http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: GOBIND RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/02/1972

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) RAY, A.N. PALEKAR, D.G. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1972 AIR  989            1972 SCR  (3) 536  1972 SCC  (1) 740  CITATOR INFO :  D          1974 SC 710  (51,85)

ACT: Contempt  of Court Act 1952--S. 3(2)--Scandalizing the Court-Principles   for  determining  when  it   amounts   to contempt--Transfer application--Allegations against judicial official--Allegations  that  the  Magistrate  below  is   on friendly   relations   with  complainants--If   amounts   to contempt.

HEADNOTE: An  advocate,  in  a transfer application in  respect  of  a criminal  complaint,  filed before the Sessions  Judge  made certain  allegations  against two judicial  officers  before whom the criminal complaint and a civil suit, were  pending. While  dismissing the transfer application,  the  Additional Sessions  Judge,  who heard’ the  application,  recorded  an order  that  a  report be submitted to the  High  Court  for considering  the conduct of the applicant as to  the  course adopted  by him in making imputations or aspersions  in  the transfer petition against the judicial officers and to  take action  for contempt of court under s. 3(3) of the  Contempt of Court’s Act, 1952. Paragraph  1  of the transfer application stated  that  "the Magistrate   below  is  on  friendly  relations   with   the complainants  the respondent No. 1 in the  present  petition and  he even enjoys the hospitality of the Respondent No.  1 sometimes alone and sometimes in company of the Civil Judge- J.   D. Kalyan (Shri M. B. Boadkar) who is also on  friendly relations with the respondent No. 1 and who also enjoys the hospitality  of  the respondent No. 1".   There  were  other allegations in the transfer petition.  The show cause notice issued  by the High Court containing the charge of  contempt was  confined  only to paragraph 1 of  the  transfer  appli- cation.   The High Court held that the appellant was  guilty of contempt of court and he was sentenced accordingly. Allowing the appeal. HELD : (1) The show cause notice on the face of it disclosed no such allegation which could be regarded as falling within

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

the  rule  laid  down by this Court in  which  the  head  of contempt,  i.e.  scandalizing  the Court, had  come  up  for examination.  In Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. v.  State of Maharashtra, [1969] 2 S.C.R 779 this Court has laid  down certain principles as to the law of contempt.  They are :  (i)  It  will  not  be right to  say  that  Committals  for contempt for scandalizing the Court have become obsolete. (ii)The  summary jurisdiction by way of contempt should  be exercised  with  great care and caution and  only  when  its exercise  is necessary for the proper administration of  law and justice. (iii)Any   one   may  express  fair,   reasonable   and legitimate criticism of any act or conduct of a judge in his judicial  capacity or make a proper or fair comment  on  any decision given by him. (iv)A  distinction  must be made between a  mere  libel  or defamation of a judge and what amounts to contempt of court. The test in each 537 case  would  be whether the impugned publication is  a  mere defamatory  attack on the judge or whether it is  calculated to  interfere  with  due course of  justice  or  the  proper administration of law by the court it is only in the  latter case that it will be punishable as contempt. [542 H] (v)Alternatively,  the test will be whether the  wrong  is done  to the judge personally or it is done to  the  public. The publication of a disparaging statement will be an injury to  the public if it tends to create an apprehension in  the minds  of  the people regarding the  integrity,  ability  of fairness  of the judges or to deter actual  and  prospective litigants  from  lacing complete reliance  upon  the  courts administration  of  justice  or if it  is  likely  to  cause embarrassment  in  the  mind of the  judge  himself  in  the discharge of his judicial duties". [543 E] (2)Allegations made even in a transfer application casting aspersions on a judicial officer can constitute contempt  of his  court within s. 3 of the Act.  However, cases in  which applications  for  transfer are made/ stand  on  a  slightly different  footing  from  those  where  a  party  makes   an allegation,  either inside  or  outside  the  court  of  a scandalizing  nature imputing improper motives of the  judge trying  the  case;  but  even in  the  case  of  a  transfer application,  a person cannot be allowed to commit  contempt of   court  by  making  allegations  of  a  serious   nature scandalizing the court and imputing improper motives to  the judge trying the case. [544-B, 546 D] In the present case, the mere statement that a Magistrate is friendly  with  a party who happens to be  an  advocate  and enjoys  his hospitality or has friendly relations  with  him will  not constitute contempt unless there is an  imputation of some improper motives as would amount to scandalizing the court itself and as would have a tendency to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of the  people in the courts. [544 C] State of Madhay Pradesh v. Revashankar, [1959] S.C.R.  1367, State v.The  Editors and Publishers of Eastern  Times  and Prajatantra,   A.I.R.  1952  Orissa  318   and   Swaranamavi Panigrahi  v.  B.  Nayak  & Ors.,  A.I.R.  1959  Orissa  89, referred to and discussed.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal  No.51  of 1968.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated February  2,  1968  of the Bombay  High  Court  in  Criminal Application No. 393 of 1967. Appellant appeared in person. M.C.  Bhandare,  S.  B. Wad and, B. D.  Sharma,  for  the respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by Grover,  J. This is an appeal by special leave from a  judg- ment  of the Bombay High Court finding the appellant who  is an Advocate, guilty of contempt of court and sentencing  him to  simple imprisonment for a term of four weeks and a  fine of 538 Rs. 1,000/-.  It was directed that in default of payment  of the fine he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for  a further  period of four weeks.  He was also ordered  to  pay the  costs of the Assistant Government Pleader in  the  High Court and the Government Pleader before the Sessions Judge. The  material facts may be stated: In March 1966 a suit  was filed against the appellant by D. N. Santani who is also  an Advocate for recovery of Rs. 640/- in the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, kalyan.  The plaintiff in that  suit had  engaged H. I. Jagiasi as his Advocate.  In the  written statement filed by the appellant he made certain allegations against  Jagiasi and alleged inter alia that the latter  was responsible   for  the  suit.   Jagiasi  filed  a   criminal complaint   for  defamation  in  August  1966  against   the appellant  in  the  court of Shri  P.  D.  Sayyid,  Judicial Magistrate at Kalyan.  The appellant has set out a number of incidents  and matters in his petition for special leave  to appeal which it is not necessary for our purpose to mention. It  would  suffice  to  say that on  October  15,  1966  the appellant   filed   an  application  before   the   Judicial Magistrate saying that he intended to apply for transfer  of the  case  to  some other court.  On  October  28,  1966  he presented  a  transfer  application  in  the  court  of  the Sessions  Judge.   Thana..  The  transfer  application   was ultimately dismissed by the Assistant, Judge and  Additional Sessions  Judge on March 8, 1967 before whom it came up  for disposal.   Meanwhile it appears that the appellant  applied for transfer of the civil suit which had been filed by D. R. Santani  to the court of the District Judge.  The  suit  was stayed  and  we have been informed that  ultimately  it  was transferred sometime in the year 1967 from the court of Shri M. B. ‘Baadkar from whose court transfer was sought.  It has further  been stated at the Bar and that statement  has  not been challenged that the civil suit was ultimately dismissed in August 1969. While  dismissing the transfer application of the  appellant in the criminal complaint filed by Jagiasi in the, court  of Shri P. D. Sayyid the Additional Sessions Judge recorded  an order  that  a  report be submitted to the  High  Court  for "considering  the  conduct of the appellant and  the  course adopted  by  him in making the transfer application  and  in making  amputations  or  aspersions  against  the   Judicial Officers and to take action for contempt of court under s. 3 (2) of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1952, hereinafter called the ’Act’.  This was done after reproducing three paragraphs from the transfer application and expressing an opinion that the  appellant  had attempted to attack  the  integrity  and honesty  of  the courts of the Judicial Magistrate  and  the Civil  Judge and to scandalize and to malign the same.   The High Court made an 539 order on December 1, 1967.  The following part of that order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

may be reproduced-               "He made an application to the Sessions  Judge               for  transfer  of the proceedings  to  another               Court  and  the  ground  objected  to  by  the               learned Sessions Judge is as follows :-               "The Magistrate below is on friendly relations               with  the complainant the respondent No. 1  in               the  present petition and he even  enjoys  the               hospitality of the respondent No. 1 some times               alone and some times in company of the,  Civil               Judge J. D. Kalyan (Shri M. B. Baadkar) whois               also on friendly relations with the respondent               No.1 and who also enjoys the hospitality of                             the respondent No. 1               The  learned  Sessions Judge  had  called  for               report from the Magistrate Mr. P. D. Sawed and               was  apparently satisfied after  consideration               of all the affidavits produced before him that               the  allegations  was baseless.   He,  there-,               fore,,  referred the matter to this court  for               suitable   action  being  taken  against   the               respondent-Advocate   for  his   making   such               allegations and interfering with the course of               justice  and  scandalizing  or  maligning  the               Courts below’. It  was further stated in that order that the appellant  had asked  for  an  opportunity to establish the  truth  of  the allegation made above which had been made, both "because  of his  personal  knowledge  and also  because  of  information obtained from others".  A list of witnesses was furnished by the  appellant whom he proposed to examine.  The High  Court directed  the District Judge to regard the evidence  and  to submit his report along with the evidence and the reports of the  two judges.  It was expressly stated that  the  inquiry was to be confined to the allegations which had been  quoted above.   The  show  cause notice which  was  issued  to  the appellant by the High Court (omitting unnecessary  portions) was as follows :-               "Whereas" upon reading letter No. 2434,  dated               5th  April,  1967 forwarded by the  2nd  Addl.               Sessions  Judge, Thana along with  the  Record               and proceedings of Cri.  Transfer  Application               No.  108/66  on his file and  the  Record  and               Proceedings in Cri.  Case No. 2949 of 1966  of               the  Court of the Judicial Magistrate,  F.  C.               Kalyan,  requesting to take action  under  the               Contempt  of Court’s Act against the  Advocate               Mr.  G.  L.  Bhatia,  who  has  made   serious               allegations against the Judicial               540               Officers  Shri  Baadkar  and  Shri  Sayyad  in               Transfer Cri.  Application No.’ 108/66 in para               one  in the Court of the 2nd  Addl.   Sessions               Judge, Thana, etc.,               And whereas this Court has on 15th June  1967,               passed the following order :-               "Notice  to Mr. Bhatia Advocate to show  cause               why action for contempt of Court should not be               taken  against him.  Notice to G. P. also.   A               copy  of  D. J.’s letter to, be  sent  to  Mr.               Bhatia along with the notice." The District Judge in accordance with the orders of the High Court  submitted  a report giving his own  findings  on  the evidence  recorded  by  him  and.  also  after  taking  into consideration  the  reports of Sarvshri Baadkar  and  Sayvid

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

which  had  been called for from them apparently  after  the witnesses produced by the appellant had given their evidence and  copies  of their depositions had been sent to  the  two Judges.   The  appellant raised two  preliminary  objections before  the  High Court.  The first was  that  the  District Judge  could only submit a record of evidence and could  not give  his  findings and, secondly, he could  not  take  into consideration  the reports of the two judges which  had  not been  shown to the appellant.  Another objection raised  was that  the  reports of the Judicial Officers could  not  have been relied upon because the appellant had no opportunity to cross-examine  them.   The  High Court  repelled  all  these objections.   From the statement of preliminary facts it  is clear  that  the High Court relied only on  the  allegations contained  in  para 1 of the application of  transfer  which have already been set out before and contents of which  were that Shri Sayyid was on friendly relations with Jagiasi  and that he had even enjoyed his hospitality sometimes alone and sometimes in the company of Shri Baadkar. We  have  laid a certain amount of stress on  the  aforesaid allegation  made  in  para 1  of  the  transfer  application because  that  application consisted in substance  of  three paragraphs.   It will be desirable, owing to the  nature  of this  case,  to  set out all the  allegations  made  in  the transfer application               1."The  Magistrate  below is  on  friendly               relations with the complainant the  Respondent               No.  1  in the present petition  and  he  even               enjoys the hospitality of the Respondent No. 1               some times alone and some times in company  of               the  Civil  Judge  J. D. Kalyan  (Shri  M.  B.               Baadkar)  who  is also on  friendly  relations               with the Respondent No. 1 and who also  enjoys               the hospitality of the Respondent No. 1.               541               2. The Magistrate below is prejudiced  against               the present application.               3.The  Magistrate below has not taken  and               does    not   appear   to    take    impartial               disinterested view of the case in question.               (a)   Evidently   the  complainant   was   not               actuated  by  mere  or  bonafide  professional               interest.    He  was  the  author   of   false               litigation  for a false and fabricated  claim.               That  matter  Suit No. 213 of 1966  was  still               pending  hearing and adjudication.   The  com-               plaint in question could not as such be  filed               in all fairness and it ought not to have  been               entertained  at least without the  preliminary               enquiries or at any rate it ought to have been               stayed.               (b)   That  was not done and the  process  was               ordained to be urgently issued and served  and               the   socalled  summons  was  served  on   the               applicant  a  day or two ’before the  date  of               hearing  to  harass and handicap  him  in  his               professional commitments.               (c)   Even   the   said   summons   was    not               accompanied  by  copy  of  the  complaint   as               mandatorily required by S. 204(b) of the  Code               of  Criminal Procedure, and the applicant  was               left  guessing  as to what  the  said  summons               related to.               (d)   On  15th October 1966 when the  case  in               question  was Sr.  No. 10-12 on the Board  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             it  was preceded by even part heard cases  the               trial   Magistrate   did   not   permit   this               application  even leave for a while to  enable               him  to  go to Civil Court at  a  distance  of               furlong  or  so to obtain leave of  the  Court               from  his  professional  engagements  and  the               trial Magistrate observed that he would  "take               up  the case there and then and just now"  and               in the next moment the complainant was in  the               Box  ready for "finishing" the case as  though               by previous understanding. 4.The applicant respectfully refrains from entering  into further  details in this regard and he would do the same  if called upon.  For the present suffice to say that in view of what  is stated above there is well-founded apprehension  in the  mind of the applicant he would not get  justice  unless the case is transferred to some other Court of the competent jurisdiction". 542 The   question  which  immediately  arises  is  whether   an allegation   of  the  nature  made  in  para  (1)   in   the circumstances of the present case in a ’transfer application would  amount to contempt of the two judges Sarvshri  Sayyid and Baadkar.  The High Court made a detailed examination  of the  evidence  adduced before the District  Judge  and  also relied  on the reports of Sarvshri Sayyid and  Baadkar.   It came  to  the conclusion that the allegations  made  by  the appellant  had not been proved.  It was observed that  these allegations  "in  the above quoted  paragraph"  which  means paragraph  1  were quite serious.  The High Court  was  also influenced  by the fact that the appellant had "pitched  the case higher and tried to prove that the two judges concerned were  continuously  receiving from Mr. Jagiasi  presents  of large  value in the shape of sarees and other  articles  and thus  receiving  bribes  so as to  indiscreetly  favour  Mr. Jagiasi  and  the  litigants whom he  represented  in  their Court".   The  appellant was not even willing to  tender  an apology  and  his  position as  an  Advocate  was  naturally regarded as making the contempt all the more serious.  The appellant, who has argued the case himself, has  raised the following main contentions :               1.The Act is unconstitutional and invalid.  It               violates   Articles   20   and   21   of   the               Constitution.               2.No  procedure has been provided in  the  Act               and therefore if is bad.               3.Even  the normal procedure which  should  be               followed in such cases has not been followed.               4.The High Court was not entitled to call  for               a  report  from  the  District  Judge  or   to               delegate   its   functions   ,including    the               examination  of  witnesses  to  the   District               Judge.               5.The show cause notice issued by the High               Court  containing the charge of  contempt  was               confined  only to paragraph 1 of the  transfer               application.   The  statements  made  in  that               paragraph  could not by themselves  constitute               contempt.               In  our  opinion it is wholly  unnecessary  to               decide  points  1 to 4 because  the  appellant               must  succeed  on the 5th point.   This  court               has,  after  a  review  of  all  the  relevant               decisions,    laid   down    in    Perspective               Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maha-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             rashtra(1),   inter   alia,   the    following                             principles :-               1.It  will  not be right to say  that  the               committals for contempt for scandalizing  the,               court have become obsolete.               (1)   [1969] 2 S.C.R. 779.                543               2.The summary jurisdiction by way of  contempt               must be exercised with great care caution  and               only  when its exercise is necessary  for  the               proper administration of law and justice.               3.It  is open to any one to express  fair,               reasonable and legitimate criticism of any act               or conduct of a judge in his judicial capacity               or  even to make a proper and fair comment  on               any decision given by him.               4.A  distinction must be made between  a  mere               libel  or  defamation  of  a  judge  and  what               amounts to a contempt of the court.               The  test  in each case would be  whether  the               impugned  publication  is  a  mere  defamatory               attack on the judge or whether it is calculat-               ed to interfere with the due course of justice               or  the proper administration of law  by  his,               court.  It is only in the latter case that  it               will be punishable as contempt.               5."Alternatively the test will be  whether               the wrong is, done to the judge personally  or               it is done to the public.  To borrow from  the               language  of Mukherjea J., (as he  then  was,)               Brahma  Prakash Sharma’s case (1953 SCR  1169)               the  publication  of a  disparaging  statement               will be an injury to the public if it tends to               create  an  apprehension in the minds  of  the               people  regarding  the integrity,  ability  or               fairness  of the judge or to deter actual  and               prospective  litigants from  placing  complete               reliance  upon the court’s  administration  of               justice   or   if  it  is  likely   to   cause               embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself               in the discharge of his judicial duties". In  that case it was held that the imputation in an  article of  impropriety, lack of integrity and oblique motives to  a judge  of  the High Court in the matter of deciding  a  suit constituted contempt of court. The  question whether an action can be taken under s.  3  of the  Act if in a transfer application allegations  are  made against  a judge which are of such nature as  to  constitute contempt of his court does not appear to be res Integra.  In State  of Madhya Pradesh v. Revashankar(1) aspersions  of  a serious  nature  had  been made against a  Magistrate  in  a transfer  petition.,  One of such aspersions  was  that  the Magistrate in whose court the proceedings were pending was a party  to  a conspiracy with certain others  the  object  of which  was to implicate, the complainant in a false case  of theft and that a lawyer appearing for the accused persons in whose favour the Magistrate, was inclined, had declared (1)  [1959] S.C.R. 1367. 544 that  he had paid a sum of Rs. 500/- to the Magistrate.   It was also asserted that the applicant was sure that he  would not get impartial and legal justice from the Magistrate.  It was  held  that  the aspersions taken at  their  face  value amounted to what is called ’ scandalizing the court’  itself and  the attack on the Magistrate tended to create  distrust

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

in the popular mind and impair the confidence of the  people in  the  courts.  This decisions is quite apposite  for  the purposes  of the present case.  It decides that  allegations made even in a transfer application casting aspersions on  a judicial officer can constitute contempt of his court within s.  3  of the Act.  It is difficult to comprehend  that  the mere  statement that a Magistrate is friendly with  a  party who happens to be an advocate and enjoys his hospitality  or has  friendly  relations with him will  constitute  contempt unless  there is an imputation of some improper  motives  as would  amount to scandalizing the court itself and as  would have  a tendency to create distrust in the popular mind  and impair  the  confidence of the people in  the  courts.   The allegations contained in para 1 of the transfer  application may  or  may  not amount to defamation of  the  two  judges, namely,  Sarvashri  Sayyid  and Baadkar  but  to  constitute contempt  the  other tests which have been  discussed  above must  be  fulfilled.   As  noticed  before  the  High  Court confined  the  action, which was to be taken,  only  to  the matter stated in paragraph 1 and did not choose or decide to include  or  consider paragraphs 2 or 3 either in  the  show cause notice or in the judgment the following part of  which may be reproduced:-.               "We have considered the whole of the  evidence               on record that can be relied upon on behalf of               the condemner on the one side and by the State               in support of the case for action against  the               condemner.    We   have  with   some   anxiety               considered  the  arguments  advanced  by   the               contemner  in  support of his  case  that  the               evidence   is   sufficient   to   prove    the               allegations made by the contemner in the above               quoted  paragraph.  We find it  impossible  to               hold in his favour that-he has proved that Mr.               Sayyid had friendly relations with Mr. Jagiasi               and  was  enjoying  the  hospitality  of   Mr.               Jagiasi  either alone or in company  with  Mr.               Baadkar.   He  has failed to  prove  that  Mr.               Baadkar   had  friendly  relations  with   Mr.               Jagiasi  and  enjoyed the hospitality  of  Mr.               Jagiasi". It is true that a party cannot make such allegations even in a  transfer application which may fall within the rule  laid down   in  Revashankar’s(1)  case  or  in  the   Perspective Publication’s  case(2) and which may amount to  scandalizing the  court in the sense pointed out in these decisions.   In the State v. The Editors & (1) [1959] S.C.R. 1367. (2) [1969] 2 S.C.R.779. 545 Publishers    of   Eastern   Times    and    Prajatantra(1), Jagannadhadas C.J. (as he then was) delivering the judgement of  the Division Bench, after an exhaustive  examination  of the  decided cases where the jurisdiction of the  court  for this, class of contempt had in fact been exercised, observed               "A  review  of the cases in which  a  contempt               committed by way of scandalising the court has               been  taken notice of, for  punishment,  shows               clearly  that  the exercise  of  the  punitive               jurisdiction  is  confined to cases  of   very               grave and scurrilous attack on the court or on               the   Judges in their judicial  capacity,  the               ignoring   of  which  would  only  result   in               encouraging  a repetition of the same  with  a               sense  of  impunity and  which  would  thereby

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

             result in lowering the prestige and  authority               of the court". There  are not many decisions in which punishment  has  been inflicted  for  committing  contempt  of  court  by   making scurrilous  allegations in an application for transfer of  a case  from one court to another.  Mention may,  however,  be made of one of such cases: Swarnamayi Panigrahi v. B.  Nayak & Ors. (2) There, during the pendency of certain rent  suits filed  before the Rent Suit Collector by the  landlord,  who was the wife of the Chief Justice of the Orissa High  Court, the  tenant filed certain transfer applications  before  the Additional District Collector making statements like these :               "1. The lower court openly identified  himself               with   ’the   plaintiff   Shrimati    Swammayi               Panigrahi  and  is so partial to her  that  no               justice or impartial decision can be  expected               from him;               2.He has gone out of the course prescribed               by  law  and has taken over  the  function  of               witness  and  court in himself in such  a  way               that there is no parallel to it in the history               of litigation in India; and               3.That opposite party wields extraordinary in-               fluence  in  the State as she is the  wife  of               Shri  Lingarai  Panigrahi  Chief  Justice   of               Orissa High Court.  It is being openly  talked               about that the conclusions are foregone". It  was observed that though some latitude has to ’be  given in  a transfer application but the question was  whether  or not  the  applicant  in that case had  exceeded  the  limits permissible  under  the  law.  As a  rule  applications  for transfer were not made merely (1) A.I.R. 1952 Orissa 318. (2) A.I.R 1959 Orissa 89. 546 because  the trying judge was alleged to be incompetent  but there  may be circumstances beyond the judge’s control  such as  the  acquaintance with one of the parties  or personal interest  in the subject matter of the proceedings which  in law  would  be considered as preventing him from  giving  an unbiased  decision.   It was held that  the,  applicant  had exceeded the limits and had gone out of his way not only  to malign  the personal integrity and judicial honesty  of  the lower  court  but  had  also  directly  attacked  the  whole administration of justice headed by the Chief Justice of the State.   It  is noteworthy that on an allegation made  in  a transfer  application the judge against whom the  allegation is   made  is  often  afforded  an  opportunity  of   giving explanation by the higher court and he can dispel any  cloud that  might  have been cast on his fairness  and  integrity. The  higher  court  takes action  for  transfer  after  full consideration of all the circumstances of the case including the  report  of the judge against whom the  allegations  are made.   In this way it can well be said that cases in  which applications  for  transfer  are made stand  on  a  slightly different  footing  from  those  where  a  party  makes   an allegation,  either  inside  or  outside  the  court  of   a scandalizing  nature imputing improper motives to the  judge trying  the  case.  The Allahabad High Court in  Emperor  v. Murli  Dhar  &  Another(1) was of the  view  that  where  an accused person in an application for transfer of a case made an assertion that the persons who had caused the Proceedings to be instituted were on terms of intimacy with the  officer trying the case and, therefore, he did not expect a fair and impartial  trial  was not guilty of offence  under  s.  228,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Indian  penal Code, there being no intention on the part  of the  applicant to insult the court, his object being  merely to procure a transfer of his case. It  is  true that. in the garb of a transfer  application  a person  cannot  be allowed to commit contempt  of  court  by making  allegations  of  a  serious  and  scurrilous  nature scandalizing the court and imputing improper motives to  the judge  trying  the  case.   But  then  the  nature  of   the allegations will have to be closely examined and so long  as they do not satisfy the requirements of what May be regarded as   contempt  of  court  no  punishment  can  possibly   be inflicted.   The  appellant,  in the  present  case,  is  an advocate and it is most unfortunate that though at the stage of  the transfer application be made certain allegations  in para  1  about  the  social  intimacy  between  Jagiasi  and Sarvashri  Sayyid  and Baadkar, the two  judicial  officers, with the apparent object of securing a transfer of the  case he  proceeded  to  take  the  highly  ill-advised  step   of attempting to substantiate, the allegation so made.  We are, however,  not  concerned  with any charge  relating  to  the matters  subsequent  to the notice which was issued  by  the High   Court  with  regard.to  the  allegations  for   which punishment has been (1)  I.L.R. 8 All, 284. 547 imposed  on  the appellant.  That notice on the face  of  it discloses  no  such allegation which could  be  regarded  as falling  within  the rule laid down by this Court and  by  a series of decisions of the Privy Council in which this  head of  contempt  i.e.  scandalizing  court  has  come  up   for examination.  Most of those decisions have been referred  to in  the  case of Perspective Publications  (P)  Ltd.(1).  In addition  we  may  mention Debi Prasad Sharma  &  Others  v. Emperor(2) in which in a newspaper report the Chief  Justice of  a  High Court was untruly alleged to have  committed  an ill-advised act in writing to his. subordinate judges asking them  to collect subscriptions for the War Fund.   According to  their lordships there was no criticism of  any  judicial act  of  the Chief Justice nor any imputation was  made  for anything  done  or  omitted  to  be  done  by  him  in   the administration of justice nor was there any criticism of him in  his  administrative capacity.  In the opinion  of  their lordships the proceedings in contempt were misconceived. In  our judgment the allegations contained in para 1 of  the transfer  application  were  not such  as  would  amount  to contempt  of  court.   We cannot  help  observing  that  the appellant did not show the sense of responsibility in making the  allegations  in  question which  is  expected  from  an advocate  and  in further attempting  to  substantiate  them which he failed to do. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is  hereby set aside.  Parties will bear their own costs  in this Court. S.C.                               Appeal allowed. (1)  (1969) 2 S.C.R. 779. (2)  A.I.R. (1943) P.C. 202. 548