-
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