Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
(Per Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.) Heard Shri Qamar Ahmad, the applicant in person and perused the record of the case.
This application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to summon, try and punish the Senior Registrar of this Court, Shri Vikas Kunwar Srivastava for criminal contempt in accordance with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
In the application, it has been stated that the applicant submitted a letter to the Senior Registrar for listing Review Application No.39455 of 2016 on 29.08.2017 and thereafter sent reminder dated 06.09.2017 and that the Senior Registrar did not take appropriate steps for listing of the review application/petition. It has also been averred that the applicant sent another letter dated 14.01.2018, which was not received by the official concerned and thereafter the said letter was sent on 17.01.2018 through Speed Post and despite the aforesaid three letters, the Senior Registrar willfully and deliberately did not ensure the listing of the review application/petition.
It has also been stated that the act of non-listing of the review application/petition amounts to criminal contempt as defined in section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The applicant has further stated that an order was passed on 13.11.2017 in Writ Petition No.21298 (M/B) of 2017 to the effect, "we observe that registry is required to list the review petition for its disposal as early as possible" and despite the said order, the Senior Registrar did not take appropriate steps for listing the review application/petition.
It has been submitted by the review applicant, on the basis of various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the power of this Court, being a Court of record, cannot be restricted by any legislation, including the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act and further that this Court has inherent and unfettered powers to punish for contempt of itself and further that this power can not be abridged or abrogated or cut down or controlled by any statute. It has further been submitted by the applicant that the present application has been moved for initiating suo motu criminal contempt proceedings for maintaining the sanctity of the Constitution, rule of law, binding precedents and dignity of this Court and further to maintain public confidence in the courts of justice.
In sum and substance, the submission made by the applicant is that despite writing three letters for listing of the review application/petition and also despite an order dated 13.11.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.21298 (M/B) of 2017 observing therein that registry is required to list the review application/petition for its disposal as early as possible, since the listing of the review petition was not ensured, the Senior Registrar of this Court has committed contempt of court and hence, he is liable to be punished.
There is no doubt in the proposition as canvassed by the applicant that this Court by reason of Article 215 of the Constitution of India has inherent powers to punish for contempt independent of the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act or any other statutory provisions relating to contempt. There cannot also be a dispute that this Court, being court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has all the powers including the powers to punish for contempt. It is needless to say that law of contempt secures confidence in the judicial process and that disobedience of the court's order strikes at the very root of the judicial system. The object of law of contempt of Court is primarily to uphold the majesty of law and administration of justice. The jurisdiction of the superior courts, which are courts of record, is part of their inherent jurisdiction and is essential to enable the courts to administer justice according to law in an effective manner and to prevent interference in the due administration of justice.
However, having observed as above, we may hasten to add that a question whether there is any contempt of court or not is a serious one and further that the court has to see all the surrounding circumstances before it proceeds to punish for contempt. We may further state that it is only when a clear case of contemptuous conduct, which is not explainable otherwise, arises that the contempt proceedings may be drawn.
It is also apt to state that broad test to determine whether there is contempt of court or not is to see whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct due administration of justice or has a tendency to interfere with the course of justice and due administration of law. Unless an act of omission complained of is not willful, courts will be loath to punish the contemnor.
In the instant case, so far as the facts as disclosed by the applicant in the instant application are concerned, the sole basis of the prayer for initiating contempt proceedings against the Senior Registrar of this Court are the three letters mentioned above and an order dated 13.11.2017 passed by this Court in Writ petition No.21298 (M/B) of 2017, wherein it was observed that registry was required to list the review petition for its disposal as early as possible. The submission made is that non-listing of the review application/petition despite the aforesaid order of the Court amounts to contempt and hence, the Senior Registrar of this Court is guilty and he, thus, deserves to be punished.
For constituting contempt of court, it needs to be established that the act of omission complained of is deliberate, willful and calculated to obstruct the course of justice. If the act complained of is found not to be deliberate or willful or calculated, such an act will not constitute contempt. On account of huge pendency of cases and every day problems being faced by the registry of this Court in respect of listing of the matters before the appropriate Benches, any omission by the registry resulting in non-listing of the matter, can, thus, not be said to be deliberate or willful. Having regard to the ground realities and huge pendency of cases, if a case is not listed in a given set of facts and situation, the same may not constitute a deliberate act of omission on the part of the officers of the registry to qualify to be contempt of Court.
Every act of not following an order of the Court cannot be termed as contempt of Court. Where an action has not been done with a deliberate and willful motive, it cannot be said to have been done with a purpose to lower the reputation of the Court. While dealing with the submissions made by the applicant to initiate the contempt proceedings in this case, the ground realities of the working of the office of this Court cannot be lost sight of and for every such error of not listing a matter, registry is not to be punished.
The power to punish for contempt must be sparingly used by distinguishing a simple error and deliberate action which tends to lower the prestige of the Court.
In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that mistake of not listing the review application/petition is so trivial in nature that for such an omission holding the Senior Registrar of this Court guilty of contempt is not warranted. Dealing with somewhat a similar case, a division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of C.P. Singh vs. State of Rajastahan, reported in [1993 Cri LJ 125] has held that the officer of the registry was not liable for being proceeded under contempt. Para 10 of the said judgment is relevant, which is extracted herein below:
"10. The mistake of not listing the two writ petitions together was trivial in nature and in the circumstances of the present case, was entitled to be ignored. For this triviality holding the Dy. Registrar as guilty of contempt, in our opinion, was not correct. The realities of working of the office also could; not be lost sight of where two thousand files are dealt with every day, such an error could not held to be grave to make the Dy. Registrar liable for being proceeded under contempt."
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that the instant application for initiating the contempt proceedings against the Senior Registrar of this Court, is highly misconceived, which is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- May 30, 2018 akhilesh/