http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: HARGOVIND DAYAL SRIVASTAVA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: G.N. VERMA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/01/1977

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1334            1977 SCR  (2) 601  1977 SCC  (1) 744

ACT:             Contempt of Courts Act 1971---Criminal contempt--Duty of         members of the bar to protect dignity and decorum of judici-         ary.

HEADNOTE:             The appellant No. 1 is the President of the Oudh Bar and         appellant  No. 2 is the Chairman of Action Committee of  the         Oudh   Bar  Association.  They met and passed  a  Resolution         that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court was acting in         a most partisan manner under the influence of the  Allahabad         Bar and that it was unbecoming of the office which he holds.             The High Court issued notices for contempt, inter  alia,         to  the  appellants. The High Court discharged  the  notices         but made certain observations against the appellants.             HELD:  1.  If the High Court found that  there  was  any         contempt  it should have punished the appellants.  The  High         Court  confused  criminal  contempt with  contumacious  con-         duct.   This  Court is unable to find that  the  High  Court         found  contemners guilty of criminal contempt.   [602 D,  G,         H]             2.  There is no gainsaying that the members of  the  Bar         did not  act  with dignity in regard to the resolution.  The         language  used by them was unfortunate.  It is the  duty  of         lawyers to protect the dignity and  decorum  of  the judici-         ary.  If lawyers fail in their duty the faith of the  people         in the judiciary would be undermined to a large extent.   It         is  said  that  lawyers are the  custodian  of  civilization         Lawyers  have  to discharge their   duties   with   dignity,         decorum and discipline.  [603 C-D]

JUDGMENT:             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 315         of 1974.             Appeal from the Judgment and Order  dated  22-5-1974  of         the Allahabad High Court in Contempt Case No. 43/73.             D.  Mukherjea, R.N. Sharma, Umesh Chand,  R.N.  Trivedi,         S.P. Pathak, Hari Nath Tilhari, S.R. Srivastava, M.N. Sharma         and O.P. Lal for the Appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       Yogeshwar Prasad, (Miss) Rani Arora, S.K. Bagga and (Mrs.)         S. Bagga, for Respondent No. 1.         O.P. Rana for Respondents 2 and 3.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             RAY, C.J.  This appeal is against the judgment and order         dated 22 May 1974 of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal         Contempt Case No. 43 of 1973.             The  High  Court issued notices to five persons  on  the         ground that they committed contempt of Court.         602             The  two appellants before us are the President  of  the         Avadh Bar Association and the Chairman, Action Committee  of         the Avadh Bar Association.             There  were three charges against the appellants. It  is         not  necessary to refer in detail to the same.  The gist  of         the charge against the appellants was that they had met  and         resolved that the Chief Justice was acting in a most  parti-         san  manner under the influence of the Allahabad  Bar.   The         text of the resolution was this--"The Action Committee is of         the  opinion that the Chief Justice is acting in  the   dis-         charge  of administrative power under clause 14 of the  U.P.         High  Court’s  Amalgamation Order, 1948 in a  most  partisan         manner under the influence of Allahabad Bar quite unbecoming         of the office which he holds".             The  High Court discharged the notices.  The High  Court         yet made certain observations; some of which are  confusing,         some of which are conflicting and some of which are vague.             If  the High Court found that there was any contempt  it         should have punished the appellants.  The High Court however         discharged the notices.             The  High  Court held that the Chairman  of  the  Action         Committee, described as contemner No. 2 was actively associ-         ated  with  the passing of the  resolution  which  contained         disparaging  remarks  about the Chief Justice and  since  he         also  issued that resolution for publication in  newspapers,         he is guilty of ’Criminal Contempt’.             The High Court held that since the resolution was passed         under the presidentship of the first appellant described  as         contemner  No. 1, he is as much guilty of  having  committed         contempt as contemner No. 2 was.             The  High Court further held that contemners Nos. 1 &  2         are guilty of contumacious conduct, and the High Court  gave         the ground that they were responsible for the passing of the         resolution.  At  another  place the High  Court  used  words         showing that the conduct of the appellants individually  was         considered only "indiscreet" by it.             The High Court confused ’criminal contempt’ with ’contu-         macious  conduct’.  The matter becomes clear when  the  High         Court said "we do not propose to punish contemners Nos. 1  &         2  for  the contumacious conduct of which we  have  adjudged         them  guilty  though  we express. our  disapproval  of  that         conduct   and  hope  that  the  indiscretion  will  not   be         repeated".             We  are  unable to find that the High  Court  found  the         contemners guilty of criminal contempt.  It is true that the         High  Court  referred  to the contumacious  conduct  of  the         appellants  but  the  High Court did  not  wish  to  proceed         against the appellants.  The High Court said on that  aspect         as follows:         603                           "It is a matter of regret that the contem-                       ners  who are prominent members of  the  Avadh                       Bar,  should have themselves embarked  on  the                       path  of vilifying the Chief Justice  of  this                       Court  and  that we do not want  to  be  over-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

                     sensitive  in the matter, keeping in mind  the                       surrounding circumstances in which the  contu-                       macious  act was committed by them.  and  also                       keeping in view the fact that it was a  single                       act of the Chief Justice for which the  attack                       was made, we do not propose to punish  contem-                       ners for the contumacious conduct for which we                       have  adjudged them guilty, though we  express                       our  strong. disapproval of that  conduct  and                       hope that the indiscretion will not be repeat-                       ed".             Counsel for the appellants did not justify the  language         of the resolution.  There is no gainsaying that the  members         of the Bar did not act with dignity in regard to the resolu-         tion.   The language used by them was unfortunate.   Counsel         for  the appellants rightly said that was not proper and  it         should not have been passed in that manner.             It  is  the duty of lawyers to protect the  dignity  and         decorum of the judiciary.  If lawyers fail in their duty the         faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a         large extent.  It is said that lawyers are the custodians of         civilisation.   Lawyers  have to discharge their  duty  with         dignity, decorum and discipline.             In  view of the fact that the notices  were  discharged,         the appeal is disposed of with the foregoing observations.         P.H.P.                                                      Appeal allowed         604