# Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava v. Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla 698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 697
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-20
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Shashi Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradyumn-kumar-srivastava-v-sri-manoj-kumar-shukla-698-indian-law-reports-44199
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Ss. 2(c), 16 - Criminal contempt - Judicial officer - Allegations
made in administrative/vigilance inquiry - Whether contempt - Scope -

Held, statements made by a judicial officer before a fact-finding authority in an administrative
inquiry are part of in-house proceedings and cannot be treated as an act scandalising the court -
Such statements are not made in discharge of judicial functions and hence do not attract S. 16 - For invoking
S. 16, it must be established that the act complained of was done while acting judicially - Absent such
requirement, contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked (paras 15-17, 20-21) -

Mere allegations against a District Judge in such inquiry, even if adverse, do not amount to criminal contempt
unless they are made publicly with intent to lower the authority of court (paras 17-18) - Application held
misconceived.

Contempt - Scandalising court - Meaning - Distinction between contempt and fair criticism -

Held, scandalising the court involves scurrilous attack undermining authority of judiciary or
public confidence in administration of justice - However, fair, temperate and bona fide criticism of
conduct of a judge is permissible and does not amount to contempt (para 18) - Reliance placed on C.
Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee and Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India.

Advocates - Strike/Boycott - Interference with administration of justice - Criminal contempt -

Held, strike or boycott of court by advocates is per se illegal except in rare situations - Any act
paralysing judicial proceedings amounts to direct interference with administration of justice and constitutes
criminal contempt (para 27) -

Authorities followed: Common Cause v. Union of India; Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar
Council of India; K. John Koshy v. Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad Shaw; Mahavir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt.
Ltd.; Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India.

Contempt proceedings - Abuse of process - Mala fide litigation - Costs -

Held, applicant, being Bar Association President, led boycott and was involved in incident of
ransacking court and manhandling judicial officer - Present application found to be mala fide and a
continuation of attempts to pressurize and malign the judicial officer - Filing of repeated proceedings without
bona fides constitutes abuse of process (paras 23, 36-37) - Exemplary costs justified.

Result- Application dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,50,000/- - recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of
default (para 38).

Cases Cited

C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457
Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India (2016) 1 SCC 1
7 All. Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
699
Common Cause v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 511
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995) 1 SCC 732
K. John Koshy v. Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad Shaw (1998) 8 SCC 624
Mahavir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 37
Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 4

## Text

_Characters 0–39,790 of 56,342. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39790 for what follows._

7 All. Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
697

"(i) Superficial to deep burn both lower limbs (front and back), whole of back and both
fore arms and hand more than 60%."

13. Patient was in semi-conscious state. She was referred to Kabir Chaura Hospital, Varanasi.
The cause of injury was burn severe in nature (more than 60%).

14. P.W.-4, Dr. Pravin Chandra Tiwari has deposed that this injury might be caused in the
intervening night of 2/3.10.2001 by sprinkling kerosene and by thereafter burning.

15. .W.-1, Jagnarayan Pathak has supported the prosecution version and deposed in crossexamination that when he reached at the in-laws place of her daughter everyone has fled-away when he
entered the house, he saw that his daughter was in a precarious condition.

16. P.W.-3 Lalti Devi w/o Jagnarayan Pathak has proved the demand of dowry by the accused
revisionists.

17. P.W.-2 victim Nagina Devi has also supported the prosecution version and deposed that her
husband Ravi Shankar was not demanding dowry but deposed that accused revisionist Jarawati set her
ablaze, accused revisionist Pradeep sprinkled kerosene and accused revisionists Manoj Kumar and
Kripa Shankar directed to set the victim Nagina Devi ablaze. She was set ablaze inside her in-laws
house. This factum remained unexplained by the defence side.

18. Thus, acceptation of the direct evidence on record on proper scrutiny and analysis of proof,
the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the revision stands dismissed.

19. Dismissed.

20. Let the entire record of the lower court be sent to the court of the learned Sessions Judge,
Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) for compliance.
-----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.

Contempt Application (Criminal) No.- 46 Of 2015

Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla ...Respondent
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avanish Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Manish Goyal

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Ss. 2(c), 16 - Criminal contempt - Judicial officer - Allegations
made in administrative/vigilance inquiry - Whether contempt - Scope -

Held, statements made by a judicial officer before a fact-finding authority in an administrative
inquiry are part of in-house proceedings and cannot be treated as an act scandalising the court -
Such statements are not made in discharge of judicial functions and hence do not attract S. 16 - For invoking
S. 16, it must be established that the act complained of was done while acting judicially - Absent such
requirement, contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked (paras 15-17, 20-21) -

Mere allegations against a District Judge in such inquiry, even if adverse, do not amount to criminal contempt
unless they are made publicly with intent to lower the authority of court (paras 17-18) - Application held
misconceived.

Contempt - Scandalising court - Meaning - Distinction between contempt and fair criticism -

Held, scandalising the court involves scurrilous attack undermining authority of judiciary or
public confidence in administration of justice - However, fair, temperate and bona fide criticism of
conduct of a judge is permissible and does not amount to contempt (para 18) - Reliance placed on C.
Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee and Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India.

Advocates - Strike/Boycott - Interference with administration of justice - Criminal contempt -

Held, strike or boycott of court by advocates is per se illegal except in rare situations - Any act
paralysing judicial proceedings amounts to direct interference with administration of justice and constitutes
criminal contempt (para 27) -

Authorities followed: Common Cause v. Union of India; Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar
Council of India; K. John Koshy v. Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad Shaw; Mahavir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt.
Ltd.; Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India.

Contempt proceedings - Abuse of process - Mala fide litigation - Costs -

Held, applicant, being Bar Association President, led boycott and was involved in incident of
ransacking court and manhandling judicial officer - Present application found to be mala fide and a
continuation of attempts to pressurize and malign the judicial officer - Filing of repeated proceedings without
bona fides constitutes abuse of process (paras 23, 36-37) - Exemplary costs justified.

Result- Application dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,50,000/- - recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of
default (para 38).

Cases Cited

C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457
Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India (2016) 1 SCC 1
7 All. Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
699
Common Cause v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 511
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995) 1 SCC 732
K. John Koshy v. Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad Shaw (1998) 8 SCC 624
Mahavir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 37
Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 4

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Ali Murtza,
Advocate, for Advocate General and Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate, for Registrar General of this
Court.

2. This is an application filed by Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava under Section 16 of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") read with Rule 4 of Chapter
XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") so as
to request this Court to take suo-moto action against opposite party Manoj Kumar Shukla,
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Jalaun at Orai and to punish him under Section
12 of Act, 1971 for committing gross criminal contempt of his own Court on 20.11.2014 for
obtaining signature of Court Moharrir Abir Singh under threat and for scandalizing Court of the
then District Judge in his statement dated 26.11.2014 by levelling allegation of corruption against
him.

3. Certain background facts given rise to the present proceedings may be stated as under :

4. The opposite party came to be posted at Jalaun at Orai and joined thereat on 15th March,
2014. He was designated as Special Judge, E.C. Act. On 23.04.2014, General Secretary on behalf
of District Jalaun Bar Association, Orai (hereinafter referred to as "Bar Association") sent a letter
to District Judge complaining against behaviour of opposite party and stated that members of Bar
Association shall abstain from judicial work from 24.04.2014. Another letter dated 25.04.2014 was
sent to Administrative Judge of Judgeship requesting that in the month of May and June, Court's
time be made in morning from 6 A.M. to 1 P.M. instead of 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. and it was also said
that opposite party was not working properly and advocates are abstaining his Court from
24.04.2014.

5. Subsequently Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava came to be elected as President of Bar
Association. A communication dated 18.10.2014 of Secretary, Bar Association was issued to
Advocates that Court of opposite party shall be boycotted till he is transferred outside the District
and said communication was also endorsed to District Judge. Vide letter dated 21.10.2014, it was
forwarded by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, District Judge, Jalaun at Orai to this Court.

6. On 20.11.2014, following massage was received on the mobile of the then
Administrative Judge of District Judgeship Jalaun at Orai from opposite party :

"Respected Lordship,
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Today at 12.45 p.m. A
dvocate Pradumn Kumar Srivastava, President of Bar and his colleagues attacked
on Court and beaten me and the D.J. is not taking any action.

M.K. Shukla, ADJ 3"

7. Thereupon Administrative Judge referred the matter to Chief Justice and also vide letter
dated 20.11.2014 directed District Judge concerned to take appropriate action and inform
immediately.

8. On 21.11.2014, Registrar General submitted note before Chief Justice as under :

"1. The under-signed made telephonic inquiries about the incident mentioned in
the said letter, it was established that the said incident has taken place.

2. The lawyers of the Bar Association of District Jalaun at Orai were boycotting
the court of Sri Shukla for approximately thirty days.

3. On 20.11.2014 Sri Shukla was sitting in the Court and a mob of lawyers had
manhandled him though the District Judge telepathically informed the undersigned that two P.A.C.
Personnel were posted there, but it appears that none had come to protect the officer.

4. That there appears serious lapses in making security arrangement for the safety
of Sri Shukla."

9. Chief Justice thereupon ordered spot inquiry and this was conducted by Sri Virendra
Kumar-II, Special Officer (Vigilance), High Court, Allahabad [hereinafter referred to as "S.O.
(Vig.)"], who submitted his 94 pages report.

10. With regard to incident took place on 20.11.2014, statements of Court Reader, Orderly
and a Class IV employee, were recorded by S.O. (Vig.), perusal whereof shows that at about 12.45
P.M., opposite party was sitting on the dais of Court. Several Advocates entered Court room,
shouting slogans, thrown CPU of computer and pen-holder towards opposite party. Table glass and
and pen holders were broken and files fell down and scattered. Due to ruckus created by advocates,
opposite party got down from dais whereupon advocates gripped and dragged him out of Court in
Varandah. In this ruckus some advocates also sustained injuries. In the process when advocates
gripped opposite party and manhandled him, he also got indulged in scuffle.

11. S.O. (Vig.) for the purpose of inquiry formulated following three points :

"1. Whether Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President Bar Association,
Jalaun at Orai along with his colleagues attacked on 20.11.2014 in the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar
7 All. Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
701
Shukla, Special Officer (Gangster Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 03, Jalaun
at Orai and he was man handled by these advocates?

2. Whether the then District Judge Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav did nto provide proper
security to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla and provoked learned counsels to beat him up?

3. Whether on 20.11.2014 at about 12:30 Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla himself along
with his gunner and ten constable of P.A.C. assaulted on the member advocates of delegations with
kicks, fists and gun and constable of P.A.C. Beaten-up the learned acvocates with sticks and caused
injuries to them while these advocates went to inform about the resolution passed in general
meeting on 20.11.2014 at about 11:00 a.m.?"

12. After referring to the evidence collected by him, he has recorded his conclusions and
findings as under :

"Conclusion :

On the basis of above discussions and appreciation of the evidence of the
witnesses, I have arrived at the following conclusions:-

E.W. 12 Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, E.W. 48 Sri Shailendra Kumar Sharma, E.W. 37
- HCP 142 Sri Santosh Kumar Sachan, Pairokar of the police station Rampura, E.W. 31 - Sri
Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Senior Prosecuting Officer, E.W.18 - Sri Ram Jiyawan Shukla and E.W.
26 - Sri Neeraj Mishra, Class-IV Employees have proved the incident dated 20.10.2014, stating
that some advocates had arrived reached in the Court and thrown a bag towards the dais, which
dropped between reader and the presiding officer. E.W. 48 - Reader has clarified this fact the
learned advocates and the presiding officer had conversation in high volumes of voice, some senior
advocates along with Court Moharir took these advocates and accused person out side the court,
when the court was vacated by these persons, someone locked the court outside. After one hour this
lock was opened by someone. E.W. 48 - clarified this fact that they were detained in the Court
Room during this period. After opening of lock further dates were fixed in presence of accused
persons.

The learned advocates have conveyed this fact that on 20.11.2014, a resolution
was passed at about 11:00 a.m. in the general meeting of the District Bar Association, which was
handed over at about 11:15 a.m. by the delegation of Bar Association to the District Judge, then
the delegation informed the various courts about boycott and reached at about 12:30 p.m. At the
court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. Video recording made by him also shows time of recording on
20.11.2014 time at about 01:04:08. They have refuted this suggestion that delegation of the Bar
association went straightway to the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, after visiting the chamber of
the District Judge.
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The learned advocates have stated that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has passed orders
arbitrarily and illegally. He has insulted the litigants and learned advocates in the open court.
They have quoted an example of his misbehave that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla told a litigant in
presence of Sri Devendra Ved, Senior Advocate, while he was conducting cross examination that
why he has engaged learned advocate, he will cause damage to him and he would be convicted. On
the same day, Sri Devendra Ved, sustained cardiac attack. The learned advocates have forwarded
complaint written as well as oral regarding misbehave of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla to the District
Bar Association. The learned advocates have also clarified this fact that most of the learned
advocates are not satisfied with the working of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.

Finding on Issue No.01.

The learned advocates entered in the Court room of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
forcefully and attacked on 20.11.2014 at about 12:45 - 01:00 p.m. on him while he was sitting on
the dias.

Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has named Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the
president of the District Bar Association, Arvind Kumar Singh, Rajawat, Suresh Dixit, Raghunath
Dass Bishnoi and Yusuf Ishtiyaq who abused him, shouted slogans and assaulted him by throwing
CPU of computer, pen holder and beaten him up.

I have watched video recording produced by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. It revealed
that Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, E.W.1 the President and E.W. 02 Sri Arvind
Kumar Gautam, Advocate, General secretary of the District Bar Association along with 10-15
advocates entered forcefully and created ruckus and ransacked the dais of the court of Sri Manoj
Kumar Shukla E.W.1 - Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Sri Gyanendra Singh Rajawat, E.W.-08 -
Sri Suresh Dixit, E.W.43 - Sri Karma Kshetra Awasthi, Sri Aftab Ahmad, E.W.-4, Sri Udai Shanker
Dwivedi, Sri Pankaj Gupta, Advocates sustained injuries in this incident dated 20-11-2014 is
established, which shows they have participated actively in this incident. Therefore, proceeding of
the contempt of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla should be drawn against these learned
advocates.

E.W.36 - Constable No. 65 - Sri Abir Singh Court Moharir of the Court of Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla also sustained injuries, while he was trying to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.
He has also clarified this fact that only two P.A.C personnels armed with rifles were present at the
point of time of incident dated 20-11-2014.

E.W.36 and E.W.15 - Sri Raj Kumar Segar, E.W. 16 - Sri Member Singh, P.A.C.
Personnel, E.W.17 Sri Ramesh Chandra Bhadauria, Reader, E.W. 18 Sri Raj Jiyawan Shukla and
E.W. 26 - Sri Neerj Mishra, Class IV Employees and E.W.31 - Senior Prosecuting Officer has
proved this fact that no baton charge was made on the learned advocates and these employees tried
to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla during the course of incident dated 20-11-2014.
7 All. Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
703
E.W. 32 - Sri Girja Shanker Dwivedi and Sri E.W.34 - Sri Kamal Kant Kushwaha,
have clarified this fact that on 20-11-2014, no baton charge was made on learned advocates only
slap and fists were used during thrashing each other. E.W. 34 has stated that police personnels
were not having sticks. E.W. 38 - Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate has clarified this fact that Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla gripped and thrashed only one advocate E.W.47 - Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gurjar,
Assistant Government counsel of the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has also clarified this fact
that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla had abused learned advocates only, he did not see anyone to thrash
each other. No F.I.R. Has been lodged yet and no injury report of any learned advocate has been
produced before me, who sustained injuries in the incident dated 20.11.2014.

Finding on Point No.3

1. It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of appreciation of evidence of the
above mentioned witnesses and fact and circumstances narrated by them, it revealed that Sri
Manoj Shukla after attack on him got down from the dais and abused learned advocates who
entered in the court room. Meanwhile, advocates gripped him and dragged towards Varandah
outside his court and manhandled and abused him also. Thus Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has also
provoked learned advocates and indulge in scuffle with those advocates.

Work and conduct of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.

On persual of comments dated 17-04-2014, it is clearly established that Sri Manoj
Kumar Shukla had protested against the then District Judge, because he was not satisfied with the
allotment of his residence and shifting of his court room. Likewise, the then District Judge had
discharged him from the responsibility as the Officer In- charge of Library and Nodal Officer of
Computers. The reasons mentioned by him regarding the irregularities committed for the purchase
of oil, toner of ink cartridge for computer printer and judgment paper and other stationery items
and non availability of new edition of books at library, may likely be correct, even then it is
inferred from the facts mentioned in this comments that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla was not satisfied
with the allotment of his official accommodation and shifting of his court.

The incident dated 24.04.2014 occurred at night at the guest house of Irrigation
Department has been conjoined by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla with the facts of recall of Civil Appeal
No. 50 of 2012 - Smt. Khillan Devi Vs. State of U.P. which is not acceptable, because Civil Appeal
No. 50 of 2012 was related to section 72 Excise Act, which could have only he heard by the District
Judge as held by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and Uttranchal (Uttrakahnd) High Court.

On perusal of the documentary evidence produced by E.W. -40 - Sri Harnath
Singh, Senior Advocate, it revealed that it may be possible that office bearer of the District Bar
Association tried to pressurize Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla to obtain favorable orders n their favour
and members advocate of their group. There is substance in the statement of Sri Manoj Kumar
Shukla that he was pressurized by learned advocates, whose name has been mentioned by him in
his statement of procure judicial order/judgment in their favour.
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Therefore, on the basis of evidence of E.W. 40 Sri Harnath Singh, Senior Advocate,
E.W.-45 Sri Raja Ram Chaturvedi and E.W. 46 Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, it revealed that office
bearer of the District Bar Association and some other advocates of their groups were not satisfied
with the way of working of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla and they could not be successful to pressurize
him therefore, they carried on boycott the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla from 18.10.2014.

Learned advocates have conveyed this fact that no complaint was received at the
Bar Association that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has decided cases by receiving bribe. He is not a
corrupt judicial officer.

I have perused the record of S.T. No. 114 of 2007 - Kuldeep Yadav Vs. State, on
17.10.2014 defence witness Sri Shailendra Singh, Rajendra Prasad, Rajesh Kumar and Satya
Prakash were present before the trial court, but these defence witnesses were discharged by the
learned counsel for the accused person, application 129 (kha) was allowed and dated 20.10.2014
was fixed for arguments. Therefore various opportunities for defence evidence was given by the
trial court during the period 26.08.2014 up to 17.10.2014 and date 14.10.2014 was not the first
date for adducing defence evidence.

On 22.11.2014 the Presiding Officer - Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, heard the accused
persons on the point of sentence and passed impugned judgment on 22.11.2014 therefore sufficient
time to conduct the argument was given from 20.10.2014 up to 19.11.2014. There is no substance
in the statement of E.W. 07 that sufficient time for evidence for adducing the defence evidence or to
conduct the arguments on behalf of the accused person was not given. On the other hand, it
revealed from perusal the record of S.T. No. 114 of 2007 that accused persons themselves did not
cooperate during the course of the trial and did not avail opportunity for adducing evidence and to
put forward argument.

E.W. - 5 Sri Govind Singh Gurjar, Advocate and other advocates have mentioned
this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has passed illegal orders and committed judicial dishonesty,
therefore the learned advocates are agitated against him.

Learned advocates have mentioned this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla told that
his relatives are Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble High Court, hence none can take action against him. It
is also conveyed /informed also that junior advocates has no courage to appear in the Court of Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla.

E.W. 39 has mentioned this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, has performed his
judicial work arbitrarily and illegally, he used unparliamentary languages with his subordinates
employees and learned advocates against their dignity. He has corroborated this fact as stated by
Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra E.W. 38 that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, slept in his chamber during the
court hours. He has also clarified this fact that on 20.11.2014, if Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, would
have not got down from him dais and would not have directed constable of P.A.C. to detain and
assault the learned advocates, then such an incident could not have occurred.
7 All. Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
705
E.W. 39 has mentioned this fact on 20.11.2014, the learned advocates were
agitated, because Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, was not transferred from the judgeship and in general
meeting of the District Bar Association, Jalaun, it was resolved that judicial work of all the Courts
would be boycotted. E.W. 39 has proved that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla himself provoked and
participated in the incident dated 20.11.2014.

E.W. 43 has conveyed this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, misbehaved with the
junior advocates and insulted them every time. The junior advocates remained under fear that Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla, may conduct against their dignity any time.

Finding :-

1. Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, had remained lying for seven to eight hours in his
chamber. The employees of his Court have no courage to put up any case or application before
him. Sri Shukla also misbehaved with his employees. He appears to be a patient of psychiatry, he at
random agitated and conducted as such.

E.W. 38 found Sri Shukla talking with himself. Therefore support of medical
treatment is required for him. It is in his interest that he should not continue further at the
judgeship Jalaun at Orai.

Point in issue no.2.

On perusal of the above-mentioned documents produced by the Senior
Administrative Officer, it is established that after incident dated 20.10.2014 up to the incident
dated 20.11.2014 no specific security was ever provided by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then
District Judge to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, ever then advocates were demonstrating and boycotted
the judicial work of the court from 18.10.2014. The proper and adequate specific security should
have been provided by the then District Judge to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Court No.03, Jalaun.

E.W. - 13 Senior Administrative Officer, has corroborated this fact that Sri Manoj
Kumar Shukla informed the incident dated 20.10.2014 and 20.11.2014 to then District Judge, and
the District Bar Association boycotted the judicial work of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
from 18.10.2014. He has specifically mentioned that the In-Charge District Judge, directed him on
20.10.2014 to open the lock of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla and no order was passed by
him to provide security for him. He has mentioned this fact that the then District Judge made
correspondence with the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate to provide
security to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, after of incident dated 20.11.2014.

Therefore, the then District Judge - Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav did not make this
correspondence after the incident dated 20.10.2014 up to 20.11.2014 to provide proper and
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

adequate security to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. Even In-Charge Sessions Division had not taken any
action on the report dated 20.10.2014 forwarded by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.

Although, this fact could not be verified that learned advocates after visiting the
chamber of Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, straightway went in the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla or
on 19.11.2014 at about 04:00 - 05:00 p.m., office bearers of the District Bar Association met with
Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav and during the course of this meeting, it was decided in the knowledge of
Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav that ruckus would be created by the learned advocates on 20.11.2014 and
he would be manhandled.

Findings :

On the basis of these facts and circumstances inference may be drawn safely that
Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai has facilitated learned advocates
to carry on boycott of judicial work of his court, during the period from 20.10.2014 up to
20.11.2014 and to commit incident on these dates.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Registrar (Confidential) has informed me
vide his letter dated 10.12.2014 that Sri Vinod Kumar yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at
Orai has sent his letter no.409/XV dated 24.04.2014 and its subsequent letter no. 487/I dated
12.05.2014 against Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Special Judge (E.C.Act), Jalaun at Orai, which has
been placed before Hon'ble Administrative Judge Jalaun at Orai through the office note dated
23.05.2014 and the concerned file is still under submission.

It is also informed thereafter Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge,
Jalaun at Orai has sent his another letter no. 638/XV dated 28.06.2014, furnishing therewith
detailed inquiry report containing fifteen enclosures in continuation to his earlier letter no. 409/XV
dated 24.04.2014 regarding misbehaviour and working style of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Special
Judge, Jalaun at Orai and disruption of work for his action, which has also been submitted before
the Hon'ble the Administrative Judge - Jalaun at Orai on 11.07.2014. The concerned files are still
under submission before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Jalaun at Orai for orders.

Therefore, I could not persuse the inquiry report dated 28.06.2014 and letter no.
409 dated 24.04.2014 submitted by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at
Orai, regarding misbehaviour and working style of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. The Senior
Administrative Officer of the Judgeship Jalaun at Orai had also not provided to me copies of this
inquiry report and letter during the course of inquiry at Judgeship Jalaun. Learned advocates
conveyed me about this inquiry that their statements were recorded by the then District Judge,
during the course of this inquiry.

The learned advocates had passed resolution on 27.11.2014 and withdrawn strike
on resolution to conduct judicial work from 29.11.2014.
7 All. Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
707
Work & Conduct of Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President of the
District Bar Association, Jalaun :-

It is relevant to mention here that Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in T.A. (Civil)
no. 501 of 2014 - Applicant Krishna Dass @ Nanu Maheshwari Vs. Bhawan Dass & Ors. has been
pleased to issue notice to Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the Presdent "to file his reply
clarifying as to in what circumstances and what capacity, he issued letter dated 20.09.2014 and
shall also show cause as to why further action of professional misconduct and causing interference
in administration of justice and thereby committing contempt of Court be not initiated against
him."

The report is humbly submitted, accordingly.

With deep deference and profound reverence."

13. The applicant is Contemnor 1 in Criminal Contempt No.17 of 2015.

14. When we enquired from learned counsel for the applicant as to how Section 16 of Act,
1971 is attracted in the case in hand, he submitted that in the statement made by opposite party
before the fact finding officer i.e. S.O. (Vig.), serious allegations were made against the then
District Judge Vinod Kumar Yadav, which are all baseless and this amounts to a "criminal
contempt" by opposite party. He further relied on statement of Court Maharrir, Abir Singh, stating
that opposite party got signature on a written application and he is not aware what was written
therein and submitted that this also amounts to contempt of own Court by opposite party liable for
punishment under Section 16 of Act, 1971.

15. The aforesaid statements were not part of any judicial proceedings but on
administrative side when Chief Justice directed for a fact finding inquiry, which was conducted by
S.O. (Vig.) and statements relied by counsel for applicant were recorded by S.O. (Vig.) in his fact
finding inquiry. With regard to allegations against District Judge, we need not go in detail to what
has been said by opposite party for the reason that after assessing evidence collected by S.O. (Vig.),
he has also recorded a finding that Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, facilitated
learned advocates to carry on boycott of judicial work of Court of opposite party and he also failed
to provide appropriate security to the opposite party. This is really a serious matter for the reason
that District Judge is the highest authority at District level and it is his responsibility to look after
safety, security and welfare of judicial officers posted in District i.e. in subordinate judiciary.

16. We required learned counsel for the applicant to tell us how aforesaid statements can be
treated to be something done by opposite party while acting judiciously so as to attract Section 16
of Act, 1971. In reply he contended that a "criminal contempt" can be prosecuted against a Judicial
Officer when he is not sitting in Court and similarly a statement made by a Judicial Officer even in
administrative inquiry can be treated, if he is not acting judicially.
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. The submission is apparently misconceived and baseless. If any person makes
scurrilous allegation against a Judicial Officer in public so as to lower down authority of Court or
to scandalize conduct of such person, satisfy the definition of "criminal contempt" under Section
2(c) of Act, 1971 but if on administrative side, High Court is making an inquiry and statement has
been made by a Judicial Officer giving reasons that he met a foul treatment in the hand of
advocates of district and that conduct of advocates had tacit approval or encouragement from the
head of District Judiciary i.e. District Judge, it is a in-house proceeding and not an attempt to
scandalize the Court. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, can be brought within the ambit of
'criminal contempt', as defined under Section 2(c) of Act, 1971. The argument is thoroughly
misconceived hence rejected.

18. In C.Ravichandran Ayer Vs. Justice A.M.Bhattacharjee, 1995(5) SCC 457, it was
held that scandalising the Court would mean any act done or writing published, which is calculated
to bring the court or Judges into contempt or to lower its authority or to interfere with due course of
justice or legal process of the Court. Scandalising the Court is a convenient way of describing a
publication which, although it does not relate to any specific case either past or pending or any
specific Judge, is a scurrilous attack on judiciary as a whole, which is calculated to undermine
authority of Courts and public confidence in administration of justice. Contempt of Court is to keep
blaze of glory around judiciary and to deter people from attempting to render justice contemptible
in the eyes of public. A libel upon a Court is a reflection upon sovereign people themselves.
Contemnor conveys to the people that administration of justice is weak or in corrupt hands. The
fountain of justice is tainted. The judgments that stream out of that foul fountain is impure and
contaminated. Scurrilous abuse of a Judge or Court, or attacks on personal character of a Judge, are
punishable contempt. The punishment is inflicted, not for the purpose of protecting either the Court
as a whole or individual Judges of Court from a repetition of attack, but for protecting public, and
especially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion are subject to jurisdiction of the Court,
from the mischief they will incur if authority of Court is undermined or impaired. It has also been
held simultaneously that criticism of a judge's conduct or of conduct of a Court, even if strongly
worded, is not a contempt provided that criticism is fair, temperate and made in good faith, and is
not directed to personal character of a Judge or impartiality of a Judge or Court.

19. This has been followed recently in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Ors., 2016(1) SCC 1.

20. However, in order to attract mischief of Section 16, it has to be shown that Presiding
Officer has done something in his judicial capacity or while acting judiciously. Something, which a
'Criminal Contempt' under Section 2(c) of Act, 1971 otherwise in the context of Presiding Officer
of a Court would not attract Section 16 unless it is further shown that it was done while acting
judicially.

21. The statement made by opposite party to S.O. (Vig.) as also findings recorded by S.O.
(Vig.) both will not attract Section 16 and, therefore, reference to Section 16 of Act, 1971 in the
case in hand is thoroughly misconceived.
7 All. Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
709
22. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant started making serious allegations against
opposite party and placed report of Special Officer (Vig.) as also statement of advocates made
before him including applicant himself.

23. Having gone through the entire facts we find that conduct of applicant is something,
which is out of way so as to somehow or the other implicate opposite party and to malign him in
one or other way. Firstly; after being elected as President of District Bar Association, Jalaun at
Orai, repeatedly not only, Court of opposite party was boycotted but on 20.11.2014 a serious
incident took place in his court caused by group of advocates led by applicant himself. In the
present case, applicant is alleging that serious false allegations has been made by opposite party
against the then District Judge. For the said purpose, it was open to District Judge to request this
Court to take appropriate action against opposite party but applicant cannot hold brief of the then
District Judge so as to cause damage to opposite party. In fact, this conduct fortifies inference
drawn by S.O. (Vig.) that incident, which took place on 20.11.2014, in which applicant led group
of advocates, was facilitated by the then District Judge.

24. Not only this but applicant, in order to achieve his object to implicate opposite party
somehow or the other, filed an application before Advocate General under Section 15(1) of Act,
1971, which was rejected by him vide order dated 25.01.2016. Thereafter applicant filed Writ
Petition No.5956 of 2006, which was dismissed by Division Bench vide judgment dated 08.3.2016.
Then applicant filed Review Application No.96567 of 2016, which was also dismissed by Court
vide judgment dated 06.04.2016. In the judgment dated 6.4.2016, certain facts were noticed by
Court in paras 10 to 18, which read as under :

10. The report of Shailendra Kumar Sharma, Munsarim, Reader and Santosh,
clerk sent to District Judge has also been referred to who informed that in the presence of some
advocates and litigants in the Court, slogans were shouted and hindrance was made in the working
of Court. The main gate of Court was locked out.

11. Special Officer (Vigilance) with regard to security of JO, has observed :

"On perusal of the above-mentioned documents, it is established that after incident
dated 20.10.2014 up to the incident dated 20.11.2014 no specific security was ever provided by the
District Judge to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, even then advocates were demonstrating and boycotted
the judicial work of this court from 18.10.2014. The proper and adequate specific security should
have been provided by the then District Judge to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Court No.03, Jalaun."

12. Two constables E.W. 15 and 16 also deposed before Special Officer (Vigilance)
which is noted in report as under :

"E.W. 15 and 16 has mentioned this fact that the presiding officer was sitting on
the dais of the court. The learned advocates had thrown the computer box (C.P.U.) and pen holder
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

towards the dais, table glass and pen holder were broken, rear side of the computer kept on the
dais was also damaged.

E.W. 15 and 16 has stated that meanwhile Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla got down from
the dais and learned advocates dragged him up to the gate/door out side of the Court, in the
Varandah they thrashed and beaten up him. The constables tried to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.
The learned advocates beaten up them also."

13. Court Reader, Orderly and a Class IV employees have also stated before
Special Officer (Vigilance) as under :

"....that at about 12:45 p.m. Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla was sitting on the dais of the
Court, 08 to 10 advocates entered in the court, shouting slogans, had thrown the C.P.U. of
computer and pen holder towards the presiding officer. Table glass and pen-holder were broken
and files fell down and scattered. These employees has also clarified this fact that rear side of
computer kept on the dais was also damaged.

E.W-17, 18 and 26 has conveyed this fact that meanwhile Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
got down from dais and learned advocates gripped him and dragged out of the court in the
Varandah. They have also stated that two P.A.C. personnels and Court Moharir tried to prevent
the learned advocates to enter the Court and to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, the learned
advocates and beaten him up also. These employees along with gunner could not prevent the
learned advocates from conducting this misdeeds. The learned advocates thrashed and beaten up
Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla." (emphasis added)

14. Special Officer (Vigilance) has further observed in his report as under :

"On perusal of this documentary evidence produced by E.W.