c) reads as under: -
"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) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, 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;
41. Publication whether by words spoken or written etc. on any matter or doing of any other act, which scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court constitutes 'criminal contempt'. Such act, as aforesaid, if prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with due course of any judicial proceeding also amounts to 'criminal contempt'. Thirdly, if such an act interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner, again it would constitute 'criminal contempt'. The word 'scandalize' has not been defined in Act, 1971. In Black's Law Dictionary word 'scandal' has been described as under: -
"Scandal consists in the allegation of anything which is unbecoming the dignity of the Court to hear, or is contrary to decency or good manners, or which charges some person with a crime not necessary to be shown in the cause, to which may be added that any unnecessary allegation, bearing cruelly upon the moral character of an individual, is also scandalous. The matter alleged, however, must be not only offensive, but also irrelevant to the cause, for however, offensive it be, if it is pertinent and material to the cause the party has a right to plead it. It may often be necessary to charge false representations, fraud and immorality, and the pleading will not be open to the objection of scandal, if the facts justified the charge. (emphasis added)
42. In Aiyer's Law Lexicon, second edition, Page 1727, reference has been made to Millington Vs. Loring (1880) 6 QBD 190, where the word 'scandalous' has been explained as under:
" A pleading is said to be 'scandalous' if it alleges anything unbecoming the dignity of the Court to hear or is contrary to good manners or which charges a crime immaterial to the issue. But the statement of a scandalous fact that is material to the issue is not a scandalous pleading."
43. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 308, in para 7 of the judgment the Court said: -
"7. We wish to emphasise that under the cover of freedom of speech and expression no party can be given a licence to misrepresent the proceedings and orders of the Court and deliberately paint an absolutelty wrong and incomplete picture which has the tendency to scandalise the Court and bring it into disrepute or ridicule.
44. Recently, the aforesaid definitions of the term 'scandalise' has been quoted with approval in Indirect Tax Practitioners' Association Vs. R.K. Jain, 2010 8 SCC 281.
45. There are cases where a person has made a fair criticism of orders passed by Court below, but here the conduct, integrity, and efficiency of Judicial Officer has been abusively commented and indicted by using impertinent language. If an order is passed wrongly, in an appropriate manner, with civilized words and gestures, it is always open to the litigant or his Advocate or even a common man to criticize such order. We do not initiate contempt proceedings on just fall of a hat as we are not so sensitive, but then it cannot be extended to the extent of permitting a litigant or an Advocate or any person to virtually abuse the Presiding Officers of the Court, which would include the Court itself. A fair criticism does not constitute to scandalize or lower the authority of Court or Judicial Institutions or an attempt to interfere with administration of justice, but ill-motive, intentional and deliberate castigation going to the extent of virtual abuse is not protected and that has a different impact. It is criminal contempt.
46. We can take judicial notice of the fact that Advocate as a class normally work with great unity and coherence. In Court at Maharajganj where more than 500 Advocates were practicing and only 10-11 Presiding Officer were working, it is very easy to find Advocates supporting Advocates maintaining brotherhood but almost difficult to find Advocate supporting a Presiding Officer and that too against an Advocate. Reason is clear that Advocates are permanent in the particular Court while Presiding Officers are liable to be transferred from one place to another. We can also take judicial notice that several serious incidents including criminal activities have taken place in various Judgeships in the State of U.P. including manhandling and assaulting of officers of subordinate Courts. This include judicial and administrative staff both. At no point of time, in the investigation any Advocate has come forward to depose against brother Advocates. In this very case also photo copies of 42 affidavits have been filed by Contemnor in which several Advocates have made statements against the behaviour of Presiding Officer, but despite permission granted by this Court and summons issued to 52 witnesses, as requested by Contemnor, he ultimately chose to examine only 8 and out of those six are Advocates. One of them made statement against behaviour of Presiding Officer without specifying the same. Another witness also made such statement, but then clarified that Presiding Officer used to say that Advocates are interested in adjournment and do not make proper pairvi of case. These comments by a Presiding Officer of Court cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, objectionable in any manner. If Advocates are trying to get cases adjourned frequently, a vigilant judicious mind officer is bound to prevent such practice. He can and must make effort to prevent and condemn such practice. The Courts are supposed to adjudicate cases and not to find out ways for adjournments. If such practice is being adopted by Advocates, who are also officers of Court, not only such practice must be deprecated, but Courts should take all steps possible to fail such attempts. They should endeavour to decide matters finally as early as possible. Further, if Advocates have not come to Court with proper preparation and do not render proper assistance to Court, there is nothing wrong on the part of Court in observing that Advocates must make their preparation properly and come prepared to and render proper assistance to Court. In fact, it is duty of Advocates to do proper pairvi of cases and if one fails, it is not only a breach of trust of his client, but also a professional misconduct.
47. Therefore, from the explanation given by PW-4 about comments/observation made by Presiding Officer, we find that here is Presiding Officer, who is very strict in Court, does not allow flimsy or easy adjournments and also ensures that officers of Court i.e. Advocates must do proper pairvi of their cases, duly prepare and assist Court effectively. It is a positive attitude on the part of Presiding Officer.
48. We are fortified in making such observations from the statement of PW-8, who specifically said in his examination in chief that behaviour of Presiding Officer is good and he has no complaint against his behaviour. We find it painful to observe that Contemnor, who enjoys a good rapport amongst his own colleagues and has own political strength also, has not hesitated in maligning integrity and conduct of a judicial officer. Only reason behind it may be that some orders have been passed by the said Presiding Officer, which are not to the liking of Contemnor and that is how he has tried to overpower the Court in a different manner including by showing indecent behaviour in open Court.
49. If an impression is made in the minds of public that Judges of the Court act on extraneous considerations in deciding cases, confidence of the litigants, in particular, and, public in general, in the administration of justice is bound to be undermined. No greater mischief than that can possibly be imagined.
50. The allegation of mala fide, bad intention against a Judge clearly amounts to scandalizing the Court and is a "criminal contempt". Vilificatory criticism of a Judge functioning in the Court is nothing but a clear criminal contempt since it not only affects the 'administration of justice' but also lowers the authority and dignity of the Court. It creates a distress in the public mind as to the capacity of Judge to meet out even-handed justice. Reckless and scurrilous attack made against a Judge, imputing oblique motives in discharge of his judicial functions and suggesting unholy acquaintance and constant contacts with one of the litigant to favour him/them for granting relief amounts to criminal contempt.
51 In re : S. Mulgaokar, 1978 (3) SCC 339, the Court said that judiciary cannot be immune from criticism, but, when that criticism is based on obvious distortion or gross mis-statement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for judiciary and destroy public confidence, it cannot be ignored. When there appears some scheme and a design to bring about results which must damage confidence in judicial system and demoralize Judges by making malicious attacks, anyone interested in maintaining high standards of fearless, impartial, and unbending justice will feel perturbed.
52. In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, AIR 1995 SC 2348, the Court observed that normally, no Judge takes action for in facie curiae contempt against lawyer unless he is impelled to do so. It is not the heat generated in the arguments but the language used, the tone and the manner in which it is expressed and intention behind using it which determine whether it was calculated to insult, show disrespect, to overbear and overawe the Court and to threaten and obstruct the course of justice. It was also observed that making allegations or aspersions on the integrity of Judge is not to be misunderstood as a outspoken fearless attitude of an advocate. Brazenness 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 Courtesy and politeness are not lack of dignity. Rule of law is the foundation of the democratic society. If judiciary is to perform its duties and its functions effectively and 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. The foundation of judiciary is trust and confidence of people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for authority of Court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded.
53. Of late, we find a deep increase in tendency of advocates in levelling wild allegations against Presiding Officers of Courts when orders to their liking or favour or as desired are not passed. This is serious situation and cannot be appreciated. No one cannot be allowed to treat the orders of Court for right and free to go to any extent including even maligning Presiding Officer of the Court, who has passed the orders. In Smt. Sudha Sharma Vs. Ram Naresh Jaiswal, AIR 1990 MP 320, the Court said that a foremost duty cast upon the counsel concerned while drafting and making allegations against the Judge concerned, is to take utmost care and caution in making wild allegations against the Presiding Judge. The counsel should realise that he is officer of the Court. Introducing fanciful and imaginary allegations for harbouring apprehension that fair and impartial justice would not be done should be avoided. Mere suspicion by party is not sufficient. There must be reasonable apprehension based on material.
54. The justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, colour etc. It is a system following principle of black and white, i.e., truth and false. Whatever is unfair, that is identified and given its due treatment and whatever is good is retained. Whoever suffers injustice is attempted to be given justice and that is called dispensation of justice. The prevailing system of dispensation of justice in Country, presently, has different tiers. At the ground level, the Courts are commonly known as "Subordinate Judiciary" and they form basis of administration of justice. Sometimes it is said that subordinate judiciary forms very backbone of administration of justice. Though there are various other kinds of adjudicatory forums, like, Nyaya Panchayats, Village Courts and then various kinds of Tribunals etc. but firstly they are not considered to be the regular Courts for adjudication of disputes, and, secondly the kind and degree of faith, people have in regular established Courts, is yet to be developed in other forums. In common parlance, the regular Courts, known for appropriate adjudication of disputes basically constitute subordinate judiciary, namely, the District Court; the High Courts and the Apex Court.
55. The hierarchy gives appellate and supervisory powers in various ways. The administrative control of subordinate judiciary has been conferred upon High Court, which is the highest Court at provincial level and is under constitutional obligation to see effective functioning of subordinate Courts by virtue of power conferred by Article 235 read with 227 of the Constitution. No similar power like Article 235, in respect of High Court is exercisable by Apex Court, though it is the highest Court of land. Its judgments are binding on all. Every order and judgment of any Court or Tribunal etc., in the Country, is subject to judicial review by Apex Court. This is the power on judicial side. Thus scheme under the Constitution imposes heavy duty and responsibility upon High Court to ensure due or proper honour of subordinate Court and Judge and to save them from such scurrilous attack.
56. If there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a Judicial Officer of subordinate Court, it is bound to shake confidence of litigating public in the system and has to be tackled strictly. The damage is caused not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge, but, also to the fair name of 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 tame a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice.
57. We cannot ignore the fact that much cherished judicial independence needs protection not only from over zealous executive or' power hungry legislature but also from those who constitute, and, are integral part of the system. Here is a case where an Advocate has appeared in Court and made serious aspersions openly in presence of others against the Presiding Officer of Court. The Advocate forgotting the high status conferred upon him, by making him an officer of the Court, has chosen to malign Judicial Officer of the Subordinate Court.
58. We do not intend to lay down any code of conduct for the class of the peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly we have no hesitation in observing that no Advocate has any business to condemn a Judge by abusing etc. If there is something lacking on the part of a Judicial Officer touching his integrity, Advocates, being Officers of the Court, may not remain a silent spectator, but should come forward, raising their voice in appropriate manner before the proper authority. There cannot be a licence to any member of Bar to raise his finger over competence and integrity etc. of a Judicial Officer, casually or negligently, or on other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be maligned commenting upon his integrity and honesty. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest words. No one can justify it in any manner. Thinking of intrusion of such thought itself sounds alert. It is a siren of something which is not only very serious, but imminent. It is a concept or an idea which should not have cropped up in anybody's mind, connected with the system of justice, and if has cropped up, deserves to be nipped at earliest, else, it may spread its tentacles to cover others and that would be a dooms-day for the very institution.
59. This Court has a constitutional obligation to protect subordinate judges. In Smt. Munni Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (2) AWC 1546 this Court in para 10, has said: -
"10. Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercise control over subordinate judiciary. This control is both ways. No aberration shall be allowed to enter the Subordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to be attacked or threatened to work under outside pressure of anyone, whether individual or a group, so as to form a threat to objective and independent functioning of Subordinate Judiciary."
60. Criticism of a Court cannot be equated with making scurrilous attack on the conduct and integrity of the Judicial Officer/Presiding Officer of the Court.
61. In the present case, an open attack by misbehaviour and abuse has been shown against concerned Judicial Officer. Wild imaginary allegations against conduct of Judicial Officer without having any material to substantiate the same cannot be tolerated, inasmuch as, it not only brings into disrepute the entire justice system but is also likely to cause serious erosion in the confidence of public in Court in case such tendency is not snubbed at the earliest.
62. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the charge levelled against Contemnor stands proved. We also hold Contemnor guilty of committing criminal contempt of subordinate Court.
63. Now coming to the question of punishment, we find that the conduct of Contemnor in open Court is highly derogatory. He has virtually abused Presiding Officer of Court condemning him in respect of certain judicial orders passed, which were not to the liking of Contemnor. It is serious conduct on the part of Contemnor and deserves no sympathy.
64. In entirety of facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that incident as complained by Presiding Officer has actually happened in Court at 12:50 PM on 6.9.2014 wherein Contemnor has misbehaved by using indecent and abusive language in open Court in presence of various persons and, therefore, first question formulated above is answered in affirmative.
65. Having said so and now coming to second question, we find no hesitation in answering it in affirmative for the reason that language used by Contemnor in open Court shows that he has belittled authority and majesty of Court and has interfered in judicial function by obstructing Court proceedings and this Advocate has tendency of lowering down the authority of Court, which amounts to 'Criminal Contempt' as defined under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971.
66. We impose punishment of simple imprisonment for six months, besides fine of Rs.2,000/-. In case of non-payment of fine, Contemnor shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
67. We also direct that Contemnor shall not enter the premises of District Judgeship, Maharajganj for a period of six months, which shall commence from today itself.
68. The District Judge is also directed to keep the conduct of Contemnor under constant watch, after he starts entering premises to practice law in Judgeship Maharajganj, and whenever he finds any objectionable or contemptuous attitude of Contemnor, he shall report the matter to this Court without any further delay.
69. The Reference is allowed in the manner as aforesaid.
70. A copy of this order shall be certified to the District Judge, Maharajganj and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj forthwith for communication and compliance.
Order Date :- 12.1.2016 Anupam Court No. - 34 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 3 of 2015 Applicant :- In Re :
Opposite Party :- Parmanand Gupta Advocate Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A., Sudhir Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Tewari, Pradeep Kumar VI Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
1. After delivery of judgment the Contemnor prays that sentence imposed by this Court vide judgment of date be suspended to enable him to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the superior Court.
2. In the circumstances, we suspend the sentence for a period of sixty days to enable him to avail remedy of appeal. In case, the appeal is not filed or if filed but no otherwise order is passed in appeal, the Contemnor shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj immediately after expiry of aforesaid period, who would take appropriate steps for serving out sentence by Contemnor as directed in the judgment of date passed in this contempt application.
Order Date :- 12.1.2016 Anupam