11 lawyers held guilty of criminal contempt, sentenced to 3 months in jail by Allahabad High Court
description
Transcript of 11 lawyers held guilty of criminal contempt, sentenced to 3 months in jail by Allahabad High Court
-
AFR
Reservedon06.05.2015Deliveredon02.07.2015
CourtNo.34Case:CONTEMPTAPPLICATION(CRIMINAL)No.12of2013Applicant:InReOppositeParty:SriMahendraPrasadShuklaAdvocate&OthersCounselforApplicant:A.G.A.,SudhirMehrotraCounselforOppositeParty:AjaiShankarPathak,Dr.V.K.Rai,M.K.Singh,PrashantPandey,RudraKantMishra,S.P.Srivastava,VivekMishra
Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.Hon'bleDineshGupta,J.
(DeliveredbyHon.SudhirAgarwal,J.)
1. Referencevideletterdated15.4.2013wasmadebyShriAmitKumar
Prajapati, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra (hereinafter
referredtoas'ACJM')statingthaton12.4.2013afterlunchhourswhenhe
wasdischargingjudicialfunctioninCourt,hearingmiscellaneousandbail
applications,AdvocatesGovindNarayan,UmakantSingh,RavindraSingh,
Titu Prasad Gupta, RoshanLal Yadav, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Bhola
Singh,RajeshKumarSrivastava,VikashShakya,PravejAkhtar,Jagjeevan
Singh etc. were present for hearing of their applications and bail
applications,ManojKumarPandey,Secretary,BarAssociation,Sonbhadra
appeared in Court and enquired from aforesaid advocates, who were
presentinCourtastowhytheyareworkinginCourt.Inthemeantime,
about 1520 more advocates alongwith Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Om
PrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathak,Advocatesenteredthecourtroom
andsaidthatadvocatesareabstainingfromjudicialwork,thenhowthe
court is functioning. ThePresidingOfficer tried toconvince themthat
courtisnotabstainingfromjudicialworkandthoseadvocateswhoare
willing, shall be allowed to work, whereupon the aforesaid advocates,
namely, Mahendra Prasad Shukla, OmPrakash Rai and OmPrakash
Pathakgotannoyedandstartedshouting,"NyayalayChoraurBeimanhai"
and despite the advocates are abstaining from judicial work, court is
-
2functioning.Theyalsostartedusingabusivelanguage,whichisnottobe
disclosed.Inthecourtroomitselftheaforesaidadvocatesraisedslogans
nayayalaymurdabad,adhivaktaektazindabad,onaccountwhereof,the
courtfunctioninghadtobedeferredforsometime.InthatwayMahendra
PrasadShukla,OmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathakand1520other
advocatesobstructedfunctioningofthecourt.
2. It is further stated that on 21st May, 2013 also, about 4050
advocatesenteredthecourtroomofChiefJudicialMagistrate(hereinafter
referredtoas'CJM')andpreventedthoseadvocates,whowereworkingand
askednottoworkwhereuponCJM,Sonbhadrasaidthatthoseadvocate
whoarewillingtowork,cannotbestoppedfromfunctioninganditisduty
ofcourttoattendcasesof litigantsandadvocates, whoarepresentin
court andwilling to workwhereupon the disturbing advocates started
raising slogans nayayalay murdabad adhivakta ekta zindabad and
creating obstruction in judicial work. Mahandra Prasad Shukla was
GeneralSecretaryofBarAssociationatthattimeandhewasalsopresent
incourtroomofCJM,creatingobstructioninjudicialwork.
3. Reference letter further states that Mahendra Prasad Shukla,
Advocate treats himself anauthority ontohimself and in the habit of
misrepresentationanddisturbingcourtfunction.Heusedtoattemptto
createunduepressureupon judicial officersbyshowingcontemptuous
conduct,timeandagain.InCaseNo.208/97StateVs.Santoshandothers,
pendingincourtofCJM,inwhichMahendraPrasadShuklahimselfwas
anadvocate,heproducedforgedsuretyandotherdocumentsinfavourof
accusedSantoshSingh.InthisconnectioncomplainantJaswantSingh
submittedanaffidavit on2.2.2013 in thecourt of CJMandwhenhis
brotherenquiredaboutfictitioussuretyfromMahendraPrasadShukla,
advocate,thenMr.Shuklathreatenedhimtodestroy.Takingcognizanceof
theoffence,CJM,on16.2.2013,orderedtoregisterFIRagainstMahendra
PrasadShukla,Advocate.
-
34. Reference letter further says that conduct of Mahendra Prasad
Shukla,OmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathak,advocatesandother
1520 advocates, shown in his court, not only has the effect of
scandalizing the court but also lower down its authority since the
aforesaidact wascommittedopenly, in presenceof litigatingpublic in
courtroom,andsameamountstoacriminalcontempt.
5. UndertheorderofHon'bleTheChiefJustice,dated26.3.2015,the
referenceletterwasplacedbeforeBenchhavingdeterminationofcriminal
contempt.ADivisionBenchconsistingofHon'bleRavindraSinghandAnil
KumarAgarwal,JJ.On30.9.2013,afterperusingReferenceLetterdated
15.4.2013,issuednoticestoMahendraPrasadShukl,OmPrakashRaiand
OmPrakashPathak,Advocatestofilereply,whyproceedingsofcriminal
contemptmaynotbeinitiatedagainstthemandtheymaynotbecharged
forthesame.Besides,theCourtalsodirectedDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra
toinquireintothematterandfindoutnamesof1520otheradvocates,
who also participated in disturbing activities in court roomof ACJM,
Sonbhadraasstatedbyhiminhisletterdated15.4.2013.
6. Pursuant to aforesaid order, District Judge, Sonbhadra made
inquiry and submitted report dated 21.10.2013 giving names of 8
advocates, whowerealsopresent incourtof ACJMon12.4.2013after
lunch hours and had created obstruction in judicial function while
accompanyingtheaforesaidthreeadvocatestowhom,noticeswerealready
issuedbythisCourt.Theseeightadvocatesare SheshNarainDixitalias
BabluDixit, AtmaPrakashTripathi, ChandraPrakashChaubheyalias
GudduChaubhey,KalpNathSingh,ShivRajSingh,BrijKishorSingh,
PrabhakarRamPathak,SatydeoPandey.
7. TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra mentionedthenamesofaforesaid
advocatesinviewofstatementsofAdvocatesJagjeevanSingh,RoshanLal
Yadav,Titu PrasadGupta,RavindraSingh.Thestatementsofaforesaid
advocates were also supported by Shri Tarkeshwar Tiwari, the then
-
4AssistantClerk(Criminal)andShriRajKaran,Stenographer,postedin
courtofAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadra.
8. After perusing theaforesaidreport of District Judge, Sonbhadra,
thisCourt,videorderdated11.11.2013,issuednoticestoaforesaideight
advocates.
9. AlltheContemnors,soughtforcopyofinquiryreportsubmittedby
DistrictJudge,Sonbhadra.On5.5.2014,undertheorderofCourt,the
samewassupplied to them, whichhas beenacknowledgedbyall the
contemnorsintheordersheetdated5.5.2014.Thereafter,contemnorsfiled
repliespursuanttonoticeissuedtothem.
10. Thegeneraldefencetakenbyall11contemnorsisasunder:
(i)MahendraPrasadShukla:
HehadgonetoappearintheCourtofAdditionalChiefJudicial Magistratetoopposeabail applicationwhereuponthePresiding Officerdeclinedtohearhimstatingthatheshouldgetnoobjection fromBar Association which has passeda resolution to abstainfromtheCourtandhewasnotallowedtoparticipateinjudicial proceedingsandhisnamehasbeenwronglymentioned.
(ii)OmPrakashRai:
His namehas wrongly been includedandactually he was notpresent.
(iii)OmPrakashPathak:
Hewas not present in theCourt Roomand didnot disturb theproceedings, as alleged, and his name has wrongly beenmentioned.
(iv)SheshNarayanDixit:
As a matter of fact, at that time when the alleged incident is claimedtohavetakenplace, hewaspresentandworkingintheCourtofDistrictJudgeandhisnamehasbeenincludedonaccount ofenmityofsomeotherAdvocates,whohavesomeenmitywith him.
(v)AtmaPrakashTripathi:
Hisnamehasbeenincludedduetoenmity.Hehasnotdoneanyact,asalleged.
-
5(vi)ChandraPrakashChaubey:
Hewas notpresent intheCourtRoomwhentheallegedincident tookplace.
(vii)KalpNathSingh:
HehasactuallyworkedintheaforesaidCourtofAdditionalChief JudicialMagistrateandnoincidenttookplaceinhispresenceandat that time when the alleged incident took place, he was not presentintheCourt.
(viii)ShivRajSingh:
He has gone to work in the Court and has not created anydisturbanceinCourtproceedings.
(ix)BrijKishorSingh:
HehasgoneintheCourttoappearinamatterandhasnotcausedanydisturbanceintheCourtproceedings.Hehasalsonotusedany abusive language etc. as alleged and his name has beenincludedonaccountofenmityofsomeotherAdvocates.
(x)PrabhakarRamPathak:
HewasnotpresentintheCourt.
(xi)SatyadeoPandey:
Onthedateofallegedincident,hewasatAllahabadandhisnamehaswronglybeenmentioned.
11. BeforethisCourt,thecontemnorsingeneralalsotenderedapology.
Thesamewasconsideredon19.2.2015andtheCourtpassedfollowing
order:
HeardSri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel for the High Court, learnedA.G.A.fortheStateofU.P.
Allthecontemnersarepresentinthecourt.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the contemners that contemnersarepractisinglawyers, onacallofstriketheallegedincident has occurred, they tender unconditional apology. Consideringthesame,itisdirectedthatincaseallthecontemners tenderunconditionalapologybeforeSriAmitKumarPrajapati,the thenAddl. C.J.M. Sonbhadrawithinthreeweeksfromtoday, theapologyshallbetenderedinwritingbeforeSriAmitKumarPrajapati whoshall sendhisresponseon it to thiscourt withinoneweekthereafter.
Liston23.3.2015.Onthatdayallthecontemnersshallappearin person.
-
612. Shri Shesh Narayan Dixit and Shri Atma Prakash Tripathi,
Advocatesvideletterdated24.2.2015,ShriBrijKishorSingh,Advocate,
vide letter dated 3.3.2015, Shri Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Shri Om
PrakashRai,ShriOmPrakashPathak, ShriShivRajSingh,ShriKalp
Nath Singh and Shri Satyadeo Pandey, Advocates vide letter dated
9.3.2015filedtheiraffidavitsbeforeShriAmitKumarPrajapati,thethen
ACJM,Sonbhadratenderingunconditionalapology.ShriChandraPrakash
Chaubhey,ShriOmPrakashRaiandShriPrabhakarRamPathakfiled
theirseparateaffidavitstothesameeffect.
13. Learned court below vide letter dated 20.3.2015 informed about
aforesaidactoftenderingapologyonthepartofcontemnorsbutfurther
pointedoutthatcontemnorshavenotcommittedtheseactsofcontempts
forthefirsttime,butearlieralsosimilaractwasdonebutJudicialOfficers
condoned their act and did not proceed further. The conduct of
contemnorsisseriouslycontemptuousandcondemnable.Hethereafter,
leftthemattertobeconsideredbythisCourt.
14. AlltheentireaspectswereconsideredbyCourton9.4.2015.Having
satisfied that it was not a case where contemnors deserve to be
dischargedonacceptanceofapology,thisCourtframedchargesagainstall
the contemnors. The three contemnors no.1, 2 and 3, namely, Shri
MahendraPrasadShukla,ShriOmPrakashRaiandShriOmPrakash
Pathak,Advocateswerechargedasunder:
"That you Mahendra PrasadShukla, Advocate on 12.4.2013 after lunchat2.00P.M.whiletheCourtwasdischargingjudicialfunction ofhearingMisc.Applications/BailApplicationsofAdvocatespresent, youalongwithOmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathakand1520 otherAdvocatesenteredtheCourtRoomandsaid,^^vf/koDrkx.k U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr gSa U;k;ky; dSls dk;Z dj jgh gSA esjs ;g dgus ij fd U;k;ky; U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr ugha gS tks vf/koDrkx.k dk;Z djsaxs mudk dk;Z U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxk]thisinfuriatedyouandsaidU;k;ky; apksj o csbZeku gS vf/koDrkx.k ds U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr jgus ij Hkh dk;Z dj jgh gSs youabused the Court and also raised slogan in the Court RoomU;k;ky; eqjnkckn vf/koDrk ,drk ftUnkcknOnaccountthereofproceedingsofthe Courtwerestopped.Inthiswayyouhavenotonlyscandalizedthe
-
7Court,buthavealsolowereddowntheauthorityoftheCourtbesides interfering in administration of justice, thus, all of you havecommittedcriminalcontemptdefinedunderSection2(c)readwithSections10,14and15ofContemptofCourtsAct,1971(hereinafter referredtoas"Act,1971")punishableunderSection12ofAct,1971."
15. Rest of theeight contemnors, namely Sri SheshNarayanDixit,
AtmaPrakashTripathi, ChandraPrakashChaubhey, KalpNathSingh,
ShivRajSingh,BrijKishorSingh,PrabhakarRamPathakandSatyadeo
Pandey,werechargedasunder:
"That all of you Shesh Narayan Dixit, Atma Prakash Tripathi, ChandraPrakashChaubhey,KalpNathSingh,ShivRajSingh,Brij Kishor Singh, Prabhakar RamPathak and Satyadeo Pandey on12.4.2013afterlunchat2.00PMwhiletheCourtwasdischarging judicial function of hearing Misc. Application/Bail Application of Advocatespresent,enteredintheCourtRoomalongwithMahendraPrasadShukla,OmPrakashRai,OmPrakashPathak,Advocates, usedindecentwordsagainsttheCourtandalsocreatedobstructionin judicial proceedings. Thus all of youhavecommittedcriminal contemptdefinedunderSection2(c)readwithSections10,14and15ofAct,1971punishableunderSection12ofAct,1971."
16. Thecontemnorswerealsogivenopportunitytofiletheirrepliesto
thechargelevelledagainstthem.
17. Inreplytothechargeframedagainstcontemnors,replieshavebeen
filedbyMahendraPrasadShukla,(contemnorno.1),OmPrakashPathak
(contemnorno.3), SheshNarayanDixit(contemnorno.4),ShriKalpNath
Singh (contemnor no.7), Shiv Raj Singh (contemnor no.8), Brij Kishor
Singh(contemnorno.9),SatyadeoPandey(contemnorno.11).
18. ShriV.C.Mishra,learnedSeniorAdvocateassistedbyS/ShriAlok
Kumar, Shukla Yasharth Srivastava and Ashok Verma, Advocates
appearedonbehalfofcontemnors,SheshNarayanDixit,AtmaPrakash
Tripathi,BrijKishorSingh,ShivRajSinghandKalpNathSingh.
19. ShriV.P.Srivastava,learnedSeniorAdvocateassistedbyShriAjay
ShankarPathak,Advocatehasappearedonbehalfofcontemnorsno.1,3
and11i.e.MahendraPrasadShukla,OmPrakashPathakandSatyadeo
-
8Pandey,respectively.
20. ShriVinodKumarRai,Advocatehasputinappearanceonbehalfof
OmPrakashRai(contemnorno.2).ShriRudraKantMishra,Advocatehas
putinappearanceonbehalf of contemnornos. 6and10 i.e. Chandra
PrakashChaubheyandPrabhakarRamPathak.
21. Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
contemnornos.1,3and11statedthatthoughtheaforesaidcontemnors
havefiledtheirrepliestothechargebuttheyarenotcontestingthematter
and surrendering themselves to the court, admitting guilt, and seeks
mercy.
22. However,ShriV.C.Mishra,learnedSeniorAdvocate,hasadvanced
elaborates arguments in defence, which have been adopted by other
learnedcounselappearingforothercontemnors.
23. ShriV.C.Mishra,contendedthatReferenceLetterwasmadebythe
thenACJM,Sonbhadradisclosingonlythreenamesi.e.contemnornos.1,
2and3,andtherefore,noproceedingsagainstanyothercontemnorsis
admissibleunderlawastheinvestigationdirectedbythisCourt,tobe
madeby District Judge, to findoutnamesof other1520advocates,
mentionedinReferenceLetter,andReportsubmittedbyDistrictJudge,
Sonbhadra, identifying names of contemnors 4 to 11, is neither
contemplatedunderAct1971norRulesframedbyCourt,therefore,the
aforesaidreportandproceedingsinitiatedonthebasisthereof,arewholly
illegal. The investigationdirectedby thisCourt tobemadebyDistrict
Judge, Sonbhadra and report submitted by learned District Judge is
whollyunauthorizedandillegal,hencenocontemptproceedingwouldlie
againstthoseadvocates,whowerenamedininquiryreportsubmittedby
DistrictJudge.Thesaidinquiryreportasalso subsequentproceeding
initiatedagainstcontemnornos.4to11,areillegalandlackjurisdiction.
24. Comingonthemerit of thematter, Shri V.C. Mishraurgedthat
-
9namesofcontemnornos.4to11havebeengivenbyadvocates,whohave
rivalrytothesecontemnors.Mentioningnamesofcontemnors4to11,by
twoorthreeadvocatesbeforeDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra,wasonaccount
of animosity. Theyhave been falsely implicated. There is no otherwise
evidencethatthesecontemnorswerepresentorcommittedanyillegalact
etc.whichmaycomewithintheambitofthetermcriminalcontemptas
defined under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971. He further contended that
statementof advocatestakennotebyDistrict Judge, Sonbhadrainhis
report,iswhollyhearsayandcannotbereliedsincecontemnorshavenot
been given any opportunity to cross examine those advocates, who
deposedanddisclosednamesofcontemnors.Hefurthercontendedthat
contemnorsincomplianceofthisCourt'sorderdated19.2.2015,tendered
unconditionalapologybeforePresidingOfficer,whomade areferenceto
thisCourtandhehasacceptedthesame,thereforeproceedingsareliable
tobedroppedagainstallthecontemnors.
25. ShriSudhirMehrotra,learnedSpecialCounselnominatedbythis
Courttoassist,however,submittedthatReferenceLetterdated15.4.2013
aswellasinquiryreportsubmittedbyDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraareself
speaking, clearly showing highly derogatory conduct of contemnors
disturbing court proceedings, which clearly amount to criminal
contempt.ThePresidingOfficerhasalsoremindedthatcontemnorshave
not committed these acts for the first time but repeatedly. He also
submittedthatpowerofthisCourttopunishforcontempt,isnotconfined
toReferenceletterreceivedfromsubordinatecourtbutthecourtcanhave
informationsubsequentlyorotherwisealso,eitherfromsubordinatecourt
or on its own or under order of this Court. He submitted that the
Referencelettermadebysubordinatecourtisnottobereadasaplaint.
The term 'Reference' under Section15of Act, 1971 is nothingbut an
information communicated by subordinate court to this Court, since
ultimate power for punishing contemnors for committing contempt of
-
10
subordinatecourtvestsinthisCourt.TheauthorityofthisCourtisnot
confinedtotheletterofreference.The'reference'isnotdefinedintheAct
1971.Itsimplyconstitutesaninformationreceivedfromsubordinatecourt.
In a given case, after initial information, the court may require some
further information, which may also come from subordinate court or
otherwiseandallthatinformationwillsatisfytheterm'Reference'.
26. All the learned counsels appearing for contemnors unanimously
submitted that since contemnors have tendered apology, court should
acceptthesameanddischargeallofthem.
27. Wehaveheardlearnedcounselforpartiesasalsorelevantstatutory
provisionsandexpositionoflawlaiddownundervariousauthoritiesof
thisCourtaswellasvariousothercourtsandApexCourt.
28. Herethecontemnorsthough11,butareapparentlyintwosets.First
setincludescontemnors1to3andsecondsetincludescontemnors4to
11i.e.Therefore,wefinditappropriatetodiscussthematteroftwosetsof
contemnorsseparately.Firstofallweproposestodiscussfactualaspects,
andthereafter,thelegalsubmissionsinvolvingboththesets.
29. So far ascontemnornos. 1 to3areconcerned, theyhavebeen
charged of using scurrilous language in court of ACJM, Sonbhadra,
preventinglitigantsandadvocatesinpursuingtheirmattersbeforecourt,
abstaining judicial functionandraisingslogans inCourtroom.All the
aforesaidacts,if true,dosatisfydefinitionof 'criminalcontempt'under
Section2(c)ofAct,1971.Noindividualreplyhasbeenfiledbycontemnor2
tothechargelevelledagainsthim.Thecontemnors1and3havefiledtheir
affidavitsinreplytochargeframedagainstthem.
30. ThedefencetakenbyMahendraPrasadShukla (contemnor1) in
affidavitswornon6.5.2015isthat,heisanadvocatepractisinginDistrict
Court,Sonbhadra,has21yearslengthofpractiseandhisenrollmentwith
BarCouncilofU.P.isof1994.Heearlierfiledanaffidavitdated9.12.2013
-
11
tenderingunconditionalapology.On9.2.2015,whenmatterwastakenup,
hesaidthatheisnotcontestingproceedingsonmerit andistendering
unconditional apology. The Court then permitted him to tender such
apologybeforecourtbelowandincompliancethereof,hefiledapologyvide
affidavitdated9.3.2015beforeShriAmitKumarPrajapati,nowpostedas
Civil Judge(SeniorDivision), MuzaffarNagar atKairanaandtendered
apology.Comingonmerit,hesaidthatKalpNathSingh(contemnor7)
lodgedFirstInformationReportdated20.3.2013,registeredasCaseCrime
No.164/2013underSection406and420I.P.C.,P.S.Pannuganj,District
SonbhadraagainstsixpersonsincludingoneJagJeevanSingh,Advocate,
whohasbeennamedasawitnessinreferencelettersentbycourtbelow.
CopyofreportisAnnexureNo.1totheAffidavit. Someoftheaccused,
namely,JagjeevanSingh,Advocate,JangBahaduraliasBachchacameto
thiscourtinWritPetitionsNo.6087of2013and6086of2013forseeking
quashingofFirstInformationReport.Thewritpetitionsweredisposedof
videordersdated10.4.2013andbothordersaresimilar.Oneoftheorder
dated10.4.2013readsasunder:
HeardthelearnedcounselforthepetitionerandthelearnedA.G.A.
Thispetitionhasbeenfiledbythepetitionerwithaprayertoquash theF.I.R.ofcasecrimeno.164of2013,undersections420,406IPC, P.S.Pannuganj,DistrictSonbhadra.
From the perusal of the F.I.R it appears that on the basis of allegationmadethereintheprimafaciecognizableoffenceismade out.ThereisnoscopeofinterferingintheF.I.RTherefore,theprayerforquashingtheF.I.Risrefused.
However,consideringthefacts,itisdirectedthatincasepetitionerappearsbeforethecourtconcernedwithin30daysfromtodayand applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiouslyifpossibleonthesamedaybythecourtsbelow.
Withthisdirection,thispetitionisfinallydisposedof.
(emphasisadded)
31. Trial in the aforesaid matter was pending in the court of Chief
JudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadraand12.4.2013wasthedatefixed.Since
-
12
courtwasvacant,thecasewastakenupinthecourtofACJM,ShriAmit
KumarPrajapation12.4.2013,whencourtgrantedinterimbailtooneof
the accused, Sat Pal alias Bablu. Despite knowledge of order dated
10.4.2013passed by this Court, Shri Amit Kumar Prajapati, the then
ACJM, Sonbhadra, in league and collusion with Jagjeevan Singh,
Advocate,grantedinterimbailtoanotheraccusedSatpalaliasBabluon
12.4.2013.Sincetheaforesaidcriminalcaserelatestonumberoffarmers
whowerecheatedbyaccusedpersons,theyraisedtheirvoice.Withthe
incidentasallegedinreferencelettersentbythenACJM,thecontemnor1
hasnoconcern.However,contemnor1,appearingonbehalfofinformant
wasopposingbail applicationandhadfiledVakalatnameon12.4.2013
beforetheconcernedACJM.Subsequently,bailapplicationwasrejectedby
CJMon 17.4.2013. Shri Jagjeevan Singh, Advocate was expelled from
membershipofSonbhadraBarAssociationvideresolutiondated7.2.2012.
On 11.4.2013, there was an emergency meeting of Sonbhadra Bar
Associationinwhichadecisionwastakenforabstainingjudicialworkon
12.4.2013onaccountofdissimilarityinholidaysinCivilCourtandState
GovernmentOfficesandalsoforfrequentpowercuts.Theincident,took
placeon12.4.2013,betweencomplainantandaccusedpersons,andnot
judicialofficerandcontemnor1.Thedayofincident, i.e.12.4.2013,was
lastworkingdayofthethenACJM,ShriAmitKumarPrajapatiinDistrict
Court,Sonbhadra.Regardingthesaidincident,anewswaspublishedin
localHindiNewspaper'Hindustan'VaranasiEditiondated13.4.2013.The
Sonbhadra Bar Association, Sonbhadra also passed a resolution on
16.4.2013againstShriJagjeevan Singh,Advocateaswell asthethen
ACJM,Shri Amit KumarPrajapati, against their conduct. Thecopyof
resolutionhasalreadybeenplacedonrecordasAnnexureNo.9tothe
Affidavit,whichisreproducedasunder:
^^vkt fnukad 16-04-13 dh cSBd esa dfFkr fM~fLV~d ckj ,'kks0 lksuHknz ds
inkf/kdkjh Jh txthou flag ,M0 ds v'kksHkuh; vkpj.k ,oa ,-lh-ts-,e- lksuHknz
-
13
Jh ver iztkifr ds U;kf;d dk;Z lapkyu ds rkSj&rjhds ij ppkZ ds mijkUr
cgqer ls fuEufyf[kr izLrko ikfjr fd;s x;s&
1- U;k;ky; ifjlj esa dfFkr fM~fLV~d ckj ,'kks0 lksuHknz ds inkf/kdkjh Jh
txthou flag o muds vU; lg;ksxhx.k vf/koDrk }kjk vk;s fnu ,'kks0 ds uke
ij vf/koDrk vkpj.k ds foijhr d`R; fd;k tkrk jgk gS] rFkk mDr
vf/koDrkvksa }kjk dfFkr ,'kks0 ds ek/;e ls dfri; U;kf;d vf/kdkjhx.k dks Hkh
izHkkfor dj U;kf;d izfdz;k dks lEiUu djkus dk iz;kl fd;k tkrk jgk gS]
ftlls U;kf;d ifjlj dk okrkoj.k [kjkc gksrk gS] Jh flag ds d`R;ksa dks ns[krs
gq;s gh mUgsa iwoZ dk;Zdkfj.kh }kjk ckj dh izkFkfed lnL;rk ls fuLdkf'kr dj
ckj dkmafly vkQ m0iz0 dks Hkst pqdk gSA loZlEer ls muds o lEcfU/kr
U;kf;d vf/kdkjh ds dk;Z O;ogkj dh fuank dh tkrh gS] rFkk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k
tkrk gS fd ,0lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz Jh vfer iztkifr ds LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dh
tkudkjh ds mijkUr Jh txthou flag ,M0 }kjk 12-04-2013 dks ckj ds izLrko
ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa xkyh xykSt ,oa /kedh ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds le{k fn;k
tkuk vf/koDrk vkpj.k ds foijhr Fkk] ftls ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkh ekSu
Lohd`r iznku fd;k tkuk lansgkLin gSA
2- mijksDr dk;Zokgh dh ?kksj fuank dh tkrh gS rFkk lkFk gh ;g fu.kZ; fy;k
tkrk gS fd mijksDr lEcU/k esa tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks mDr fdz;k dykiksa ls
ckrdj voxr djkrs gq;s lEcfU/kr yksxska ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh dh ekaxh dh
tk;A**
(Emphasisadded)
Inthemeetingheldonthis16.04.2013,theundignifiedconductof ShriJagjivanSinghAdvocate,socalledofficebeareroftheDistrict Bar Association, Sonbhadra, as also the ways of discharge of judicial work by Shri Amat Prajapati, ACJM, Sonbhadra was discussedfollowingwhichresolutionswerepassedbymajorityas under:
1.Inthecourtpremises,actsnotbefittingtheconductofadvocates havecontinuedtobedoneeverynowandthenbyShriJagjivanSingh, so called office bearer of the District Bar Association, Sonbhadraandhisfellowadvocatesinthenameoftheassociation; andefforts have continuouslybeendoneby thesaidadvocatesthroughthesocalledassociationtomanagethejudicialprocessbyinfluencing some judicial officers as well, which vitiates the atmosphere of the court premises. Only in viewof Shri Singh's doings,hehasbeenexpelledfromtheprimarymembershipofthe
-
14
Barby thepreviousworkingcommitteeandthesamehasbeenconveyedtotheBarCouncilofUttarPradesh.Withoneaccord,his workandconductandalsothatoftheconcernedjudicialofficeris condemnedanditisdecidedthattheactofShriJagjivanSingh, who after getting the information regarding transfer of ACJMSonbhadra Amat Prajapati, used abusive language and issuedthreats in the court premises before the presiding officer on12.04.2013againsttheresolutionpassedbytheBar,didnotbefit the conduct of an advocate and the acquiescence of even the presidingofficerinthematterraisesdoubts.
2.Theaforesaidactisvehementlycondemnedanditisdecidedas well that talks intheaforesaidcontextbeheldwiththeDistrict Judge,thusapprisinghimaboutthesaidactivitiesandrequesting forproperactionagainsttheconcernedpersons.
(EnglishtranslationbyCourt)
32. He(contemnor1)hasfurthersaidthatthereferencehasbeenmade
directly to this Court addressed to Registrar General, High Court on
15.4.2013.IthasbeenmadebyShriAmitKumarPrajapati,thethenACJM
afterhistransferfromSonbhadratoanotherdistrict. Whenhegranted
interimbail,hewasawareofhistransfertoanotherdistrict.Thereference
has been made against law and process since it ought to have been
forwarded by District Judge andnot directly. With regard to incident,
whichtookplaceinthecourtofCJM,aresolutionwaspassedbyBar
Association,Sonbhadraon20.2.2013againsttheconductofChiefJudicial
Magistrate,Sonbhadra.CopyofsaidresolutionisannexuedasAnnexure
No.10totheAffidavit,whichisreproducedasunder:
^^vkt fnukad 20-02-13 dks iwoZ fu/kkZfjr lwpuk ds vuqlkj cSBd vke lnu dh
lEiUu gqbZ ftlesa fu/kkZFjr fcUnqvksa ij ppkZ ds mijkUr cgqer ds vk/kkj ij
fuEufyf[kr izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;kA
1- lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknZ ds vkns'k fnukad 16-01-13 ftls tuin U;k;k/kh'k lksuHknz }
kjk fnukad 18-01-13 dks vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] tks iw.kZ vO;ogkfjd gS] mls rRdky
izHkko ls okil fy;k tk;A
2- lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz ds lsok dky dh tuin esa vof/k iw.kZ gks jgh gS] rFkk mudk
LFkkukUrj.k bl o"kZ gksuk gS] ftls :dokus dk vkosnu muds }kjk fd;k x;k gS]
-
15
ftldk fojks/k fd;k x;k] fd lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz ds dk;Z iz.kkyh ls lnL;x.k
dkQh vlarq"V gSa] ftlds vk/kkj ij cgqer ls mudh lsok dky esa lsokfoLrkj u
fd;s tkus lEcaf/kr dk;Z ds izLrko dk Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k] rFkk nl lnL;h;
Msyhxslu dk xBu fd;k x;k] tks tuin U;k;k/kh'k ls mijksDr fcUnqvksa ij lkFkZd
okrkZ djds muds fopkjks o d`R; dk;Zokgh ls lnu esa voxr djk;sxs] ftl vk/kkj
ij fnukad 23-02-2013 dks cSBd djds ikjhr izLrko ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh
tk;sxhA
mijksDr dk;ksZ ds fdz;kUou ds fy;s fojks/k Lo:i vf/koDrkx.k fnukad 21-02-13 o
22-02-13 dks fojks/k Lo:i U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr jgsaxsA iqu% 23-03-13 dks vke lnu
dh izLrkfor cSBd dh tk;sxhA ftldh otg ls mDr frfFk ij Hkh U;kf;d dk;Z
fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gksxkA
mijksDr cgqre ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr izLrkoksa ds lEca/k esa ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd
lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mfpr i=kpkj Hkh fd;k tk;A**
(Emphasisadded)Onthis20.02.2013,asperpriornotice,meetingofthegeneral housewasheldatwhichpointsontheagendawerediscussed followingwhichresolutionswerepassedbymajorityasunder:
1. Theorderof theCJM,Sonbhadradated16.01.2013,which hasbeenapprovedbytheDistrictJudgeon18.01.2013andis utterlyimpractical,berecalledwithimmediateeffect.
2.ThetenureofCJM,Sonbhadrainthedistrictiscomingtoanendandhistransferisduethisyear,staywhereofhasbeen appliedforbyhim,whichwasopposedonthegroundthatthe members are very dissatisfied with the working of CJM,Sonbhadra;onthebasisofwhichresolutionforhistenurenotto beextendedwasalsopassedbymajority;anda10memberdelegationwasformedwho,afterameaningfulparleywiththeDistrictJudgeontheaforesaidpoints,shallapprisethehouseaboutthelatter'sopinionandtheactiontaken,onthebasisof which proceedings shall be held as per the resolution to be passedbyconveningameetingon23.02.2013.
Forimplementationoftheaforesaidwork,theadvocateswill,as amarkofprotest,desistfromthejudicialworkon21.02.2013 and22.02.2013.On23.03.2013,theproposedmeetingof thegeneralhousewill beheldagain, duetowhichjudicial workshallnotbepossibleonthesaiddateaswell.
-
16
In connection with the aforesaid resolutions passed bymajority,itwasalsoresolvedthatduecorrespondencebealso madewiththeconcernedofficers.
(EnglishtranslationbyCourt)33. AnotherresolutionwaspassedbyBarAssociation,Sonbhadraon
5.3.2013againstShriKrishnaKumar,thethenCJM,alsoproposingto
abstain from judicial work from6.3.2013. The contemnor 1 has also
referredtoasimilarresolutionpassedon15.3.2013againstthethenCJM,
besidesthecomplaintdated14.2.2013,submittedbyadvocatesofdistrict
court, Sonbhadra to District Judge, Sonbhadra. Shri Amit Kumar
Prajapati,presidingofficerofcourtoughttohavemadeacomplainttothe
DistrictJudge,Sonbhadraandnottosentreferencedirectlytothiscourt.
Withrespecttoroleofcontemnor1,theDistrictJudge,Sonbhadrahasnot
conductedanyinquiry. Thereferencehasbeenmadesincecontemnor1
wasopposinginterimbail,grantedbycourtbelow,illegallyinleagueand
collusionwithJagjeevanSingh,Advocate.ShriAmitKumarPrajaptihad
anapprehensionofthecomplaintmadeattheinstanceofmembersof
District Bar Association, Sonbhadra, therefore, with false allegation,
referencehasbeenmade.TheDistrictJudgehasnotexaminedclerkof
courtofJudicialMagistrate,whowaspresentingthematterbeforeShri
Amit Kumar Prajapati, the then ACJM, though he was an important
witnessoftheincident.TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadrahasnotrecorded
statementofManojKumarPandey,Secretary,BarAssociation,Sonbhadra,
thoughhehadalsocomeinthecourtandhisnameisalsomentionedby
oneTituPrasadGupta,Advocateinhisstatement,deposedbeforeDistrict
Judge, Sonbhadra, during inquiry. The eye witnesses i.e. the court
employeeshavenotdisclosedthenameofanyofthecontemnors.
34. Thereply givenbycontemnor3Shri OmPrakasPathak is also
almost the same as is of contemnor 1. He has also made allegations
againstcourtbelowthathepassedillegalorderofinterimbailinleague
andcollusionwithoneJagjeevanSingh,Advocateandanotheraccusedin
-
17
thesamematter.ThoughhehasstatedthatShriMahendraPrasadShukla
(contemnor no1). was counsel for complainant in the said case but
regarding his ownrole andpresence, he has not said, anything, very
specifically.However,inpara57,contemnor3hassaidthatcontemnor1is
practisingandjuniortohim,therefore,onlywithamalafideintentionand
toharass,contemnor3hasfalselybeenmentionedinreferencebycourt
below.
35. Shri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate representing
Contemnors,atthetimeofargument,didnotadvanceanyargumenton
meritsandstatedthatcontemnors,whomheisrepresenting,surrender
beforethecourtandseekmercy.
36. Fromthefactsdisclosedabove,wehavenodoubtthattherewasa
resolutionpassedbyBarAssociationSonbhadraforabstaining judicial
workon12.4.2013. It is alsoevident that courtof ACJMwasactually
functioning on 12.4.2013. He was discharging judicial work. Some
advocatesandlitigantswerealsopresentasperownadmissionofeven
contemnor1,whowaspresentinCourtforopposingbailapplicationin
CaseCrimeNo.164of2013,havingfiledhisvakalatnamaonthesameday.
Contemnor1,inhisdefence,hassaidthatitiscomplainants,whomhe
wasrepresenting,whoarefarmers,raisedtheirvoicebutnoevidenceor
materialhasbeenplacedonrecordtofortifyit.Grudgeofcontemnor1is
cementedbyhisownassertioninreplyaffidavitswornon6.5.2015that
judicialorderpassedbyACJMgrantinginterimbailwasinleagueand
collusionwithoneofaccusedJagjeevanSingh,Advocate.However,inthis
regardhehasnotplacedanymaterialtoshowthatsaidPresidingOfficer
wasincollusionwithoneormoreaccusedpersons.Themerefactthat
on12.4.2013,thisCourtpermittedpetitionerJagjeevanSingh,Advocateto
surrender in court, does not mean that court below acted illegally,
particularlywhen,hewasgranted30daystimetosurrenderintheCourt.
Moreovernothinghasbeenplacedonrecordtoshowthatorderofthis
-
18
Courtdated10.4.2013,wasactuallycommunicatedbyanyoftheparties
ortobecourtbelow.
37. Thesubsequentresolutionsof BarAssociationSonbhadra,which
hasbeenreliedbycontemnors1and3alsomakeitclearthatadvocates
wereannoyedofthefactthatoverlookingtheirresolution,theCourthad
actually functioned and discharged judicial work. It appears that
Advocatesandparticularlycontemnors1and3,wereunderimpression
thatwhateverresolutiontheypass,sittinginBarAssociation,thecourts
are bound to obey the same, ignoring the fact that a resolution of
abstentionofjudicialworkisperseillegalandamountstoanintentional
actofcriminalcontemptonthepartoftheBody,orperson(s)whopass
suchresolution, and liable for punishmentunderAct, 1971. Timeand
again,isthelastmorethantwodecades,Courtshaverepeatedlyheldthat
strikeof lawyers,abstainingfromjudicialworkisnotperseillegalbut
amountstoobstructioninfunctioningofcourtsoflawandobstructionin
judicialfunction,fallingwithintheambitofcriminalcontemptdefined
underSection2(c)ofAct,1971.
38. Thesuggestionthatadvocateswereonstrikedoesnotprovideany
justificationformakingsuchallegations,inasmuchas,repeatedly,Apex
CourtaswellasthisCourthaveheldthatacallofstrikebyadvocates
exceptofarareoccasion,isperseillegal.Acall,whichhastheeffectof
paralysing judicial functionex facie, in our view, amounts to a direct
interferenceintheadministrationofjusticeandisa'criminalcontempt'
underSection2(c)oftheAct,1971.ThestrikebyAdvocatesdisturbingthe
CourtproceedingshasbeenheldillegalbytheCourtinCommonCause
(ARegisteredSociety)vs.UnionofIndiaandOthers(1995)5SCC
511, IndianCouncil of Legal Aid andAdvice vs. Bar Council of
India(1995)1SCC732,K.JohnKoshyvs.Dr.TarkeshwarPrasad
Shaw(1998)8SCC624,MahavirPrasadSinghvs.JacksAviation
-
19
PrivateLtd.(1999)1SCC37andExCaptainHarishUppalvs.Union
ofIndia(2003)2SCC45.TheauthoritiesofApexCourtinabovethese
cases,supportandlaydowntheaboveexpositionoflaw.
39. Before this Court, contemnors 1 and 3 have not hesitated in
condemning the conduct of Presiding Officer is derogatory language
throughinrespectofdischargeofjudicialfunctionon12.4.2013,despite
resolution passed by Bar Association. As per own impression of
contemnors1to3andBarAssociationSonbhadra,audacityofPresiding
Officerofcourtbelowincontinuingtodischargejudicialfunctiondespite
resolutionofabstentionfromjudicialworkpassedbyAdvocateswasan
uncondonableactjustifyingactofobstructionanddisturbanceinCourt
functioningbesidescondemnationbyraisingslogans. Thisassumptionis
alsoreflectedinsubsequentresolutionofBarAssociation,whichhasbeen
reliedbycontemnors1to3intheirreplyaffidavits.Theyappearstohave
assumedthatthoughcourtbelowisanindependentjudicialauthoritybut
inoneorotherway,subordinatetothem,boundtoobeytheirresolution,
howsoeverillegalitis.ThisattitudeandassumptiononthepartofBar
Associationingeneralandcontemnors1to3inparticular,ispersenot
only illegal but amounts to a gross criminal contempt on their part.
Nothing more than this canhave the effect of lowering authority and
majestyofCourtoflaw.Ononehand,Advocatescoulddaretopreventa
courtoflawfromfunctioningandfurthertheycoulddaretothreatand
obstruct the court as well as Presiding Officer when it continued to
functionignoringsuchresolutionofBodyofAdvocates.Aseriouscharge
has been levelled against Presiding Officer in respect of judicial order
passedbyhimingrantinginterimbailthatitwasinleagueandcollusion
withaccusedpersonsbutnotsubstantiated.
40. In E.M.SankaranNamboodiripadvs.T.NarayananNambiar,
AIR1970SC2015,ithasbeenheldthatimputationofmalafides,biasor
prejudice, ridiculing the efficiencyof Judges, are alwaysconsidered to
-
20
meanscandalizingthecourts.Officialcapacityinthisregardcannotbe
differentiated into judicial and administrative capacities. Both are
interlinked.VilificatorycriticismofaJudgefunctioningasaJudge,evenin
purelyadministrativeornonadjudicatorymatters,amountstocontempt
of court if sucha criticismsubstantially affects the 'administrationof
justice' and lowers the authority or dignity of the court, or creates a
distrustinthepublicmindastothecapacityoftheJudgestometeout
evenhandedjustice.
41. ContemnorNo.1wasadmittedlypresentinCourt.Hewasshouting
anddisturbingincourt'sfunctionasisevidentfromreplygivenbyhim.
HehasreferredtotheresolutionofBarAssociationthatdespitedecision
ofabstinencefromjudicialwork,courtofACJMwasactuallyfunctioning
and he passed judicial orders also in some cases. The affidavit of
contemnor1filedbeforethisCourt,clearlyshowsthatcontemnorno.1
representingapartyinbailapplicationandopposingbail,wasinterested
inpostponementofmatterwithoutanyorderbuthecouldnotsucceed.He
hasnotbeenabletorestrainhimtohurlscurrilouslanguageonPresiding
Officerinrespectofjudicialorderpassedbyhim,grantinginterimbail,
statingthatsaidorderwaspassedinleagueandcollusionwithaccused
persons.Contemnorno.3hasalsousedsamelanguage,sworninitsreply
affidavit.Contemnorno.3hasnotswornthathewasnotpresentincourt
butpresentelsewhere.Contemnor2hasnotsubmittedanyreplytothe
chargelevelledagainsthim.Evenotherwisenoneofthecontemnors1to3
haveactuallycontestedatthetimeofhearing.BeforethisCourttoshow
thatsuchactshavenotbeencommittedbythemorwereactuallynot
committedbythem.
42. We have no hesitation in holding the charge levelled against
contemnors1,2and3,proved.
43. Nowweproposestocometothecaseofcontemnors4to11.The
namesofthesecontemnorshavenotbeendisclosedinReferenceLetter
-
21
dated15.4.2013sentbyShriAmitKumarPrajapat.Theirnameshavebeen
disclosed through report submitted by District Judge, Sonbhadra
pursuanttoinquiryconducted,videCourt'sorderdated30.9.2013.
44. Shri V.C. Mishra, learnedSenior Advocatecontended that under
Section15 (2) of Act, 1971,theCourtcantakecognizanceof onlythe
'reference' made by subordinate court and not to any subsequent
proceedings. There is no provision, which permits this court to direct
subordinatecourttomakesomeinquirytofindoutnamesofpersons,who
havecommittedanactof'criminalcontempt'andthentoproceedagainst
them. According to learned Senior Counsel this procedure adoptedby
courtiswithoutanyauthorityoflawhavingnosanction,andtherefore,is
anullity.
45. Whatwe find fromentireargumentof Shri V.C. Mishra, learned
SeniorCounsel,thatpowertopunishforcriminalcontemptofsubordinate
courtvestsonlyunderSection15(2)ofAct,1971andbeyondthatthis
courtpossessesnootherwisepowertoproceedevenifthereisanactor
omissiononthepartofoneortheotherAdvocate(s),constituting'criminal
contempt' and this information has been received by court, not on a
referencemadebysubordinatecourtoronamotionmadebyAdvocate
General,butotherwise.
46. Thisaspecthasbeenconsideredin S.K.Sarkar,Member,Board
ofRevenue,Lucknowvs.VinayChandraMishra,AIR1980(1)SC
436,Courtsaid,ifSection15(2)isinterpretedasconfiningmotiontobe
takenbyHighCourtonlyonthebasisofareportofsubordinatecourtor
motionbyAdvocateGeneraloranypersonwithhisconsent,itwillhave
theeffectofnullifyingtheconstitutionalguarantee,andinherentpowerof
acourt.Section10ofAct,1971specificallyshowsthateveryHighCourt
shall haveandexercisethesamejurisdiction,powersandauthority in
accordancewiththesameprocedureandpracticeinrespectofcontempts
-
22
ofcourtssubordinatetoitasithasandexercisesinrespectofcontempts,
itself. AmbitofprocedureforthecourtregardingSection15(2)actually
specifiesoneofthemodeofproceduresothatfrivolouscasesofcriminal
maynotfloodacourtofrecord.Twomodesareprescribedinsubsection2
ofSection15whereaninformationwillcometocourtfromauthenticated
bodyorifoninitialscrutiny,whichwillhavetheleastchancesonbringing
afrivolousmatterbeforethecourt.Inthecaseof S.K.Sarkar(supra),
the Supreme Court clearly opined that if High Court is prima facie
satisfiedthattheinformationreceivedby it regarding commissionof
contemptof asubordinate court is not frivolous, andthecontempt
allegedisnotmerelytechnicalortrivial,itmay,initsdiscretion,actsuo
motuandcommenceproceedingsagainst thecontemner. However, this
modeoftakingsuomotucognizanceofcontemptofasubordinatecourt
should beresortedto sparinglywhere thecontemptconcernedisofa
graveandseriousnature.
47. Inthepresentcase,Courthasnotproceededonitsownbutbasic
factswerealreadyplacedbefore it inReferenceLetterdated15.4.2013.
Learned subordinate court clearly stated that besides three names
mentionedtherein,therewere1520moreadvocates,whowereindulgedin
activities causing obstruction in judicial function, which ultimately
disturbedcourtswork.Therefore,itwasopentothecourttotakestepsfor
identificationof these 1520advocates. TheDistrict Judge, Sonbhadra
thuswasrightlyrequiredtomakeaninquiryandfindoutnamesofsuch
advocates.TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadramadeaninquiryandsubmitted
reportinwhichhenamedeightadvocatesi.e.contemnors4to11.Ininitial
affidavitsfiledbyaforesaidcontemnors4to11,SheshNarayanDixit,Atma
Prakash Tripathi, Chandra Prakash Chaubey, Praphakar RamPathak,
SatyadeoPandey,deniedtheirverypresenceinCourtwhenincidenttook
place.Restcontemnorshavedeniedtohavecausedanydisturbancein
courtorthattheywerepresentincourtbutnotatthetimewhenincident
-
23
tookplace.However,afterframingofcharge,defencetakenbydifferent
contemnorsintheirreply,isasunder:
Contemnor5(AtmaPrakashTripathi):
48. ItissaidthatheisasenioradvocateinDistrictBarAssociation,
Sonbhadraandhasneverbeenchargedforcommittingcontempt.Hehad
beenPresidentofDistrictBarAssociation,Sonbhadraforsixyears.His
namehasbeendisclosedbyanadvocatehaving rivalry i.e. JagJeevan
Singh,Advocate,andTarkeshwarTiwari,Clerk(Criminal)ofCourt.With
regardtoanimositywithJagJeevanSingh,hesaidthathewasPresident
whenJagJeevanSingh,AdvocatewasexpelledfrommembershipofBar
Association.
49. WithregardtoTarkeshwarTiwri,Clerk(Criminal)ofCourt,itissaid
thatheisresidinginsamevillagewherecontemnor5isresidingandsome
complainthasbeenmadebycontemnorAtmaPrakashTripathiagainst
Tarkeshawr Tiwari before District Magistrate as well as Nagar Palika
Parishad,Sonbhadracausinganimosityagainsthim.
50. Intheentireaffidavitofcontemnor5,swornon26.4.2015,wedonot
findthathehasdeniedthechargestatingthathewasnotpresentincourt
roomanddidnotparticipateinactivitiesdisturbingcourtfunctionetc.In
para15,headmitstohavesubmittedunconditionalapologybeforecourt
below. Moreover, in order to substantiate his defence that hewasnot
presentincourtorhasnotdoneanything,nothinghasbeenbroughton
recordexceptthatininitialletter/reference,hisnamewasnotdisclosed.
51. SofarascomplaintmadeagainstTarkeshwarTiwari,Clerk(Criminal)
ofCourtisconcerned,thisCourtfindsaletterdated12.8.2013,submitted
byDistrict Magistrate signedby fivepersons i.e. SheshNarayanDixit,
AtmaPrakashTripathi,KamleshPandey,VinodKumarShukla,Satyadeo
Pandeyetc.Fromthatletter,byitself,itcannotbesaidthatanemployeeof
courtcanmakeafalsestatementagainstcontemnor5.Itisnotindispute
-
24
thatTarkeshwarTiwari,wasanAssistantClerk(Criminal)postedincourt
ofACJM,SonbhadraonrelevantdateandwaspresentinCourt,hehad
theoccasiontowitnessincidentandrecognizethepersons,whocaused
theincidentinsubordinatecourt.
Contemnor11SatyadeoPandey:
52. Anotheraffidavitinreplytochargehasbeenfiledbycontemnor11
SatyadeoPandey.Hisreplyisalmostsimilartothatofcontemnors1to3.
Hehasalsosaidinpara15thatACJMpassedanorderofinterimbailin
league and collusion with one Jag Jeevan Singh, Advocate, who was
pursuingbailofSayaPalaliasBablu.Itisnothiscasethathewasnotin
court when incident took place but elsewhere. A bare denial that no
incidenttookplace,wouldnothelpcontemnor11inanymanner.Thereis
nothingtosubstantiateit.Itisatleastevidentfromaffidavitsubmittedby
contemnor11, that aseriousdisturbance wascaused in theCourt of
ACJMsincehewasdischargingjudicialfunctionignoringresolutionofBar
Association of abstention of advocates from judicial work. Conduct of
contemnor11inscandalizingthecourtalsoandfurtherstandsreaffirmed
bywhathehassaidinpara15ofaffidavitsubmittedinreplytocharge.
53. Rest of contemnors having refrained to file reply to the charge,
clearlyjustifyinferencetobedrawnbyCourt,againstthem.
54. We,therefore,rejectsubmissionoflearnedSeniorCounsel,ShriV.C.
MishraregardinghisobjectiontoprocedurefollowedbyCourtbyobtaining
report from District Judge in respect of other advocates, who have
obstructed court's functioning on 12.4.2013, and hold charge levelled
againstcontemnors4to11proved.
55. Oflate,wefindadeepincreasingtendencyofadvocatesinmaking
scurrilous allegations against presiding officers of subordinate Courts.
TheydonothesitateingoingtotheextentofdishonouringofPresiding
Officer as well as the Court by abusing and misbehaving, openly, in
-
25
presenceofpublicatlarge,whichincludeslitigants,clerksandothers,in
CourtsorinsidetheCourtcampus.Ifanorderhasnotbeenpassedbya
JudicialOfficertothelikingofanadvocate,remedylieselsewherebutno
onecanhavelibertytocreateasituation/anuglyscene,byraisingabusive
slogansagainstofficer(s)aswellastheCourt.Ifthiswouldnothavethe
effectofloweringauthorityandmajestyoftheCourt,whatelsecanbe.
56. WhenthereisadeliberateattempttoscandalizeajudicialOfficerof
subordinateCourt,itisboundtoshakeconfidenceoflitigatingpublicin
thesystemandhastobetackledstrictly.Thedamageiscausednotonlyto
thereputationofconcernedJudge,but,alsotothefairnameofjudiciary.
Veiledthreats,abrasivebehaviour,useofdisrespectfullanguage,and,at
times, blatant condemnatory attacks, like the present one, are often
designedly employed with a view to tamea Judge into submission to
secureadesiredorder. The foundationof our system is basedon the
independenceandimpartialityofthemenhavingresponsibilitytoimpart
justicei.e.JudicialOfficers.Iftheirconfidence,impartialityandreputation
isshaken,itisboundtoaffecttheveryindependenceofjudiciary.Any
person,ifallowedtomakedisparagingandderogatoryremarksagainsta
JudicialOfficer,withimpunity,isboundtoresultinbreakingdownthe
majestyofjustice.
57. We cannot ignore the fact that much cherished judicial
independenceneedsprotectionnot only fromover zealousexecutive or
powerhungry legislaturebutalso fromthosewhoconstitute, and, are
integralpartofthesystem.Hereisacasewherethecontemnorshave
shown behaviour like member of an unruly mob of hooligans. An
Advocatesforgettingthehigherstatusconferreduponthem,makingthem
Officers of the Court, have chosen to malign Judicial Officer of the
SubordinateCourt.
58. AnAdvocate'sdutyisasimportantasthatofaJudge.Hehasa
large responsibility towards society. He is expected to act withutmost
-
26
sincerityandrespect.Inallprofessionalfunctions,anAdvocateshouldbe
diligentandhisconductshouldalsobediligent.Heshouldconformtothe
requirementsoflaw.Heplaysavitalroleinpreservationofsocietyand
justicesystem.Heisunderanobligationtoupholdtheruleoflaw.He
mustensurethatthepublicjusticesystemisenabledtofunctionatitsfull
potential. He, whopractices law, isnotmerelya lawyer, butactsasa
moralagent.Thischaracter,hecannotshakeoff,byanyothercharacter
on professional character. He derives from the belief that he shares
sentiment of all mankind. This influenceof his morality is oneof his
possession,which,likeallhispossession,heisboundtouseformoral
ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court.
Advocacyisarespectablenobleprofessionontheprinciples.AnAdvocate
owesdutynotonlytohisclient,buttotheCourt,tothesocietyand,not
theleast,tohisprofession.
59. Wedonotintendtolaydownanycodeofconductfortheclassofthe
peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly have no hesitation in
observing that noAdvocatehasanybusiness tocondemnaJudgeby
abusingetc. for a judicial orderhasnot passed. If there is something
lackingonthepartofaJudicialOfficertouchinghisintegrity,Advocates,
beingOfficersoftheCourt,maynotremainasilentspectator,butshould
comeforward,raisingtheirvoiceinappropriatemannerbeforetheproper
authority.ButtherecannotbealicencetoanymemberofBartoraisehis
fingerovercompetencyandintegrityetc.ofaJudicialOfficer,casuallyor
negligently, or on other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and
capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be
malignedcommentinguponhisintegrityandhonesty.Itdeservestobe
condemnedinthestrongestwords.Noonecanjustifyitinanymanner.
Thinkingofintrusionofsuchthoughtitselfsoundsalert.Itisasirenof
somethingwhichisnotonlyveryserious,butimminent.Itisaconceptor
anideawhichshouldnothavecroppedupinanybody'smind,connected
-
27
withthesystemofjustice,andifhascroppedup,deservestobenippedat
earliest,else,itmayspreadsitstentaclestocoverothersandthatwould
beadoomsdayfortheveryinstitution.
60. This Court hasaconstitutional obligationto protect subordinate
judges.InSmt.MunniDeviandothersVs.StateofU.P.andothers,
2013(2)AWC1546thisCourtinpara10,hassaid:
"10.Bethatasitmay,sofarasthepresentcaseisconcerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers haveimposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercisecontroloversubordinatejudiciary.Thiscontrolisbothways.NoaberrationshallbeallowedtoentertheSubordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously SubordinateJudiciarycannot beallowedtobeattackedor threatenedtoworkunderoutsidepressureofanyone,whetherindividualoragroup,soastoformathreattoobjectiveandindependentfunctioningofSubordinateJudiciary."
61. Criticismof anorderof aCourtcannotbeequatedwithmaking
scurrilous attack on the conduct and integrity of the Judicial
Officer/PresidingOfficeroftheCourt.Inthepresentcase,anopenattack
bymisbehaviourandabusehasbeenshownagainstconcernedJudicial
Officer. Wild imaginary allegations against conduct of Judicial Officer
withouthavinganymaterialtosubstantiatethesamecannotbetolerated,
inasmuchas,itnotonlybringsintodisreputetheentirejusticesystembut
islikelytocauseseriouserosionintheconfidenceofpublicincasesuch
tendencyisnotsnuffedattheearliest.
62. TheJudicialOfficer/Judgeshadnoplatformtostandandclarifythe
circumstancesinwhichtheorderhasbeenpassedbythem.Theyhaveno
platformtodefendthemselves.Thestrengthofjudiciarycomesfromthe
strong public opinion which it has in the system. If unsubstantiated
flimsy,imaginary,fancifulallegationsbeallowedtobemadebyaparty,
whodidnotfindanorderinitsfavour,itwilldemolishtheveryfoundation
ofthesystemofjustice.EveryorderpassedbytheCourtwillbeinfavour
of one of the party andagainst another. The loosing party cannot be
-
28
allowed to challenge the very conduct/integrity of Judicial Officer in
passingtheorderandthattoowithoutanymaterialtosupportsuchan
allegation.Ifweallowsuchatrendtoremainunnoticed,orcondonethe
samewithout any appropriate action, it will not only encourage such
tendencyamongstotherbuttheresultantsituationmaycameaserious
blow to the system of administration of justice, which is one of the
foundingpillarof constitutionalschemeandhastobeprotectedbyall
legalandreasonablemeans.
63. Intheabovebackgroundandconsideringthefactsthatthecharge
isprovedagainst thecontemnors, now,wehave toconsiderabout the
sentenceonwhichcounselforcontemnorsaswellasthecontemnorshave
statedintheCourtthattheyarethrowingthemselvestothemercyofthe
courtandshowingmagnanimity,benevolenceandalenientview.
64. Nowcomingtoquestionofpunishment,abusingandshoutingin
court,causingobstructioninjudicialfunctionandattempttopreventthe
Courtfromdischargingitsjudicialfunction,isaseriousactofcriminal
contempt.Oflate,thecourtonadministrativeside,isinformedthatvery
frequently advocates are abstaining from judicial function, by taking
recoursetoalllegalandillegalmeansandmeasurestopreventjudicial
officersfromdischargingtheirjudicialfunctions.Inmostofthecases,for
oneorotherreasons,subordinatecourtsrefrainfrommakingReferenceto
this Court, in hope of maintaining cordial administrative relation &
atmospherebutthat isnothappening.Theadvocateshavetaken,asa
matterofgrant,thattheycanpreventcourtfromfunctioning,onmere
asking, and nothing will happen against them. The audacity of Bar
Association in passing resolutions condemning Presiding Officer (s) of
Court,whofunctiondespiteresolutionofBarAssociationisWritLarge.
Regardingobstructioninjudicialwork,theincidentshowstheextentto
whichBodyofadvocatescangotointimidatejudicialofficer, if he/she
works ignoring resolution of advocate's Body. In fact this act of Bar
-
29
Associationisalsonothingbutaserious'criminalcontempt'butsincethat
matterisnotbeforeus,therefore,wearenottakingactionagainstit.
65. Intheabovebackgroundandconsideringthefactthatthechargeis
proved against all the contemnors, now, we have to consider about
quantumofsentenceonwhich,counsel forcontemnorsaswell asthe
contemnorshavestatedintheCourtthattheyarethrowingthemselvesto
themercyof Courtandshowingmagnanimity, benevolence, thisCourt
shouldtakealenientview.
66. We impose punishment of simple imprisonment of three months
uponallcontemnorsandafineofRs.2000/.Incaseofnonpaymentof
fine,theyshallundergosimpleimprisonmentforafurtherperiodoftwo
months.
67. Besidesabove,inordertomaintaindisciplineandavoidnuisancein
theDistrictSonbhadra,wealsodirectthatcontemnorsshallnotenterthe
premisesofDistrictJudgeship,Sonbhadraforaperiodofsixmonths.The
aforesaidperiodofrestrictionshallcommencewitheffectfrom10thJuly,
2015.
68. Besides,theconductofallcontemnorsshallremainunderconstant
watchofDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraforaperiodoftwoyears.Ifanyof
themshowsanyotherwiseobjectionableconduct,causinginterferencein
peaceful andsmoothfunctioningof Court etc. theDistrict Judgeshall
immediatelyreportthemattertotheCourtsuomotu.
69. Sofarasamountoffineisconcerned,contemnorsmaydepositthe
sameeitherinthisCourtorwiththeDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraorwith
theChiefJudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadraby18.7.2015..
70. Contemptapplicationisdisposedofinthemannerasabove.
OrderDate:2.7.2015Ajeet
-
30
CourtNo.34Case:CONTEMPTAPPLICATION(CRIMINAL)No.12of2013Applicant:InReOppositeParty:SriMahendraPrasadShuklaAdvocate&OthersCounselforApplicant:A.G.A.,SudhirMehrotraCounselforOppositeParty:AjaiShankarPathak,Dr.V.K.Rai,M.K.Singh,PrashantPandey,RudraKantMishra,S.P.Srivastava,VivekMishra
Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.Hon'bleDineshGupta,J.
1. After delivery of judgement, the contemners pray that sentence
imposedbythisCourtvidejudgementofdatebesuspendedtoenablethem
toavailstatutoryremedyofappealunderSection19ofContemptofCourts
Act,1971(hereinafterreferredtoas"Act,1971")beforethesuperiorcourt.
2. Inthecircumstances,wesuspendthesentenceforaperiodof60days
toenablethemtoavailremedyofappeal.Incase,theappealisnotfiledorif
filedbutnootherwiseorderispassedintheappeal,thecontemnersshall
surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, who would
immediatelytakeappropriatestepsforservingoutsentencebycontemnors
asdirectedinthejudgementofdatepassedinthiscontemptapplication.
OrderDate:2.7.2015Ajeet