http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: RAM PARTAP SHARMA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DAYA NAND AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/08/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) UNTWALIA, N.L. SHINGAL, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR  809            1977 SCR  (1) 242  1977 SCC  (1) 150

ACT:              Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s. 19 (1)(b)--Finding  of         committal    of   contempt  is  basis  of    acceptance   of         apology--Judge exposing himself to public controversy cannot         shelter behind his office.

HEADNOTE:              The  appellants  wrote  a letter to  the  President  of         India,  with copies to some others including the Chief  Jus-         tice  of Punjab and Haryana High  Court,   criticising,  the         behaviour  of a High Court Judge, who, during his  visit  to         the Sessions Division of Bhivani, spoke against the  Govern-         ment’s  policies and canvassed for a communist system.   The         High  Court issued a notice against the  appellants;  making         out  a case of criminal contempt of court.   The  appellants         tendered  a  conditional apology contingent  on  the  courts         finding  their action to be contempt of court.  The  apology         was accepted.         Allowing the appeals and dropping the contempt  proceedings,         the Court.              HELD: (1) The elementary basis of acceptance of apology         is  that there is to be a finding of committal of  contempt.         The Full Bench fell into the error of accepting the  apology         without finding that the appellants  committed  any contempt         In  the  absence of such a finding, no question  arises  for         acceptance of apology. [245 F, 246 F-G]              (2) Judges are, by reason of their office and nature of         work, expected not to get involved in controversial matters,         or  to concern themselves with political issues or  policies         undertaken by political parties.  If any Judge addresses  on         political  problems  or  controversies,  the  Judge  exposes         himself  to discussion by public.  He cannot in such a  case         take  shelter behind his office if the public discusses  and         criticises  the views expressed by him, and  the  protective         umbrella of the court cannot be used by way of bringing  the         critics on the charge of contempt of Court. [246 A-D, F-G]

JUDGMENT:             CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals  Nos.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       39-40 of 1976.              (From  the  Judgment and Order dated 1-12-1975  of  the         Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Original Nos.  13-         Crl. of 1975 and 14-Crl. of 1975).              D.   Mookherjee and  Harbans Singh and  V.M. Jain,  for         the appellants.              Deven  Chetan Das, Advocate General, Haryana  and  R.N.         Sachthey, for the respondent.         The Judgment of the Court as delivered by               RAY,  C.J.---These are appeals under section  19(1)(b)         of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the judgment and         order  dated 1 December, 1975 of the Full Bench of the  High         Court of Punjab and Haryana.         243             The appellants wrote a letter on 20 February 1975 to the         President  with copies to the Prime Minister, Chief  Justice         of  India, the Chief Minister of Haryana and the Chief  Jus-         tice  of  Punjab  and Haryana High Court.   The  letter  was         signed  by 15 members of the Bar belonging to  the  District         Bar  Association, Bhiwani.  In that  letter they brought  to         the notice of the President that Justice D.S. Tewatia of the         Punjab  and Haryana High Court visited the session  division         of Bhiwani and inspected the  Courts from 14  February  1975         to 19 February 1975.             In  that  letter they further stated as  follows:   "The         learned  Judge  met the members of the Bar on  15  February,         1975  in  the Bar Room, Bhiwani.  During the course  of  the         meeting,  the  learned  Judge  criticised  the  Government’s         policy  in  regard to its attitude  towards  the  judiciary.         Besides  the learned Judge was openly attacking the  Govern-         ment  in its political as well as  administrative  decision.         On the’ whole, he gave an impression that he was not a Judge         but a politician who had come to Bar Room.  When the members         of  the  Bar who had gone to meet the learned Judge  in  the         P.W.D.  Rest House, Bhiwani he discussed politics with  them         and  criticised  the present executive in  general  and  the         Congress  Party in particular.  He suggested the members  of         the Bar to revolt against the present  Government as it  has         suppressed the civil liberation (sic) of the individuals and         has  also failed miserably in all fields. The Judge  further         said that the prevailing system of Government is not good in         this country and we must adopt the communist form of Govern-         ment  which can save the nation.  Later on he had some  pri-         vate political discussion with the local C.P.M. leaders.  He         also accepted the hospitality of the Technological Institute         of  Textiles  (Mills) people who also took him for  a  sight         seeing  from Dadri to Pilani.  The members of  the  District         Bar  Association highly regret the attitude of Justice  D.S.         Tewatia  and urge the Government to take appropriate  action         in this regard".             Five  members  of the Bar Association at  Charkhi  Dadri         sent a letter addressed to the President. with copies to the         Chief  Justice of Punjab and Haryana  High Court, the  Chief         Minister  of  Haryana, the Chief Justice of  India  and  the         Prime Minister.  In that letter they said that Justice  D.S.         Tewatia  visited the Bar and inspected the court at  Charkhi         Dadri  on  17  February, 1975.  Thereafter  they  stated  as         follows:  "While  talking with the members of  the  Bar,  he         pointed  out that the library of this Bar seems to  be  very         poor.  Then Shri Virender Kumar Single, a member of the  Bar         requested  the  honourable Judge to help the Bar  either  by         supplying books or by allocating the grant by the High Court         so  that  the needy Bar may be able  to  purchase  necessary         books  for  the library.  Then the Honourable  Judge  turned         down  the request and replied that it is never  possible  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

       the present system of Government of India.  If you want this         kind of help then you should prepare yourself for the commu-         nist Government in India by creating such atmosphere in  the         country.   At  another stage also during the course  of  his         discussion  with the members of the Bar over the  matter  of         Rajasthan  Law  students demands in which  they  demanded  a         grant         244         of  Rs. 5000/- from the Government for the library  of  each         fresh  law graduate and Rs. 200/- per month for a period  of         two  years  the  initial stage of their  legal  practice  he         strongly  emphasised  the need for the communist  system  of         Society  and  Government in India to fulfil  these  demands.         The  learned Judge also met Smt. Chandrawati separately  and         discussed with her the political affairs of the  State.   He         also  expressed  his desire to see Comrade  Dharam  Singh  a         member  of  the  Marxist Communist Party  at  his  residence         before Smt. Chandrawati.  During his stay in the rest  house         he  also  discussed the teachers  agitation  and  individual         position  of  various political  leaders in the  State.   He         also  enquired  all  about Shri Sohan Lal a  leader  of  the         teacher’s  movement in the State".  The letter concluded  by         saying that the Hon’ble Judge during his entire stay in  his         tour deliberately showed the bent of his mind towards commu-         nism while exchanging view on various matters.             The appellants took a copy of their letter to the  Chief         Justice of Punjab and Haryana.  The appellants could not see         the Chief Justice and left the letter with the Registrar  in         a  closed  cover.  The Registrar told them that  the  closed         cover could reach the Hon’ble Chief Justice,             A  notice was issued by the High Court on 12 March  1975         as follows: "Letter  dated 20th February, 1975 a copy of  an         application dated 20 February, 1975 signed by 15 members  of         the  District Bar Association, Bhiwani, has been placed  for         the  consideration of this Bench.  On a perusal of the  con-         tents  thereof, a prima-facie case of criminal  contempt  is         made  out.  We therefore direct that the contempt  of  Court         (Punjab  ’and Haryana) Rules, 1974 be issued to each of  the         signatories  of the above said application,  returnable  for         the  1st of April, 1975".  The High Court did not  take  any         action  against  two persons on the letter written  by  five         members of the Bar Association of Charkhi Dadri.             Each  of  the appellants affirmed an affidavit  in  this         pattern.  "It is an article of faith with the deponent  that         dignity  and  respect of all Courts and of  all  Judges  and         particularly  of  the  High Court must  be  maintained  for,         amongst other reasons, on that depends the orderly function-         ing  of  the society as also prestige of the  profession  to         which  the deponent has the honour to belong.  The  deponent         has  been  taught to believe that a Judge  ought  always  to         steer  clear  of all avoidable controversial  matters.   The         deponent most respectfully submits that the contents of  the         letter  which  he and others addressed to the  President  of         India cannot be construed as scandalising the Hon’ble  Judge         or  the Court in any manner to weaken people’s faith in  the         administration  of  justice.   The letter  in  question  was         addressed  by  the deponent to the President of  India  with         copies  to  others  with the sole object  of  conveying  the         opinion  that the public expression by the Hon’ble Judge  of         his  personal views on controversial political matters  con-         cerning the merits and demerits of the present system of the         Government was not in keeping with the well accepted role of         proverbial  aloofness of a Judge.  The letter was  addressed         ,bona fide, in good faith and without         245

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

       any  ill-will  and  no publicity was given to  it.   It  was         intended to be a privileged communication made solely with a         view  to   uphold  the dignity of the Court.   In  order  to         prevent unwanted disclosure of its contents, the  communica-         tion  in question was brought personally by two  members  of         the  Bar  Association, Bhiwani to  Chandigarh  in  a  closed         cover  addressed to the Chief Justice for being handed  over         to  him  for his personal attention.  The  deponent  submits         that  the  contents  of the letter.  have  no  relevance  or         relation to the functioning of the learned Judge of the High         Court.  The letter does not interfere much less substantial-         ly  with due course of justice or proper  administration  of         law  by the courts.  The deponent submits that there was  no         intention  whatsoever on his part to scandalise the  Hon’ble         Judge  or  this Hon’ble Court or to lower the  authority  or         undermine the prestige of the learned Judge or of the  Hon’-         ble  Court  or to weaken in any way the  confidence  of  the         people  in  the  administration of  justice.   The  deponent         respectfully  submits that the communication does  not  bear         out any foundation for an action for criminal contempt.   In         any  case, if in view of this Hon’ble Court, the  action  of         the deponent in addressing the letter in question constitut-         ed for any reason contempt of court, one would be more sorry         than the deponent himself.  Therefore, the deponent  tenders         his  apology to this Hon’ble Court, for the same, and  prays         for its acceptance."             The  Full Bench of the High Court consisting of  Justice         Surjit  Singh Sandhawalia, Justice Prem Chand Jain and  Jus-         tice  Bhupinder  Singh Dhillon extracted portions  from  the         affidavit  of  the appellants to which references  has  been         made.  The Full Bench  thereafter referred to paragraph 9 of         the  affidavit where the deponents said that "if in view  of         this Hon’ble Court the action of the deponent in  addressing         the  letter in question constituted for any reason  contempt         of  court,  no  one would be more sorry  than  the  deponent         himself.  Therefore, the deponent tender his apology to this         Hon’ble  Court for the same and prays for  its  acceptance".         After  the recital of paragraph 9 the judgment of  the  Full         Bench  said as follows:  "In view of the averments  made  in         the affidavit filed in rely and in particular in paragraph 9         thereof  we  accept the apology tendered on  behalf  of  the         respondents  and discharge the rule issued against them".             In our view the judgment is utterly unsound and   unsus-         tainable.  The elementary basis of acceptance of apology  is         that there is to be a finding of committal of contempt.  The         deponents  stated that if the Court is of the view that  the         letter  of the deponents constitute for any reason  contempt         of court, the deponents tender apology.  It is a conditional         apology.   The  condition is that if there is  contempt  the         deponents tender apology.  In the absence of any finding  by         the   High Court that the appellants committed any  contempt         of  court  there was never any occasion  for  acceptance  of         apology.             It appears before us that the allegations in the  letter         were not disputed and challenged.  The High Court  proceeded         on the basis that the letters written by the appellants were         correct.  It is indeed curious         246         that the High Court in the notice referred to the letter  of         the appellant and said "on a perusal of the contents thereof         a  prima facie case contempt is made out".  The  High  Court         did  not   mention  which particular portion of  the  letter         constituted contempt of court.             It is necessary to state here that if any Judge address-         es on political problems or controversies the Judge  exposes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

       himself  to  discussion by public.  The reason is  that  the         Judge  travels from his judicial work and descends into  the         arena  of politics and parties.  The Judge cannot in such  a         case take shelter behind his office if the public  discusses         and  criticises the views expressed by him.  The  reason  is         obvious.  It is no part of the duty of a Judge nor is  it  a         duty  in discharge of office of a Judge to go and address  a         meeting  on political matters to redress grievances  of  the         people.             However, if the speech of any Judge is criticised and if         it  becomes  a disputed question of fact as to  whether  any         Judge  did  speak  or not as is alleged by  the  writer  the         matter  would have to be ascertained by the court  on  facts         whether  the  Judge   concerned did  speak  on  the  matters         ascribed  to  him  before the court would  take  any  action         against the persons who would criticise the Judge’s speech.             We  wish  to make it clear that if on facts  it  appears         that the Judge did say things or matters about politics such         utterances  or  views or observations will be  the  personal         opinions expressed by the Judge, and, therefore, the protec-         tive umbrella of the court cannot be used by way of bringing         the critics on the charge of contempt of court.             It  also appears in the letter that there is an  allega-         tion  that the Judge accepted hospitality of some  organisa-         tion.  To say that will not by itself be a contempt.  All we         need  say is that it will not be correct and proper for  any         Judge to accept the invitation and hospitality of any  busi-         ness  or   commercial  organisation or  of   any   political         party  or  of  any club or organisation  run  on  sectarian,         communal or parochial lines.  Invitations by the Bar Associ-         ation  or social invitations naturally Stand on a  different         footing  and  no  one will find an exception  to  any  Judge         attending a social function.             Judges are by reason of their office and nature of  work         expected not to get involved in controversial matters, or to         concern  themselves with political issues or policies  under         taken  by  political parties as a part  of  their  political         programme.             We  are  of opinion that the Full Bench  fell  into  the         error  of  accepting the apology without  finding  that  the         appellants committed any contempt.  In the absence of such a         finding no question arises for acceptance of apology.             In view of the fact that the High Court proceeded on the         basis  that the allegations in the letter were  unchallenged         we  are of opinion that the matters did not  constitute  any         contempt.  The High. Court should have dropped the  proceed-         ings and not pursued the matter.         247             The judgment is set aside.  The contempt proceedings are         dropped. We should state here that the Advocate  General  of         Haryana  quite fairly stated that the letter did not consti-         tute any contempt.         M.R.                                                 Appeals         allowed.         248