http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: IN RE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY,

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/09/1998

BENCH: A.S.ANAND, M.K.MUKHERJEE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT DR. A.S.ANAND.J. The   alleged   contemner-Ajay   Kumar   Pandey,   a practising advocate, filed a criminal complaint  against  an Advocate Mr.    Mahesh Gir and an Additional District Judge, Ms.  Saroj Bala, then  posted  as  VII  Additional  District Judge,  Lucknow, under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, after first serving  them  with  a  notice  demanding  compensation  for defaming him.    The  allegations made in that complaint are not relevant for our purpose.  That complaint was  dismissed on 16.11.1994.    He thereafter filed a criminal Revision in the High Court which was also dismissed by a learned  single Judge  of  the  High  Court (Virendra Saran,J) on 15.2.1995. While dismissing the revision petition, the  learned  single Judge inter alia observed :- "It  is  well  settled  that  if the veiled object of a lame prosecution is to disgrace, humiliate or cause harassment to the accused, the High Court must put an end to the  mischief by quashing  such  criminal  proceedings.   The facts on the record of the instant case give a horrendous  account  of  a framed-up  case  against  a  responsible member of the lower judiciary holding the post of an Additional  Sessions  Judge at Lucknow............. It appears that the aim of the applicant is  to  malign  the learned judge  (Smt.Saroj Bala) and hold her at ranson.  The applicant emphatically and  repeatedly  read  out  the  lewd passages from his deposition while arguing the revision, but recitals   are  not  worth  reproduction  in  the  judgment. Suffice it to observe that the arguments of  the  applicant, so  vehement  and pungent, marked with sarcasm and sneer, do not impart any strength to  his  case  which  is  inherently unbelievable.   They  are  submissions directed more towards vilification than substantiation of the  pivotal  points  of the case.    I  was  constrained to ask the applicant not to make savage additions to the evidence and show restraint  in his colloquy." The  alleged  contemner,  thereafter,  filed Special Leave  Petition  (Crl.)  Nos.819-820  of  1996  against  the judgment of Virendra Saran, J dated 15.2.1995. It  appears  that  the  alleged  contemner had filed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

another complaint on 12.9.1994 under Sections  500  and  504 IPC  against seven advocates namely (1) Shri Prakash Narayan Awasthi (2) Shri R.P.Misra (3)  Shri  Vishambhar  Singh  (4) Shri  T.N.Misra (5) Shri Srikant Verma (6) Shri Pankaj Sinha and (7) Shri N.C.Pradhan, in which it was alleged that those advocates had  made  defamatory  imputations  regarding  the relationship  between  him and Ms.Saroj Bala, Add1. District Judge. In that complaint an application giving a list of  31 advocates  for  being  summoned as witnesses was filed. That application was rejected by the Trial Court. He,  therefore, filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4114 of 1995 against that order. Ajay  Kumar  Pandey,  the alleged contemner has also filed following Contempt Petitions (Cr1.) in this Court : 1.  Contempt Petition (Cr1.) Dy. No.16199/95 filed on 28th Oct. 1995 Against Mr.  Justice  Virendra  saran,  Judge,  High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; 2.   Contempt Petition (Cr1.) Dy. No.17021/95 filled on 8th Nov. 1995. The respondents in the petition are: I  Ms. Saroj Bala, IV Add1. District Judge, Lucknow. II Shri Udai L Raj, V A C J, Lucknow. III Shri R P Misra, VI Add1. C J M. 3.  Contempt Petition (Cr1.) Dy.No.17922/95.  filled on 9th Nov., 1995 against the following respondents: I   Shri J C Mishra, Distt. Judge, Lucknow. II  Shri K N Ojha, II A D J, Lucknow. III Shri Shailendra Saxena, III A D J., Lucknow. IV  Shri B N Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow. When the SLPs and contempt petitions were listed before this bench,  it  was  noticed  that  the  language  used  in  the memorandum   of   petitions   was   wholly    objectionable, unparliamentary  and abusive. By way of illustration, we may refer to the  list  of  dates,  at  internal  pages  2-3  of S.L.P.(Cr1.)  No.  4114  of  1995.  The language used by the petitioner is in the following terms:-         "It  will not be out of place to mention here         that an other then Magistrate  Sh.    Udai  Raj  had         fraudulently,   corruptly   with  the  collusion  of         Ms.Saroj Bala and  others  dismissed  the  complaint         which  was  filed on 12.9.94 by passing the order in         complaint case No.451/94  the  complaint  which  had         been filed on 19.9.94.

       The  petitioner filed a criminal revision No.         289/94 in the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad, Lucknow         Bench, Lucknow on 14.12.94 and challenged the  order         dated 16.11.94 passed in complaint case No.  451/94.         It  is  the  most  important to mention here that in         complaint case No.  451/94 an  application  u/s  202         Cr.  P.C.  had also been moved and the same is still         pending.    The  petitioner  raised  the  law  point         regarding the summoning of witnesses in enquiry  u/s         202 Cr.P.C.   in  Criminal  REvision No.  289/94 but         the Allahabad High Court never decided the  revision         on  its  merits  and  Mr.Virendra Saran, the Hon’ble         Judge,  who  heard   the   arguments   fraudulently,         forgedly and maliciously dismissed the revision."                                    (underlined by us) In the memo of the petitions, similar  expressions  in  more intemperate  language  casting  aspersions on the conduct of various judicial officers and attributing motives to them in the discharge of their judicial functions  have  been  used. We  refrain  from reproducing all such passages, although we drew the pointed attention of the alleged contemner  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

same.   He has attacked the impartiality of the named judges in most indecent and intemperate language.  There is  hardly any  criticism  of the "judgment" and all that the contemner seems to have done is to criticism and condemn the Judge  by attributing  motives and showering abuses on each one of the judges who dealt with his cases at one state or the other. On  15th December, 1996 the following order was made by the Bench :-         "In all these petitions, we find that  attack         in  indecent,  wild,  intemperate  and  even abusive         language on  the  named  Judges  has  been  made  at         various  places  in  each  one of the petitions. The         petitioner,  who  is  an  advocate,  has   permitted         himself the liberty of using such expressions, which         prima facie tend to scandalize the court in relation         to  judicial  matters  and thus have the tendency to         interfere with the administration of justice. We are         inclined to initiate  contempt  proceedings  against         the  petitioner,  but  on  his request grant him six         weeks  time  to   delate   all   the   objectionable         expressions  used  in  the  petitions and file fresh         petitions. He  shall also remove the other  defects,         as  pointed  out  in the office report when he files         the fresh petitions.  If  the  fresh  petitions  are         filed,  the  same shall be listed after eight weeks.         Otherwise, these  petitions  shall  be  put  up  for         drawing   up   contempt   proceedings   against  the         petitioner, after eight weeks. It  was  hoped  that he would realise the seriousness of the situation and remove all the objectionable expressions  from the  memorandum  of  petitions but instead of deleting those objectionable expressions, on the same day,  he  filled  Cr1 M.P.No.  132 of 1996 in which inter alia he stated :-         "4.  That today, the matter was listed in court  No.         9 alongwith  all  petitions at S1.No.  28 and 42 and         when the petitioner tried to start his argument  the         court  openly  harassed  him  and  compelled  him to         withdraw the petition or remove all  the  facts  but         the  petitioner refused to do so in view of the fact         that he has only  written  the  facts  according  to         Section  167,  219,  480 and 463 alongwith 120-B the         IPC and section 44  and  165  of  the  Evidence  Act         alongwith  Section  2-C and Section 16 and 12 and 15         of  the  Contempt  of  Court  Act  and  the   Indian         Constitution.         5.That  the Court is not allowed the petitioner         to submit his argument and passed an order to remove         the all facts from the petition and file  the  fresh         petitions  and  also  ordered for listing the matter         after 8 weeks.  Thereafter, the petitioner mentioned         and also tried to give in writing that he is not  in         a   position  to  remove  anything  and  file  fresh         petitions in view of the fact  that  he  wrote  only         truth  and  the court is bound to hear the petitions         and decide the same according  to  the  constitution         and  contempt  of  Court  Acts  and  other  laws  as         challenged by the petitioner but the  court  without         saying anything retired to its chamber.         6.That  the  petitioner  is  not in position to         remove  anything  and  the  deliberate  in  Justice,         fraud, cheating   etc.      had  been  done  by  the         contemnors for concealing their nefarious  acts  and         even  they  had  gone  to this extent to destroy the         judicial  records  and  fabricated   some   judicial         papers.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

       ( under lined by us) Thus   it  is  seen  that  instead  of  removing  the objectionable  expressions,  which  prima  facie   have   the tendendy  to  scandalize  the  court/courts  in  relation  to judicial matters and have the tendency to interfere with  the due  administration  of  justice and which expressions per-se are an attack on various  judges,  who  had  dealt  with  the complaint  filed  by  him  at  the original or the revisional stage,  in  most  indecent,  wild,  intemperate  and  abusive language,  he  asserted that he was not obliged to remove any of these passages and that this court was ’bound’ to hear him on  merits.  He  declined   to   remove   the   objectionable expressions and insisted on being heard. Noticing  this  adamant  and defiant attitude of Ajay Kumar Pandey, on 20th February, 1996 the Bench directed  that a  Rule be issued against him asking him to show cause why he should not be punished for committing  criminal  contempt  of Court  for  the  use  of  intemperate  language  and  casting unwarranted  aspersions  on  various  judicial  officers  and attributing  motives to them while discharging their judicial functions.  He was directed to file his reply within 8 weeks. That is how the contempt proceeding (Contempt  Petition  Cr1. No.2/96)  came to registered against the alleged contemner in this Court.         The Special Leave Petition (Cr1.) No.  4114  of  1995 and  the  two  other  Special  Leave Petitions alongwith some misc. Petitions were dismissed by the Bench both  on  account of the objectionable language used in the memorandum of those petitions as also on merits. The  alleged contemner did not file his objections or reply to the Rule in the  Contempt  proceedings  and  instead filed  two  applications  seeking  recall/review of the order dated 20th February, 1996 (supra).   dismissing  S.L.P.(Cr1.) No.    4114/95,   Criminal   Miscellaneous   Petitions   Nos. 6242-6243/95, and S.L.P.  (Cr1.)  819-820  of  1996  as  also against  the  Rule  issued to him to show cause why he should not be  punished  for  committing  contempt  of  court.    We considered  the two applications for recall/review and by our order dated 9th August, 1996 found that there was no merit in those applications and felt pained to notice that even  those application bristled with scandalous remarks and were couched in objectionable language and that the alleged contemner, was persistent  in  his  attitude to undermine the majesty of law and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.   The alleged  contemner  appearing  in  person on that date made a request that his cases may be transferred to another Bench as he did not "wish to appear before this Bench".    His  prayer was  rejected  by  us  not only on the ground that the prayer itself was contumacious  in  character  but  also  because  a litigant  can  not be permitted to choose his forum since the case  stood  assigned  to  this  Bench  and   we   found   no justification to  withdraw from the Bench either.  Since, the alleged contemner had not filed his reply to  the  show  case notice,  the Bench as a matter of indulgence, granted him yet another opportunity to file his reply,  if  any,  within  six weeks  and adjourned the proceedings to 27th September, 1996. The Bench also requested the Solicitor General  of  India  to assist  the  Court in the contempt proceedings either himself or by nominating any other law officer. Despite the fact that on 9th Aug.  1996 Ajay Kumar Pandey had been  informed  of  the  date  of hearing and was directed to remain present on 27.9.1996 and file his reply by that  date, he  instead  of  appearing  in person on 27.9.1996, filed yet another application alongwith  copies  of  certain  documents seeking recall  of  the  order  dated  9th  Aug.,  1996.   On

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

27.9.1996, Mr.  K.N.Bhatt, learned A.S.G.  appeared to assist the Court and asserted that the application was  misconceived and  the  alleged  contemner was trying to browbeat the court and misconstruing the indulgence being  shown  to  him.    He emphasised   that  not  only  has  the  attitude  of  alleged contemner been totally defiant but that he had lost all sense of propriety in filing the  applications  and  Special  Leave Petitions couched in most objectionable language and creating an  impression that he considered the law as ’subservient’ to him.  Mr.Bhat submitted that various  applications  filed  by the  contemner  in  this court also had, as a matter of fact, aggravated the contempt committed by him and he needed to  be suitably punished. On  27.9.1996  while  dealing  with  the applications filed by the contemner, the following order was made :- We have examined the application and find            that  the  prayer  for  recall  of  the  order  is            misconceived  for more than one reasons. The order            dated 9th Aug., 1996 is an order  in  continuation            of the order dated 20th February, 1996, the prayer            to  recall which has already been rejected. By the            order dated 9th Aug., 1996  the  review  petitions            filed  by  the respondent were also dismissed. The            prayer for recall of the  order  dated  9th  Aug.,            1996  under  the circumstances has no merit and is            rejected.            Since the respondent, Ajay Kumar  Pandey,            despite  directions  is not present we direct that            his presence be secured by  issuance  of  bailable            warrants in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety            of the  like amount for a date  to be fixed by the            registry,  to  the  satisfaction  of   the   Chief            Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow." The  alleged  contemner  as  already  noticed had not appeared in the Court on 27th September, 1996, but it appears that he was present in the Court premises as soon  after  the above  order  was  made, he filed an application on that very day explaining the reasons for his absence  and  praying  for recall   of   the  bailable  warrants.  The  application  was supported by an affidavit. Since on the next date he appeared in the Court, the bailable warrants were recalled.         The case wad, thereafter,  posted  to  2nd  December, 1996  but  it  appears  that  the  alleged  contemner who was appearing in person had no notice of that date and the  Bench therefore directed that fresh notice be issued to him for his personal  appearance as well as for filing his reply, if any. It was also directed that in the notice it shall be indicated that the alleged contemner should  file  reply  to  the  show cause  notice  within  six  weeks  and  that  it  was  to  be considered as the final opportunity granted to him  for  that purpose.   The  case  was  adjourned  to  22.1.1997.  In  the meantime, it transpires from the record that  the  contemner, filed  an  application addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, seeking transfer of the case  from  this  Bench  to some  other  Bench.  According  to  the  Office  Report dated 22.1.1997, that  application  was  rejected  by  the  learned Chief  Justice  of  India.  The  alleged  contemner  however, despite notice did not appear in the Court on 22.1.1997.  The Bench  was,  therefore,  left  with no other option except to secure his presence by issuance of non-bailable warrants  and accordingly  non-bailable  warrants  returnable  on 27.2.1997 were directed to  be  issued.  When  the  case  came  up  for consideration on 3rd March, 1997, the respondent was produced in  custody  in  Court. The order dated 3rd March, 1997 inter alia records :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

       "Mr.   Pandey  was asked if he was making any prayer         for release on bail and he submitted that he  cannot         provide any   surety   at  Delhi.    We,  therefore,         consider it appropriate, in the interest of  justice         to  direct  that  respondent, Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey         shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal         bail  bond  in  the  sum  of   Rs.5,000/-   to   the         satisfaction   of  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,         Lucknow, where he  may  be  produced  for  the  said         purpose.   The  learned  Chief  Judicial Magistrate,         Lucknow shall release him on bail  on  his  personal         bond of  Rs.  5,000/- after obtaining an undertaking         from him for his appearance in  this  court  on  the         next date of hearing which is fixed as 25.4.1997, on         which  date  final  arguments  in this contempt case         shall be heard in this case.         The respondent Ajay Kumar Pandey was asked if         he required the assistance of a counsel, so that the         services of the counsel could be provided to him but         he  has  stated that he does not need the assistance         of any counsel.  He further stated that he does  not         wish to  argue the matter before this bench.  He was         apprised that his prayer for transfer of the case to         some other bench has been rejected  by  the  learned         Chief Justice. The case, was thereafter,  adjourned  from  time  to time and on 22nd August, 1997, following order was made when the  alleged  contemner  once  again remained absent despite service : "Despite service respondent, Sh.  Ajay Kumar Pandey, is not present.  On 3rd March, 1997 we had granted him final opportunity, in the hope that better sense may  prevail,  to file his reply to the notice to show cause why he should not be  punished  for  contempt of Court and to argue the matter either in person or through  any  counsel  in  the  contempt matter.   He has neither filed the reply nor is represent in Court personally or through counsel.  Mr.  K.N.Bhat, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that this action on the part of Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey aggravates  his  contamacious behaviour. Learned Additional Solicitor General further by reference to the record, submits that the  respondent  has  been  granted ample opportunities is required to be given to him to appear either in  person or through counsel or to file a reply.  We find  considerable  force  in  the  submission  of   learned Additional Solicitor General. We  have  heard  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor General on merits in the contempt matter. Orders reserved."         At  the outset, we wish to emphasise that this Court being the Supreme Court of the country,  has  not  only  the right to protect itself from being scandalized or denigrated but  it  also has the right, jurisdiction and the obligation to protect the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts in the country from being insulted, abused  or  in  any  other  was denigrated.  Any  action  on  the part of a litigant-be he a lawyer appearing in person  -  which  has  the  tendency  to interfere  with or obstruct the due course of justice has to be dealt with sternly and firmly to uphold  the  majesty  of law.  No  one  can  be  permitted to intimidate or terrorise judges  by  making  scandalous  unwarranted   and   baseless imputations  against them in the discharge of their judicial functions so as to secure orders which the litigant ’wants’. The   subordinate  judiciary  forms  the  very  backbone  of administration of justice.  This Court would come down  with a  heavy  hand  for preventing the judges of the subordinate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

judiciary  or  the  High  Court  from  being  subjected   to scurrilous  and  indecent  attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also  all  such  actions which  interfere or then to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner.   No  affront to the  majesty  of  law  can be permitted.  The fountain of justice cannot be allowed  to  be  polluted  by  disgruntled litigants.   The  protection  is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their  judicial  functions  without fear. The  rule  of  law is the foundation of a democratic society.  The judiciary is the guardian of the rule  of  law and  if the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit  with  which  they are  sacredly  entrusted,  the  dignity and authority of the courts has to be respected and protected at all costs.    It is  for  this  reason that the courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of punishing those for contempt of court who indulge in acts whether inside or  outside  the  courts, which  tend  to  undermine  the  authority of the courts and bring them in disrepute and disrespect  thereby  obstructing them  from discharging their judicial duties without fear or favour.  This power  is  exercised  by  the  courts  not  to vindicate the dignity and honour of any individual Judge who is  personally  attacked  or  scandalised but with a view to uphold the majesty of law and the administration of justice. The foundation  of  the  judiciary  is  the  trust  and  the confidence  of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice and as such no action can be permitted which may shake the very foundation itself.            ’Criminal  Contempt’  is  defined in Section            2(c) of the Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  1971  and            reads :            "2(c)    "criminal   contempt"   means   the            publication (whether by words, spoken or written,            or by sings, or by  visible  representations,  or            otherwise)  of  any  matter  or  the doing of any            other act whatsoever which -            i)  Scandalizes or tends to  scandalize,  or            lowers  or  tends  to lower the authority of, any            court; or            ii)   prejudices,  or  interferes  or  tends   to            interfere  with,  the  due course of any judicial            proceeding; or            iii)  interferes or tends to interfere with,            or  obstructs   or   tends   to   obstruct,   the            administration of justice in any other manner." The definition is self explanatory.  Scandalising the Judges or  the  Courts   tends   to   bring   the   authority   and administration  or  law  into disrepute and is an affront to the majesty of law.  Such acts constitute criminal  contempt of court.    No one can be permitted to foul the fountain of justice.  If the authority of the  court  is  undermined  or impeded  by  acts  or  publications, the fountain of justice would get sullied creating distrust  and  disbelief  in  the minds  of  the litigant public and the right thinking public at large.  Indeed  everybody  is  entitled  to  express  his honest  opinion  about  the  correctness  or  legality  of a judgment or sentence or an order  of  a  Court.    Objective criticism is permissible provided it is made with detachment in a dignified language and respectful tone.  The liberty of expression  cannot be treated as a licence to scandalise the court and instead of criticising the judgment  to  criticise

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

the judge who delivered it.         In  Delhi  Judicial Service Association Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 406, this Court opined : "The definition of criminal contempt is wide            enough to include any act by a person which would            tend to  interfere  with  the  administration  of            justice  or  which  would  lower the authority of            court. The public have a vital stake in effective            and orderly administration of justice. The  court            has  the  duty  of protecting the interest of the            community in the due  administration  of  justice            and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit            for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity            of  the  court  against insult or injury, but, to            protect that to vindicate the right of the public            so that the  administration  of  justice  is  not            perverted,  prejudiced,  obstructed or interfered            with. " That the "publication" contemplated  by  Section  2  (c)  of Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  1971  (supra) includes pleadings affidavits etc. which are filed in the Court, is  no  longer in doubt. In L.D.Jaikwal Vs.  State of U.P., (1984) 3 SCC 405, an advocate whose client had been convicted by  the  learned judge  of  the  Special  Court  at Dehradun, was required to appear before the learned Judge to make his  submissions  on the question of ’sentence’ to be imposed on the accused upon his  being  found guilty of an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Court.  The  learned advocate appeared in a shirt-and-trouser-outfit in disregard of  the  rule  requiring  him to appear only in court attire when appearing in his professional capacity.    The  learned Judge  asked  him  to appear in the prescribed formal attire for being heard in his professional capacity.  The  advocate apparently took  exception  and  left the Court.  Some other advocate appeared on behalf of the  accused.    The  learned Judge of the Special Court imposed a sentence of 4 years’ RI on the  accused.  So far as the Court of the learned Special Judge was concerned, as the judgment  had  been  pronounced, nothing more  remained  to  be  done  by  that  Court.   The appellant, a senior advocate of long standing, however, made a written  application  before  the  learned  Judge  of  the Special   Court   couched   in  scurrilous  language  making imputation that the Judge was a "corrupt Judge"  and  adding that he  was  "contaminating the seat of justice".  A threat was held out that a complaint was  being  lodged  to  higher authorities  that  he  was corrupt and did not deserve to be retained in  service.    The  offending   portion   of   the application inter alia read :            "I am making a complaint against you to  the             highest authorities in the country, that you are            corrupt and do not  deserve  to  be  retained  in             service. The earlier people like you are bundled As for quantum of sentence, I will never bow            down  before  you.  You  may  award  the  maximum            sentence.  Anyway,  you  should  feel  ashamed of            yourself that you are contaminating the  seat  of            justice." On   Rule   being   issued   in  suo  motu  contempt proceedings, the contemner was punished and sentenced  under the  contempt  of Courts Act. Before this court, questioning his conviction and sentence, the contemner advocate filed an appeal and at the same time tendered his apology.  Rejecting the apology, this Court observed :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

         "We do not  think  that  merely  because  the           appellant  has  tendered his apology we should set           aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished.           Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate           a Judge by making the grossest imputations against           him has to do, is to go ahead and scandalize  him,           and  later  on tender a formal empty apology which           costs him practically nothing.  If Such an apology           were to be accepted, as a  rule,  and  not  as  an           exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a           ’licence’ to scandalize courts and commit contempt           of court   with  impunity.    It  will  be  rather           difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care           for their self-respect, to join the  judiciary  if           they are expected to pay such a price for it.  And           no  sitting  Judge  will  feel  free to decide any           matter as per the dictates of  his  conscience  on           account  of  the  fear  of  being  scandalized and           persecuted by an advocate who does not mind making           reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his           wishes.    If   this   situation   were   to    be           countenanced,  advocates  who  can  cow  down  the           Judges, and make them  fall  in  line  with  their           wishes,  by threats of character assassination and           persecution, will be preferred by the litigants to           the advocates  who  are  mindful  of  professional           ethics  and  believe in maintaining the docorum of           courts"  and  such  course  cannot  be  permitted.           (Emphasis ours) Again,  in Re: Shri Sanjiv Dutta JT (1995) 3 SC 538, a three Judge Bench of this Court, while dealing with  an  affidavit filed  by  a  public  functionary  causing aspersions on the Court, which (affidavit) had  the  tendency  to  malign  the Court, while assailing the correctness of an order made in a writ petition filed in this Court, held the contemner guilty of criminal contempt of court and observed:            "Abuses, attribution of motives, vituperative            terrorism  and defiance are no methods to correct            the errors of the courts.  In  the  discharge  of            their  functions the courts have to be allowed to            impartial adjudication will be an  impossibility.            Ours  is a Constitutional government based on the            rule of law.  The Constitution entrusts the  task            of  interpreting and administering the law to the            judiciary whose  view  on  the  subject  is  made            legally  final  and  binding  on  all  till it is            changed by a higher court  or  by  a  permissible            legislative measure.        Those    living   and            functioning under the Constitution have to accept            and submit to this obligation of  respecting  the            constitutional authority  of the courts.  Under a            Constitutional government, such  final  authority            has to  vest  in  some  institution.   Otherwise,            there will be a chaos.  The court’s  verdict  has            to  be respected not necessarily by the authority            of  its  reason  but  always  by  reason  of  its            authority.  Any conduct designed to or suggestive            of  challenging  this  crucial  balance  of power            advised by the  Constitution  is  an  attempt  to            subvert  the  rule  of  law  and an invitation to            anarchy.            The contemner, for reasons which can only  be            attributed  to  his misconception of his role and            over-Zealousness to assert himself and  his  side            of   the  matter  intentionally  overstepped  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

          limits and conveniently ignored the  above  legal            position, and adrogated to himself, in substance,            the role  of  a  judge  in his own cause.  He has            thus  in   effect   not   only   challenged   the            jurisdiction   of  the  Court  to  discharge  its            functions but also its authority to do so." In  Re:R.L.Ahuja  :  1993  Supp.(4)  SCC  446,   the respondent-contemner    cast   unfounded   and   unwarranted aspersions and made scurrilous and indecent attacks  against some  of the Judges of this Court who had earlier dealt with his case in wild, intemperate and even abusive  language  in the memorandum of writ petition and in a representation sent to   the President of India. This Court while convicting and sentencing the contemner for committing criminal contempt of court observed : "The passages  in the memorandum  of  the  writ          petition  and the letter addressed to the President          of India attack the integrity and fairness  of  the          Judges.  The  remarks  made  by  the  contemner are          disparaging in  character  and  derogatory  to  the          dignity  of  the Court and besides scandalizing the          Court in  relation  to  judicial  maters  have  the          tendency  to  shake the confidence of the public in          the apex court."          The  tendency  of  maligning  the reputation of          judicial officers by disgruntled elements  who  the          increase  and  it  is  high me that serious note is          taken of the same.  No latitude can be given  to  a          litigant to  browbeat  the court.  Merely because a          party chooses to appear in person, it does not give          him a licence to indulge in making such  aspersions          as  have  the  tendency  to scandalise the court in          relation to judicial matters.

        ( Emphasis ours )          The contemner in the  present  case  let  alone          showing  any  remorse  or  regret  has  adopted  an          arrogant  and  contemptuous  attitude..............          of  course,  the  dignity  of  the  court is not so          brittle as to be shattered by a stone thrown  by  a          mad   man,  but  when  the  court  finds  that  the          contemner has been reckless.  persistent and guilty          of undermining the dignity of  the  court  and  his          action  is, motivated, deliberate and designed, the          law of contempt of court must be activised."         Thus, it is now settled that abuses, attribution  of motives,  vituperative terrorism and scurrilous and indecent attacks on the impartiality of the judges in the  pleadings, applications  or  other  documents  filed  in  the  Court or otherwise published which have the  tendency  to  scandalise and  undermine  the  dignity of the court and the magesty of law amounts to criminal contempt of court. While a litigant as also his lawyer have the freedom of expression and liberty to project their case  forcefully, it  must  be remembered that they must while exercising that liberty maintain dignity, decorum and  order  in  the  court proceeding.  Liberty  of free expression cannot be permitted to be treated as a  licence  to  make  reckless  imputations against  the  impartiality  of the judges deciding the case. Even criticism of the judgment has to be in a dignified  and temperate language and without any malice. In  D.C.Saxena  vs.  Hon’ble  the  Chief  Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216 this court observed :-           ...."Advocacy  touches  and  asserts  the  primary           value of  freedom of expression.  It is a practical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

         manifestation  of  the   principle   of   arguments           encourages  the  development  of  judicial dignity,           forensic skills of advocacy and enables  protection           of fraternity  equality  and justice.  It plays its           part  in  helping  to   secure   the   Freedom   of           expression,   therefore,   is   one  of  the  basic           conditions for the progress of advocacy and for the           development of every man including legal fraternity           practising the  profession  of  law.    Freedom  of           expression,  therefore  is vital to the maintenance           of free society.  It is essential to  the  rule  of           law and  liberty  of the citizens.  The advocate or           the party appearing in  person,  they  equally  owe           countervailing  duty  to  maintain  proceedings  or           judicial process.  The liberty of  free  expression           is not to be confounded or confused with licence to           make unfounded allegations against any institution,           much less the judiciary.’..................           In    other    words,    imputing   partiality,           corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is of           the court. Even imputation of lack of discharge  of           his   official  duties  amounts  to  contempt.  The           gravamen of the offence is that of    lowering  his           dignity  or  authority or an affront to the majesty           of  justice.  When  the  contemner  challenges  the           authority  of  the  court.  he  interferes with the           performance of duties of judge’s office or judicial           process or administration of justice or  generation           or  production  of  tendency  bringing the judge of           judiciary into contempt." (Emphasis supplied) Does the law give  a  lawyer,  unsatisfied  with  the result  of  a case, any licence to permit himself the liberty of scandalising a court by  casting  unwarranted  imputations against  the  judge  in  discharge of his judicial functions? Does the lawyer enjoy any special immunity under the Contempt of Court Act, where he is found to  have  committed  a  gross contempt of court? The answer has to be an emphatic NO: In Lalit Mohan Das vs. Advocate General. Orissa, 1957 SCR 167, this court observed :           "A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to           his  client  and  must  place  before  the Court on           behalf of his client.  He may even  submit  that  a           particular  order  is not correct and may ask for a           review of that order.  At the same time,  a  member           of  the  Bar  is an officer of the Court and owes a           duty to the Court in which he  is  appearing.    He           must  uphold  the  dignity and decorum of the Court           and must not do anything to bring the Court  itself           into disrepute.    The  limits of propriety when he           made imputations of open Court.  In suggesting that           the Munsif followed no principle in his orders, the           the Munsif  had  merely  upheld  an  order  of  his           predecessor    on    the   preliminary   point   of           jurisdiction and Court fees, which order  had  been           upheld by the High Court in revision.  Scandalizing           the  Court  in  such manner is really polluting the           very  fount  of  justice;  such  conduct   as   the           appellant  indulged  in was not a matter between an           individual member of the Bar and a  member  of  the           judicial  service;  it  brought  into disrepute the           whole administration of justice.  From  that  point           of  view,  the  conduct of the appellant was highly           reprehensible." In M.B.Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court  of  Punjab  & Haryana,  (1991)  3  SCC  600,  this Court took notice of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

growing tendency amongst some of the Advocates of adopting  a defiant  attitude  and  casting  aspersions  baving failed to persuade the Court to  grant  an  order  in  the  terms  they expect.  Holding  the  Advocate  guilty of contempt, Ahmadi,J observed:            "The tendency of maligning the reputation  of            Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements who fail            to  secure  the  desired  order  is  ever  on  the            increases and it is high time it is nipped in  the            bud.  And, when a member of the profession resorts            to  such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating            the Judge into submission,  it  is  all  the  more            painful.   When  there  is a deliberate attempt to            scandalise which would shake the confidence of the            litigating public in the system the damage  caused            is  not  only  to  the reputation of the concerned            Judge but also to the fair name of the  judiciary.            Veiled   threats,   abrasive   behaviour,  use  of            disrespectful  language  and  at   times   blatant            condemnatory  attacks  like  the  present  one are            often designedly employed with a view to taming  a            judge  into  submission to secure a desired order.            Such  cases  raise  larger  issues  touching   the            independence  of  not only the concerned Judge but            the entire institution.   The  foundation  of  our            system  which  is  based  on  the independence and            impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if            disparaging  and  derogatory  remarks   are   made            against   the  Presiding  Judicial  Officers  with            impunity.  It is high time that  we  realise  that            the much cherished judicial independence has to be            protected  not  only  from  the  executive  or the            legislature  but  also  from  those  who  are   an            integral part of the system."                                 ( Emphasis supplied ) Again, in Re:Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 548, this Court observed:            "To  resent  the questions asked by a Judge, to            be disrespectful to him, to question his  authority            to  ask the questions, to shout at him, to threaten            him with transfer and impeachment, to use insulting            language and abuse him, to dictate the  order  that            he  should  pass,  to create scene in the court, to            address  him  by  losing  temper   are   all   acts            calculated  to  interfere  with  and  obstruct  the            course of justice.  Such acts tend to  overawe  the            court and to prevent it from performing its duty to            administer justice.      Such  conduct  brings  the            authority of the court and  the  administration  of            justice   into   disrespect   and   disrepute   and            undermines and erodes the very  foundation  of  the            judiciary  by  shaking the confidence of the people            in the ability of the court  to  deliver  free  and            fair justice.                The  stance  taken  by the contember is that he            was  carforming  his  duty  as  an  outspoken   and            fearless   member  of  the  Bar.  He  seems  to  be            labouring   under   a    grave    misunderstanding.            Brazenness  is  not  outspokenness and arrogance is            not fearlessness. use of  intemperate  language  is            not assertion of right nor is a threat an argument.            Humility   is   not   servility  and  courtesy  and            politeness are not lack of dignity.  Self-restraint            and   respectful   attitude   towards   the  court,            presentation  of  correct  facts  and  law  with  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

          balaced    mind    and    without    overstatement,            suppression,  distortion   or   embellishment   are            requisites  of  good advocacy. A lawyer has to be a            gentleman first. His most  valuable  asset  is  the            respect and goodwill he enjoys among his colleagues            and in the Court." In the instant case, from a perusal of the  memorandum of  various petitions filed by the contemner in this court and the language used therein, it is apparent  that  he  has  cast aspersions  on  each  and  every  learned  Judge  who  in  the discharge of his judicial functions  decided  the  matter  not liked  to  by the alleged contemner at one stage or the other. The aspersions cast by him undoubtedly have  the  tendency  to scandalise the   Court.     The  alleged  contemner  has  been attempting to brow beat the learned subordinate Judges as well as the learned Judge of the High Court and cause  interference in the  administration  of justice.  Even in this Court, after the Rule was issued to him, he tried to  browbeat  the  court. He  filed  an  application  stating  that  since he had file a contempt petition against the Judges constituting the Division Bench which had issued Rule against  him,  this  Bench  should transfer the  case.    It was an obviously motivated action on his part to intimidate the Bench.  He did  file  the  contempt petitions again both the Judges constituting the Bench.  Those petitions  were dismissed by a Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S.Verma (as the Hon’ble Chief Justice then was)  and Hon’ble Mr.  Justice B.N.Kirpal by the following order :- "We regret to find that the petitioner who is a            practising  lawyer  of  some  standing has chosen to            resort to such a proceeding which, in our  view,  is            misconceived.  We  find  no  merit  in the same, but            before  dictating  this  order,  we  have  tried  to            explain  this  position  to  the petitioner with the            hope that he will appreciate that as a member of the            Bar, he is expected to utilise his time in a  better            manner  to  assist in the administration of justice.            The contempt petition is dismissed." The  alleged contemner in this case has been making continuous attempts to subvert the course of justice in  whichever  court his case  was.   He has been acting not only as if he is above the law but as if he is law unto himself.  Notwithstanding his own assessment of his ’merit and ’ competence’  as  stated  by him in the memo of petitions, the alleged contemner appears to be  blissfully  ignorant  of  the role of a lawyer and the law relating to grafting of pleadings - which must be precise  and not scandalous  or  abusive.    It  is  sad that by filing the applications, and the petition, as a party in person,  couched in  very  objectionable language, he has permitted himself the liberty of indulging in an action, which does little credit to the noble profession to which he belongs.  An advocate has  no wider  protection  than  a layman when he commits an act which amounts to contempt of court.  It is most undefitting  for  an advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because he does  not  get  the expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable  result  available  to  him.    Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders.  Only because a  lawyer  appears  as  a  party  in person, he does not get a licence to commit contempt of the court  by  intimidating  the Judges or  scandalising  the  courts.  He cannot use language, either in the pleadings or during arguments, which  is  either intemperate  or  unparliamentary and which has the tendency to interfere in the administration of justice and  undermine  the dignity of the court and the majesty of law.  These safeguards are  not  for the protection of any Judge individually but are essential for maintaining  the  dignity  and  decorum  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

Courts and  for  upholding  the  majesty  of  law.  Judges and courts  are  not  unduly  sensitive  or  touchy  to  fair  and reasonable criticism  of their judgments.  Fair comments, even if, out-spoken,  but  made  without  any  malice  and  without attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good  faith  in  proper language do not attract any punishment for contempt of court.  However, when  from  the  criticism  a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring  down  the  image  of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or  tend  to bring  the administration of justice into disrepute the courts must bitter themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law.  The  alleged  contemner,  has  undoubtedly  committed contempt  of  the  Court  by  the use of the objectionable and intemperate language.  No system of justice can tolerate  such unbridled  licence on the part of a person, be he a lawyer, to permit himself  the  liberty  of  scandalising  the  Court  by casting  unwarranted,  uncalled for and unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions, as it  undoubtedly amounts   to   an   interference   with   the  due  course  of administration of  justice.    No  litigant,  even  a   lawyer appearing  in  person  in  his  own cause, can be permitted to overstep  the  limits  of  fair,  bona  fide  and   reasonable criticism  of the judgment and bring the courts generally into disrepute or attribute motives to  the  Judges  rendering  the judgment.   Perversity,  calculated  to undermine the judicial system and the prestige of the court, cannot be permitted  for otherwise  the very foundation of the judicial system is bound to be undermined and weakened.  Liberty of free expression  is not   to  be  confused  with  a  licence  to  make  unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the Judges or the Courts  in  relation  to  judicial  matters.      In   the established  facts  of  this  case,  we  hold that the alleged contemner has committed gross contempt of  court  and  convict him accordingly. The  next  question  before  us  is with regard to the punishment to be imposed upon the contemner.

The  tendency  of maligning the requtation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure  an  order which they desire or which they expect is no the increase.  It is unfortunate that even some disgruntled lawyers also indulge in the  same  objectionable  activities.    No latitude can be given to a litigant who attempts to browbeat the  court.    In the instant case, the contemner, let alone showing any remorse or  regret  adopted  an  arrogant,  defiant  and  contemptuous attitude.  The contemner has  been  reckless,  persistent  and guilty of undermining the dignity of the courts and his action are motivated,  deliberate  and  designed.  Sympathy in a case like this would be totally misplaced.  Mercy has  no  meaning. The  action  of the contemner calls for a deterrent punishment so that it also serves as an example to others and there is no repetition of such a contempt by anyone else.  We,  therefore, having  found  the  contemner guilty of committing contempt of court, sentence him  to  undergo  simple  imprisonment  for  a period  of  four  months and to pay a fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to  pay  a fine of  Rs.  1000 (one thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a  period  of 15 days. In  Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr. JT 1998 (3) SC 184, a Constitution Bench  of  this  Court opined :-            "An Advocate who is found guilty of contempt of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

          court may also, as already  noticed,  be  guilty  of            professional  misconduct  in  a given case but it is            for the Bar Council of the State or Bar  Council  of            India  to  punish  that Advocate by either debarring            him from practice or suspending his licence, as  may            be warranted, in the facts and circumstances of each            case.   The  learned  Solicitor  General informed us            that there have been cases where the Bar Council  of            India   taking   note   of   the   contumacious  and            objectionable conduct of an advocate, had  initiated            disciplinary   proceedings   against  him  and  even            punished him for "proceedings against him  and  even            punished  him  for "professional misconduct", on the            basis of his having been found guilty of  committing            contempt of  court.    We do not entertain any doubt            that the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council  of            India,  as  the  case  may  be, when apprised of the            established contumacious conduct of an  advocate  by            the  High  Court or by this Court, would rise to the            occasion, and taken appropriate action against  such            an advocate.   Under Article 144 of the Constitution            "all  authorities,  civil  and  judicial,   in   the            territory  of  India shall act in aid of the Supreme            Court".  the Bar Council  which  performs  a  public            duty  and  is charged with the obligation to protect            the  dignity  of   the   profession   and   maintain            professional standards and etiquette is also obliged            to act  "in  aid  of  the  Supreme Court".  It must,            whenever, facts warrant rise  to  the  occasion  and            discharge its duties uninfluenced by the position of            the contemmer  advocate.   It must act in accordince            with the preseribed procedure, whenever it is  drawn            by  this  Court to the contum and undecoming conduct            of an advocatle whise the tendency to interfere with            due administration of justics............            The Bench went on to say :-            "There  is  no justification to assume that the            Bar Cluncils would notirise to the occasion, as they            are equally responsible to uphold the dignity of the            courts  and  majesty  of   law   and   prevent   any            interference   in  the  administration  of  justice.            Learned counsel for the parties present before us do            not dispute and rightly so that whenever a court  of            record, records its findings about the conduct of an            Advocate  while  finding  him  guilty  of committing            contempt of court and desires or refers  the  matter            to  be  considered  by  the  concerned  Bar Council,            appropriate  action  should  bel  initiated  by  the            concerned  Bar Council in accordance with law with a            view to maintain the dignity of the  courts  and  to            uphold the magesty of law and professional standards            and etiquette." Looking  to the established facts of this Court, it is apparent  that  the  conduct  of  the  contemner  was   highly contumacious and  even  atrocious.  He has abused professional privileges while practising as an Advocate.    We,  therefore, deem  it  appropriate,  in  view  of  the observations made in Supreme Court Bar Association vs.    Union  of  India  &  Anr. (supra),  to  direct  that  the copy of this judgment together with the relevant record be forwarded  to  the  Chairman,  Bar Council  of  India,  who  may  refer the case to the concerned committee of appropriate  action  as  is  considered  fit  and proper. Since, the contemner absented himself after furnishing bail  bonds  to  the  satisfaction  of  the   Chief   Judicial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

Magistrate,  Lucknow  pursuant  to  our order dated 3rd March, 1997, his bail bonds are cancelled.  The  contemner  shall  be taken into custody to undergo the sentence.