# [1998] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 87

- **Citation:** [1998] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 87
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-09-25
- **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, M.K. Mukherjee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1998-supp-2-s-c-r-87-16385
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

B
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
Secs. 2(c) and 12-Criminal contempt-Scandalising the CourtAdvocate-Casting unwarranted aspersions on subordinate judiciary and
High Court-Attributing motives to judicial officers in the discharge of their
judicial functions-SLPs and contempt petitions containing objectionable, C
unparliamentary and abusive language-Showing no remorse or regretRepeated arrogant defiant and contemptuous attitude-Held, guilty of
contempt of court-Convicted and sentenced to four months simple
imprisonment with fine-Bar Council directed to refer the matter to concerned
committee for taking appropriate action against the contemnor for D
professional misconduct.
Section 5-Fair criticism ofjudgment-Permissibility of-Held, criticism
should be in a dignified, temperate language without any malice-Honest
and objective criticism of judgment is permissible if made in a respectful tone.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 129-Supreme Court-Power to
punish for contempt-Held: Such power includes power to punish for contempt
of subordinate judiciary and High Courts.
E
Contempt of court-Advocate not satisfied with the decision,
scandalising the Court-Whether enjoy!! any protection-Hefd : No, an F
Advocate has no wider protection than a layman.
The contemner, a practising Advocate, filed a defamation case against
an Advocate and an ADJ under sections 499 and 500 IPC, which was
dismissed. The High Court dismissed the revision petition holding that the G
applicant has made palpably scurrilous, indecent and abominable recitals
against respondent, a member of lower judiciary to malign and hold her to
ransom. The contemner thereafter filed a special leave petition before this
court. The contemner has also filed several contempt petitions before this
Court against a High Court Judge, several Judges of subordinate judiciary
87
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A and Advocates, wherein the language used is wholly objectionable,
unparliamentary and abusive. An order was passed by this Court to delete
the said objectionable expressions from the petition, but the contemner
instead of removing the said objectionable expressions insisted on being
,_, ...
heard. Noticing his adamant and defiant attitude, Rule against him was
B issued to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of
court. The contemner instead of filing his reply to the said Rule made a
request for transfer of his case to some other Bench as he did not wish to
appear before that Bench. The request was rejected as the prayer itself was
contumacious in character. The contemner even after several adjournments
neither appeared before the court nor filed his reply to the Rule.
c
Disposing of the contempt petition, this Court
HELD : l. The contemner is guilty of contempt of court for using
objectionable and intemperate language in the petition. (108-G)
D
2. Scandalising the Judges or the Courts tends to bring the authority
and administration of law into disrepute and is an affront to the majesty and
dignity of law. Such acts constitute criminal contempt of court. The
"publication" contemplated by Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
includes pleadings, affidavits etc. which are filed in the Court. Abuses,
attribution of motives, vituperative terrorism and scurrilous and indecent
E 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
majes!y of law amounts to criminal contempt of court.
F
[100-D; 101-A-B; 104-B-C)
Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1991)
4 SCC 406; Shri Sanjiv Dutta, JT (1995) 3 SC 538 and Re: R.L. Ahuja,
[1993) Supp. 4 SCC 446, relied on.
3. In the instant case, from a perusal of the memorandum of various
G petitions filed by the contemner in this Court and the language used therein,
it is apparent that he has cast aspersions on eac

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 61,550. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

•
IN RE: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE
A
SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.]
B
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
Secs. 2(c) and 12-Criminal contempt-Scandalising the CourtAdvocate-Casting unwarranted aspersions on subordinate judiciary and
High Court-Attributing motives to judicial officers in the discharge of their
judicial functions-SLPs and contempt petitions containing objectionable, C
unparliamentary and abusive language-Showing no remorse or regretRepeated arrogant defiant and contemptuous attitude-Held, guilty of
contempt of court-Convicted and sentenced to four months simple
imprisonment with fine-Bar Council directed to refer the matter to concerned
committee for taking appropriate action against the contemnor for D
professional misconduct.
Section 5-Fair criticism ofjudgment-Permissibility of-Held, criticism
should be in a dignified, temperate language without any malice-Honest
and objective criticism of judgment is permissible if made in a respectful tone.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 129-Supreme Court-Power to
punish for contempt-Held: Such power includes power to punish for contempt
of subordinate judiciary and High Courts.
E
Contempt of court-Advocate not satisfied with the decision,
scandalising the Court-Whether enjoy!! any protection-Hefd : No, an F
Advocate has no wider protection than a layman.
The contemner, a practising Advocate, filed a defamation case against
an Advocate and an ADJ under sections 499 and 500 IPC, which was
dismissed. The High Court dismissed the revision petition holding that the G
applicant has made palpably scurrilous, indecent and abominable recitals
against respondent, a member of lower judiciary to malign and hold her to
ransom. The contemner thereafter filed a special leave petition before this
court. The contemner has also filed several contempt petitions before this
Court against a High Court Judge, several Judges of subordinate judiciary
87
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A and Advocates, wherein the language used is wholly objectionable,
unparliamentary and abusive. An order was passed by this Court to delete
the said objectionable expressions from the petition, but the contemner
instead of removing the said objectionable expressions insisted on being
,_, ...
heard. Noticing his adamant and defiant attitude, Rule against him was
B issued to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of
court. The contemner instead of filing his reply to the said Rule made a
request for transfer of his case to some other Bench as he did not wish to
appear before that Bench. The request was rejected as the prayer itself was
contumacious in character. The contemner even after several adjournments
neither appeared before the court nor filed his reply to the Rule.
c
Disposing of the contempt petition, this Court
HELD : l. The contemner is guilty of contempt of court for using
objectionable and intemperate language in the petition. (108-G)
D
2. Scandalising the Judges or the Courts tends to bring the authority
and administration of law into disrepute and is an affront to the majesty and
dignity of law. Such acts constitute criminal contempt of court. The
"publication" contemplated by Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
includes pleadings, affidavits etc. which are filed in the Court. Abuses,
attribution of motives, vituperative terrorism and scurrilous and indecent
E 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
majes!y of law amounts to criminal contempt of court.
F
[100-D; 101-A-B; 104-B-C)
Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1991)
4 SCC 406; Shri Sanjiv Dutta, JT (1995) 3 SC 538 and Re: R.L. Ahuja,
[1993) Supp. 4 SCC 446, relied on.
3. In the instant case, from a perusal of the memorandum of various
G 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 judge who in
the discharge of his judicial functions decided the matter not liked to by the
contemner at one stage or the other. The aspersions cast by him undoubtedly
have the tendency to scandalise the Court. The contemner has been attempting
to brow beat the subordinate judges as well as the judge of the High Court
H and cause interference in the administration of justice. Even in this Court,
..
IN RE: A.K. PANDEY
89
after the Rule was issued to him, he tried to brow beat the court. He filed A
an application stating that since he had filed a contempt petition against the
Judges constituting the Division Bench which had issued Rule against him,
that Bench should transfer the case. It was an obviously motivated action on
his part to intimidate the Bench. The contemner has been making continuous
attempts to subvert the course of justice in whichever Court his case was. B
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, he appears to be blissfully ignorant
of the role of a lawyer and that law relating to drafting 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 C
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. (107-D-F; 108-A-C)
4. 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 D
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. Everybody is E
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 licence to scandalise the
court, instead ol criticising the judgment to criticise the judge who delivered
it. [104-D; 100-E-F]
D.C. Saxena v. Hon 'b/e the Chief Justice of India, [1996] 5 SCC 216;
La/it Mohan Das v. Advocate General, Orissa, (1957] SCR 167; MB. Sanghi,
Advocate v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (1991] 3 SCC 600 and Re:
Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995] 2 SCC 584, relied on.
5. An Advocate has no wider protection than a layman when he commits
F
G
an act which amounts to contempt of court. He does not enjoy any special
immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act, where he is found to have
committed gross contempt of court. It is most on befitting for an Advocate to
make imputations against a Judge only because he does not get the expected H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A 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 license 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
B 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. [108-C-E]
L.D. Jaikwa/ v. State of U.P., [1984] 3 SCC 405, referred to.
C
6. The subordinate judiciary forms the very backbone of administration
of justice. This Court has not only the right to protect itself from being
scandalised or denigrated but it also has the right, jurisdiction and obligation
to protect the High Courts and the subordinate Courts in the country from
being insulted, abused or in any other way denigrated. This Court would
come down with a heavy hand for preventing the judges of the subordinate
D 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 tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial
proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in
E 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.
Protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their
judicial functions without fear. 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 tends
F 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
G of justice. [99-A-G]
7. In the instant case, the contemner has been reckless, persistent and
guilty of undermining the dignity of the courts and his action are motivated,
deliberate and designed. The contemner, let alone showing any remorse or
regret adopted an arrogant, defiant and contemptuous attitude. The action of
H the contemner calls for a deterrent punishment so that it also serves as an
..
-_,
-
IN RE: A.K. PANDEY [DR. A.S. ANAND, J.]
91
example to others and there is no repetition of such a contempt by anyone A
else. Thus, the contemner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. (109-E-F]
8. The contemner has abused professional privileges while practising
as an Advocate. Thus, it is directed that a copy of this judgment alongwith
the relevant record be forwarded to the Chairman, Bar Council of India, who B
may refer the case to the concerned committee for appropriate action as is
considered fit and proper. (110-H; Ill-Al
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., JT (1998)
3 SC 184, relied on.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Cr!.) No.
2of1996 In Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 4114of1995.
(Under Article 129 of the Constitution of India.)
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.95 of the Court ofVl A.C.J.M., D
Lucknow in C.C. No. 101of1995.
Santosh N. Hegde, Solicitor General,
In-person for the Respondent (NP).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
DR. A.S. ANAND, J. The alleged contemner-Ajay Kumar Pandey, a
practising advocate, filed a criminal complaint against an Advocate Mr. Mahesh
Giri and an Additional District Judge, Ms. Saroj Bala, then posted as VII
Additional District Judge, Lucknow, under Sections 499 and 500 !PC, after first F
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. l l. l 994. 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 :-
G
"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 H
A
B
c
D
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
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 the palpably scurrilous, indecent and
abominable 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 (Cr!.)
Nos.819-820of1996 against the judgment ofVirendra Saran, J dated 15.2.1995.
It appears that the alleged contemner had filed another complaint on
12.9.1994 under Sections 500 and 504 !PC 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
E defamatory imputations regarding the relationship between him and Ms.Saroj
Bala, Add I. 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
(Cr!.) No. 4114of1995 against that order.
F
Ajay Kumar Pandey, the alleged contemner has also filed following
Contempt Petitions (Cr!.) in this Court :
I. Contempt Petition (Cr!.) Dy. No.16199/95 filed on 28th Oct. 1995:
Against Mr. Justice Virendra Saran, Judge, High Court of Allahabad,
G Lucknow Bench;
2. Contempt Petition (Cr!.) Dy. No. 17021/95 filed on 8th November
1995. The respondents in the petition are :
I.
Ms. Saroj Bala, IV Addi. District Judge, Lucknow.
H
II.
Shri Udai L Raj, V.A.C J., Lucknow.
INRE: A.K. PANDEY [DR. A.S. ANAND, J.]
III.
Shri R.P. Misra, VI Addi. C.J.M.
93
3. Contempt Petition (Cr/.) Dy. No.17922/95 filed on 9th November
1995 against the following respondents :
I.
Shri J.C. Mishra, Distt. Judge, Lucknow.
II.
Shri K.N. Ojha, II A DJ., Lucknow.
III. Shri Shailendra Saxena, III A.DJ., Lucknow.
N.
Shri B.N. Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow.
A
B
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 C
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.(Crl.) No. 4114of1995.
The language used by the petitioner is in the following terms :-
"It will not be out of place to mention here ¢hat another then
Magistrate Sh. Udai Raj had fraudulently, corruptly with the collusion D
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 E
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 F
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 contemn er to the same. He has attacked the impartiality
G
of the named judges in most indecent and intemperate language. There is H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A hardly any criticism of the "judgment" and all that the contemner seems to
have done is to criticise and condemn the Judge by attributing motives and
showering abuses on each one of the judges who dealt with his cases at one
stage or the other.
B
c
D
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 delete 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
eiglit 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
E remove all the objectionable expressions from the memorandum of petitions
but instead of deleting those objectionable expressions, on the same day, he
filed Crl. M.P.No. 132 of 1996 in which inter alia he stated :-
F
G
"4. That today, the matter was listed in court No. 9 alongwith all
petitions at SI .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 refased
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 of the !PC
and section 44 and 165 of the Evidence Act alongwith Section 2-C and
Section 16 and 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts 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
H
weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner mentioned and also tried to give in
IN RE: A.K. PANDEY [DR. A.S. ANAND, J.]
95
writing that he is not in a position to remove anything and file fresh A
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.
B
6. That the petitioner is not in a position to remove anything and
the deliberate injustice, 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.
c
( under lined by us)
Thus, it is seen that instead of removing the objectionable expressions,
which prima facie have the tendency 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 D
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.
E
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 F
reply within 8 weeks. That is how the contempt proceeding (Contempt Petition
Cr!. No.2/96) came to registered against the alleged contemner in this Court.
The Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 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 G
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.(Crl.)
No. 4114/95, Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 6242-6243/95, and S.L.P. H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A (Cr!.) 819-820of1996 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 applications bristled with scandalous remarks
B 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
C 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 cause 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.
D 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 August 1996 Ajay Kumar Pandey had been
informed of the date of hearing and was directed to remain present on
E 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 August 1996. On 27.9.1996,
Mr. K.N. Bhat, learned A.S.G. appeared to assist the Court and asserted that
the application was misconceived and the alleged contemner was trying to
p
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
G in this court also had, as a matter of fact, aggravated the contempt committed
by him and he needed to be suitably punished.
H
On 27.9.1996 while dealing with the applications filed by the contemner,
the following order was made :-
We have examined the application and found that the prayer for
•
IN RE: A.K. PANDEY [DR. A.S. ANAND, J.]
97
recall of the order is misconceived for more than one reasons. The A
order dated 9th August 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 August 1996 the review petitions filed
by the respondent were also dismissed. The prayer for recall of the
order dated 9th August 1996 under the circumstances has no merit B
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 C
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 D
on the next date he appeared in the Court, the bailable warrants were recalled.
The case was, 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 Rily. It was also E
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 F
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 nonbailable warrants and accordingly non-bailable warrants returnable on 27.2.1997 G
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 a/ia records :
"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, H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
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 he present 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 by this court but he has persisted with his contamacious .
behaviour and, therefore, no further opportunity 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."
We have traced the entire sequence of events, as in our opinion,
.-
IN RE: A.K. PANDEY [DR. A.S. ANAND, J.]
99
it would have material bearing on the ultimate order that we make.
·A
_._
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 way denigrated. Any B
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 C
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 judiciary or the High Court from being subjected
to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to D
scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court
as also all such actions which interfere or tend 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 E
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 F
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. G
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.
H
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
'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 signs, or by visible representations, or
otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
B
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
C
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
D to bring the authority and administration of law into disrepute and is an
affront to the majesty (and dignity) 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
E 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 the
F judge who delivered it.
G
H
In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. 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
'
IN RE: A.K. PANDEY [DR. A.S. ANAND, J.]
101
vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice A
is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. •
That the "publication" contemplated by S"ection 2 ( c) of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 (supra) includes pleadings affidavits etc. which are filed in the
Court, is no longer in doubt.
B
In L.D. Jaikwal v. 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 C
of Corruption Act by the Court. The learned advocate appeared in a sjlirt-andtrouser-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 D
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 E
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 out the better for us
all.
F
As for quantum of sentence, I will never bow down before you. You G
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 convictioil and sentence, the contemner advocate filed H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A an appeal and at the same time tendered his apology. Rejecting the apology,
this Court observed :
B
c
D
E
"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
decorum 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
F 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:
G
H
"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 operate freely and
fearlessly but for which impartial acljudication 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
-
IN RE: A.K. PANDEY [DR. A.S. ANAND, J.]
103
Constitution have to accept and submit to this obligation ofrespecting A
the constitutional authority of the courts.