# RAM PARTAP SHARMA AND ORS v. DAYA NAND ·AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 242
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-12-01
- **Case number:** Criminal· Appeals Nos. 3940 of 1976
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, N. L. Untwalia, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-partap-sharma-and-ors-v-daya-nand-and-ors-6909
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s. 19 (1) (b)-Findwg oj committal of
contempt is basis dj _acceptance of apology-Judge exposing himself to public
co11trover.ry1 cannot she'/ter behind his office.
·
The appellants wrote a letter to the President o:f India, with copies to some
others including the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court,
criticising, the behaviour of a High Court Judge, who, during his visit to the
Sessions Division of Bhivahi, spokti against the Government's po!icie~ and canvassed for a communist system. The High Court issued a notice against the
appellants, making out a case of criminal co~temPt of court. 1he appellants
tendered a conditional apology contingent on the courts finding their action
to be contempt of court.
The apology was accepted.
Allowing the appeals and droppihg the contempt proceedings, the Court,
HELD : (1) The elemeqtary basis1 of acceptance of apology is that there is
to be a finding of committal of contempt. The Full Bench fell into the error
of accepting the apology without findirig that the appellants
committed
any
contemp~. In the absence of such a finding, no question arises for acceptance
of apology .. [245 F, 246 F-G]
(2) Judges are, by reason of their office and nature of work, expected not
to get involved in controversial matters, or to/ concern themselves with political
issues or policies undertaken by political parties. If any Judge addresses on
political problems or controversies·, the Judge exposes himself to discussioh by
public. He cannot in such a case take shelter behind his office if the public
discusses and criticises the views expressed by him, and the protective umbrella
of the court· cahnot be used by way of &ringing the cdtics on the charge of
contempt of Court. [246 A-D, F-G]

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
242
RAM PARTAP SHARMA AND ORS.
v.
DAYA NAND ·AND ORS.
August 19. 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s. 19 (1) (b)-Findwg oj committal of
contempt is basis dj _acceptance of apology-Judge exposing himself to public
co11trover.ry1 cannot she'/ter behind his office.
·
The appellants wrote a letter to the President o:f India, with copies to some
others including the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court,
criticising, the behaviour of a High Court Judge, who, during his visit to the
Sessions Division of Bhivahi, spokti against the Government's po!icie~ and canvassed for a communist system. The High Court issued a notice against the
appellants, making out a case of criminal co~temPt of court. 1he appellants
tendered a conditional apology contingent on the courts finding their action
to be contempt of court.
The apology was accepted.
Allowing the appeals and droppihg the contempt proceedings, the Court,
HELD : (1) The elemeqtary basis1 of acceptance of apology is that there is
to be a finding of committal of contempt. The Full Bench fell into the error
of accepting the apology without findirig that the appellants
committed
any
contemp~. In the absence of such a finding, no question arises for acceptance
of apology .. [245 F, 246 F-G]
(2) Judges are, by reason of their office and nature of work, expected not
to get involved in controversial matters, or to/ concern themselves with political
issues or policies undertaken by political parties. If any Judge addresses on
political problems or controversies·, the Judge exposes himself to discussioh by
public. He cannot in such a case take shelter behind his office if the public
discusses and criticises the views expressed by him, and the protective umbrella
of the court· cahnot be used by way of &ringing the cdtics on the charge of
contempt of Court. [246 A-D, F-G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal· Appeals Nos. 3940 of 1976.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1-12-1975 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Criminal Original Nos. 13-Crl. of 1975
and 14-Crl. of 1975).
D.
Mookherjeie and
Harbans Singh and
V. M. Jain, for the
G
appellants.
Deven Chetan Das, Advocate General, Haryana and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by
H
RAY, C. J.-These are appeals under section 19(1) (b) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the judgment and order dated
1 December, 1975 of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana.
(
t
RAM PARTAP SHARMA V. DAYANAND (Ray, C.J.)
243
The appellants wrote a letter on 20 February 197 5 to the Presid~nt
with copies to the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, the Chief
Minister of Haryana and the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana
High Court. The letter was signed by 15 members of the Bar belonging to the District Bar Association, Bhiwani.
In that
letter they
brought to the notice of the President that Justice D. S. Tewatia of
the Punjab and Haryami High Court visited the session division of
B;
Bhiwani and inspected the
Courts from 14
February 1975 to 19
February 1975.
In that letter they further stated as follows : "The learned Judge
met the members of the Bar on 15 February, 1975 in the Bar Room,
Bbiwani.
During the course of the meeting, the learned Judge criti~
cised the Government's policy in regard to its attitude towards the
judiciary.
Besides the learned Judge was openly attacking the Government in its political as well as administrative decision.
On the
whole, he gave an impression that he was not a Judge but a politician
who had come to Bar Room. When the members of the Bar who had
gone to meet the learned Judge in the P.W.D. Rest House, Bhiwani
he discussed politics with them and criticised the present executive in
general and the Congress Party in particular. He suggested the members of the Bar to revolt against the present Government as it has
suppressed the civil liberation (sic) of the individuals and has also
failed miserably in all fields. The Judge :l)urther said that the prevailing
system of Government is not good in this country and we must adopt
the communist form of Government which can save the nation. Later
on, he had some private political discussion with the local C.P.M.
leaders. He also accepted the hospitality of the Technological Institute
of Textiles (Mills) people who also took him for a sight seeing from
Dadri to Pilani. The members of the District Bar Association highly
regret the attitude of Justice D. S. Tewatia and urge the Government
to take appropriate action in this regard".
Five members of the Bar Association at Charkhi Dadri sent a
letter addressed to the President with copies to the Chief Justice of
Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Chief Minister of Haryana, the
Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister. In that letter they said
that Justice D. S. Tewatia visited the Bar and inspected the court at
Charkhi Dadri on 17
February, 1975.
Thereafter they stated 'a/I'
follows : "While talking with the members' of the Bar, he pointed out
that the library of this Bar seems to be very poor. Then Shri Virender
Kumar Single, a member of the Bar requesed the honouralile Judge to
help the Bar either by supplying books or by allocating the grant by
the High Court so that the needy Bar may be able to purchase necessary books for the library. Then the Honourable Judge turned down
the request and replied that it is never possible in the present system of
Government of India. If you want this kind of help then you should
prepare yourself for the communist Government in India by creating
such atmosphere in the country.
At another stage also during the
course of his discussion with the members of the Bar over the matter
of Rajasthan Law students demands in which they demanded a grant
E.
G
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
of Rs. 5000/- from the Government for the library of each fresh law
graduate an~ Rs. 200/- P.er month for a period of two years the initial
stage of. their legal practice he strongly emphasised the need for the
commumst system of Society and Government in India to fulfil these
deman.ds.
The learned Judge also met Smt. Chandrawati separately
and discussed with her the political affairs of the
State.
He also
expressed his de~ire to see Comrade Dharam Singh a member of
the Marxist Communist Party at his residence before Smt. Chandrawati. During his stay in the rest house he also discussed the teachers
agitation and individual position of various political leaders in the
State.
He also enquired all about Shri Sohan Lal a leader of the
teacher's movement in the State".
The letter concluded by saying
that the Hon'ble Judg~ du~ing his entire stay in his tour deliberately
s~owed the .bent of his mmd towards communism while exchanging
view on vanous matters.
The appellants took a copy of their letter to the Chief Justice of
Punjab and Haryana. The appellants could not see the Chief Justice
and left the lett,er with the Registrar in a closed cover. The Registrar
told them that the closed cover could reach the Hon'ble Chief Justice,
A notice was issued by the High Court on 12 March 1975 as
follows : "Letter dated 20th February, 1975 a copy of an application
dated 20 February, 1975 signed by 15 members of the District Bar
Association, Bhiwani, has been placed for the consideration of this
Bench.
On a perusal of the contents thereof, a prima-facie case of
criminal contempt is made out. We therefore direct that the contempt
of Court (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1974 be issued to each of the
signatories of the above said application, returnable for the 1st ot
April, 1975". The High Court did not take any action against two
persons on the letter written by five members of the Bar Association
of Charkhi Dadri.
Each of the appellants affirmed an affidavit in this pattern.
"It
is an article of faith with the deponent that dignity and respect of all
Courts and of all Judges and particularly of the High Court must be
maintained for, amongst other reasons, on that depends the orderly
tunctioning of the society as also prestige of the profession to which
the deponent has the honour to belong. The deponent has been taught
to believe that a Judge ought always to steer clear of all avoidable controversial matters.
The deponent most respectfully submits that the
contents of the letter which he and others addressed to the President
of India cannot be construed as scandalising the Hon'ble Judge or the
Court in any manner to weaken people's faith in the administration
of justice.
The letter in question was addressed by the deponent to
the President of India with copies to others with the sole object of
conveying the opinion that the public expression by the Hon'ble Judge
of his- personal views on controversial political matters concerning the
merits and demerits of the present system of the Government was not
in keeping with the well accepted role of proverbial aloofness of a
Judge. The letter was addressed .bona fide, in good faith and without
\
I
~\
RAM PAR TAP SHARMA V. DAYANAND (Ray, C.J.)
24 5
any ill-will and no publicity was given to it. It was intended to be a
A
privileged communication made solely with a view to
uphold the
dignity of the Court. In order to prevent unwanted disclosure of its
contents, the communication in question was brought personally by
two members of the Bar Association, Bhiwani to Chandigarh in a
closed cover addressed to the Chief Justice_ for being handed over to
him for his personal attention.
The deponent submits that the contents of the letter have no relevance or relation to the functioning of
R
the learned Judge of the High Court.
The letter does not interfere
much less substantially with due course of justice or proper administration of law by the courts. The deponent submits that there was no
intention whatsoever on his part to scandalise the Hon'ble Judge or
this Hon'ble Court or to lower the authority or undern1ine the prestige
of the learned Judge or of the Hon'ble Court or to weaken in any
way the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. The
C
deponent respectfully suomits that the communication does not bear
out iiny foundation for an action for criminal contempt. In any case,
if in view of this Hon'ble Court, the action of the deponent in addressing the letter in question constituted for any reason contempt of court,
one would be more sorry than the deponent himself.
Therefore, the
deponent tenders his apology to this Hon'ble Court, for the same, and
prays for its acceptance."
D
The Full Bench of the High Court consisting of Justice Surjit Singh
Sandhawalia, Justice Prem Chand Jain and Justice Bhupinder Singh
Dhillon extracted portions from the affidavit of the appellants to which
references has been made.
The Full Bench
thereafter referred to
paragraph 9 of the affidavit where the deponents said that "if in view
E.
of this Hon'ble Court the action of the deponent in addressing the letter
in CiJUestion constituted for any reason contempt of court, no one would
be more sorry than the deponent himself.
Therefore, the deponent
tender his apology to tliis Hon'ble Court for the same and prays for
its acceptance". After the recital of paragraph 9 the judgement of the
Full Bench said as follows:
"In view of the averments made in the
affidavit filed in rely · and in particular in paragraph 9 thereof we
F
accept the apology tendered on behalf of the respondents
and discharge the rule issued against them".
In our view the judgment is utterly unsound and unsustainable.
The elementary basis of acceptance of apology is that there is to be
a finding of committal of contempt. The deponents stated that if the
Court is of the view that the letter of the deponents constitute for any
G
reason contempt of court, the deponents tender apology. It is a conditional apology. The condition is that if there is contempt the deponents tender apology.
In the absence of any finding by the High
Court that the appellants committed any contempt of court there was
never any occasion for acceptance of apology.
It appears before us that the allegations in the letter were not dis~
H
puted and challenged.
The High Court proceeded on the basis that
the letters written by the appellants were correct. It is indeed curious
.B
JO
24G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[i 977J 1 S.C.R.
that the High Court in the notice referred to the Jetter of the appellant
and said "on a perusal of the contents thereof a prima facie case for
contempt is made out".
The High Court did not mention which
particular portion of the letter constituted contempt of court.
It is necessary to state here that if any Judge addresses on political
problems or controversies the Judge exposes himself to discussion by
public.
The reason is that the Judge travels from his judicial work
and descends into the arena of politics and parties. The Judge cannot
in such a case take shelt!1t behind his office if the public discusses and
criticises the views expressed by him.
The reason is obvious.
It
is no part of the duty of a Judge nor is it a duty in discharge of office
of a Judge to go and address a meeting on political matters to redress
grievances of the people.
However, if the speech of any Judge is criticised and if it becomes
a disputed question of fact as to whether any Judge did speak or not
as is alleged by the writer the matter would have to be ascertained by
the court on facts
whether the Judge concerned did speak on the
matters ascrib@ to him before the court would take any action against
the persons who would criticise the Judge's speech.
We wish to make it clear that if ort facts it appears that the Judge
did say things or matters about politics such utterances or views or
observations will be the personal opinions expressed by the Judge, and,
therefore, the protective umbrella of the court cannot be used by way
of· bringing the critics on the charge of contempt of court.
It also appears in the letter that there is an allegation that the Judge
accepted hospitality of some organisation.
To say that will not by
itself be a contempt. All we need say is that it will not be correct
and proper for any Judge to accept the invitation and hospitality
of any business or
commercial organisation or of
any
political
party or of any club or organisation run on sectarian, communal or
parochial lines.
Invitations by the Bar Association or social invitations naturally stand on a different footing and no one will find an
exception to any Judge attending a social function.
Judges are by reason of their office and nature of work expected
not to get involved in controversial matters, or to concern themselves
with political issues or policies under taken by political parties as a
part of their political programme.
We are of opinion that the Full Bench fell into the error of accepting the apology without finding that the appellants committed any contempt. In the absence of such a finding no question arises for accqitance of apology.
In view of the fact that the High Court proceeded on the basis that
the allegations in the letter were unchallenged we are of opinion that
the matters did not constitute any contempt. The High Court should
have dropped the proceedings and not pursued the matter.
<
...
\
I
RAM PARTAP SHARMA V. DAYANAND (Ray, C.J.)
.247
The judgment is set aside. The contempt proceeding~ are dropped.
We should state here that the Advocate General of Haryana quite
fairly stated that the letter did not constitute any contempt.
M.R.
Appeals allowed.
A