Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
“tL.
_ LD. JAIKWAL STATE.OF U.P. May 17, 1984 ; TA. P: ‘SEN AND M: P. “THAKKAR, 334 .
~ Conteript of Courts Act 197], Section Xe) oD. se
"Advocate making written application couched i in scurillous language--Impu. tation—Judge ‘a corrupt Judge’ ‘and contaminating the seat of justice’— High Court: convicting and sentencing advocate for contempt of Court — appeal * to
- Supreme Court—Written apology tendered to Judge ‘as directed by the Supreme 7
Court ‘Whether ‘sufficient to set aside conviction by High Court.
The appellant’ was & senior advocate. ’ He was required to appear before . the Special Judge to make his submission on the question of sentence to be imposed upon his client who was convicted for an offence under s.5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. As he- appeared in a shirt-and-trouser- © outfit and net in Court attire, the Judge asked him to-dppearin the prescribed’ formal attite for being heard in his professional capacity. The appellant took um brage and left the Court. Some other advocate appeared .in the matter and the
. accused having being found guilty of the. charge ot corruption the Judge imposed ; "a sentence ‘of four years R. I
The appellant made a written application to the J udge couched i in scurillous
Janguage making the irnputation that the Judge was a ‘corrupt Judge? and added ' that he was ‘contaminating the seat of justice’ ; and forwarded copies, of the ‘ application, without occasion or need to the Administrative Judge, Chief Secretary and other authorities. ,
The High Court initiated contempt proceedings, found ‘the: appellant guilty of having committed criminal contempt under s. 2(c)(1) of the, Contempt of |
* Courts Act, 1971 and after affording full opportunity of hearing, imposed a -sentenve of simple imprisonment for one Week and a fine of Rs. 500.
Dismissing the Appeal,
“HELD: 1. ‘Considerations regarding maintenance of the independence of -
, the jpdiciary and the morale of the Judges demand that the appellant should not escape with impunity on the mere. tendering of an apology which in any case does not‘ wipe out the mischief. If such a apology were to be accepted, asa rule, and not as ‘an exception, it would virtually be tantamount to issuing a ,
‘licence’ to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with i impunity. The High Court was justified: in imposing a substantive sentence and the said sentence cannot be said to be excessive or-out of proportion, [838B ;:837E ; 838F]
No Judge can take a decision which does not displease one side or the - _ other. By the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against oneor _.. other of the parties. 1f the fact that heerenders a decision which is resented to by — a litigant or his lawyer were to ‘expose himto such a: risk, it wilt sound the death knell.of the institution. The day. must be’ dreaded when a Judge carinat’ work with independence by reason Of the fear that a disgruntled member of |:
the Bar can publicly humiliate him and heap disagree on him with impunity, if any of his. otdets, or the decision rendered by him displeases any-of the
. Advocates appearing in the matter. A line has therefore to be drawn some- _ where, some day, by some oné, That is why the Court is impelled to act -
(rather than merely’ sermonise) mich as the-Court dislikes imposing punish- . ment whilst exercising the contempt jurisdiction; which ‘Tio doubt has to beexercised very sparingly and: with circumspection. [837H ; 838A-B]
2 An attitude of unmerited leniency cannot be adopted at the cost of ; principle and at the ex ense of the Judge who has .been scandalized. To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence is not very difficult in fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation todo so rather ‘than to adhere to. the mail- studded. path of duty. Institutional perspective demands that considerations of
Populism 4 are not allowed to. obstruct the Path of duty. [338C}
In the i instant case, the appellant sought to justify his conduct before the High. Court: on the - ‘ground’ of the treatment allzged to have been meted out to him by the Special Judge. No remorse was felt. No sorrow was ezpressed,
No’ apology was offerred. He expressed his sorrow only before this Court, .
saying that he had lost his mental balance, atid was granted “an opportunity to tender an apology, He appeared before the Special Judge and tenderéd a written.
apology indicating that he was doing so : “as directed by the Hon’ ble Supreme
_ Court.” This circumstance shows it was a ‘paper’ apology, and that the expres. sion of sorrow came from his pen, not from-his heart. It is one thing to “say”
sorry—it. is another to .“feel’” sorry. This Court cannot subscribe to the -
‘slap-say “sorry—and forget’ .school of thought i in administration of contempt jurisdiction. [886H ; 37A-C] | ¢
Judgment
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal | Appeal No. _ 611 of 1982, so
From.the Judgment and-Order dated the «sh Nowennes 1982 - of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Contempt Case No.
N.N. Sharma, Mrs. Pankey Verma & Mrs. Vijay Gupta for the
Appellant. so - |
Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondent. . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
(834 mo, SUPREME couRT REPORTS oe [1984 35.08. |
+ at sa
\C
L.D. JAIKWAL ¥. U.P, STATE (Thakkar, J.) _ 835
THAKKaR, J, We are sorry to say we cannot. subscribe to the ‘slap-say sorry-and forget’ school of thought in administration of . contempt jurisprudence, ‘Saying ‘sorry’ does not make the slapper poorer. Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips .
’ which not long ago slandered a judicial officer. without the slightest compunction, Loe
_ An Advocate whose client. had been convicted by the learned . Special Judge, Dehradun, was required to appear before the learned
' Judge to make his submissions on the question of ‘sentence’ to be, - imposed on the accused.-upon his being found guilty of an offence _under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Caurt..
The learned Advocate appeared in a shirt-and-trouser-outfit in disregard of the rule requiring him to appear only in Court attire when appearing in his professional e¢apacity, The learned Judge asked him to, appear in the prescribed formal attire for be- ing ‘heard in his professional capacity. The learned Advocate apparently took umbrage‘and left the Court. Some -other Advocate . appeared on: behalf of.accused who had-been found guilty of a
__charge of corruption. The learned Judge imposed a sentence of 4 .
years’ R.I. which may have: been considered to be on the high side. The matter in that case could have been carried to the High Court by way of an appeal, both, on the question of conviction as also, on
‘the question, of sentencé. But so far as the Court of the Special
Judge was concerned, as the judgment had been pronounced and nothing more rémained to be done by that Court, the matter should have rested there. The, appellant, a senior Advocate of longstanding
(not an immature inexperienced junior), However made a written © application to. the learned Special Judge couched in scurillous language ‘making the* itaputation that the Judge was a “corrupt Judge” and adding that he was . “contaminating the seat of justice”.
_A threat was also held out that a complaint was. being lodged to higher. authorities that -he. was corrupt and did not deserve to be retained i in service. The offending portion may better be quoted :- _
/“y am making a ‘complaint against “you 1 to the highest authorities in the country, that you are corrupt and do not ~ - deserve to be retained in service. The carlier: people like - you are bundled. out the better for us all.
. -As for quantum of sentence, I will neyer bow down before you. You may award the maximum sentence. “Any:
836 ; SUPREME COURT REPORTS - 1984) 3 08
' way, you should feel ashamed of yourself that you are contaminating the seat of Justice. aa
There j isno known provision for making such an application after a.matter is disposed of by a Judge. Nor was any legal purpose to be served by making such an application: |
Obviously application was made to terrorize and harass the
- Judg¢@ for imposing a sentence which perhaps be considered to be on the ‘high side whether or not it was is really So was for the higher.
Court to decide.
‘As pointed out caries, it was however not. permissible ‘to , adopt:
oa course of intimidation in order to frighten the Judge. His inalicious “purpose in making the application is. established by another tell-tale circumstance by forwarding copy § of ‘this application, without - any ‘occassion or neéd for it, to several. authorities and: Aiginitaries.
1. ‘Administrative J indge, Allahabad for favour of requisi- tioning case file S.T. No.-2 from. Dehradun and scanning through the facts.
Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh. Government Lucknow..
“
‘Director, Vigilance Commission; Uz P., Lucknow. © ~ Prime Minister, Secretariat, Delhi.” - State Counsel, Shri - Pooran Singh, Court of Shri v. K. Agarwal,. Dehradun. . - . 6, Shri D. Vira, LCS., Chairman, Indian Police Commis- - sion, Delhi. 7,” President, Bar Association, Detradui a
Vw NY.
8. The Hon’ ble: Chief Justice of Bharat.
- The High Court of Allahabad intitiated contempt proceedings,
- found the appellant gulity of having committed criminal contempt _under Section’ 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, after affording him full opportunity of hearing, and imposed a sentence of
&L. for 1 week anda fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to undergo a further term of S.I. for 1 week). Hence this appeal.
“Before the High ‘Court the appellant sought. to justify his -gonduct on the ground of the treatment + alleged to have been meted
~ ry ho
; . o Lb. TALRWAL 1 y. U.P, STATE : (Thakkar, J. ne 837 out to him mn by the learned Judge. Nor remorse was felt. No sorrow was expressed. No apology was offered. Only when the appellant
"approached this Court he .expressed his sorrdw before this Court '-saying that he had lost his mental ,balance. Upon’ finding that this
Court was reluctant to hear him even on the question of sentence,
.as he had not even tendered his apology to the Iearned Judge who was scandalized, he .prayed for three weeks’ time to give him an opportunity’ to do'so. His request was granted. - He appeared before the learned Judge and tendered a written apology wherein he stated that he was doiig'so “as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
This circumstance in a way shows that it was a ‘paper’ apology and the expression of sorrow came from. his pen, not from his heart,
. For, it is one thing to ‘‘say’ ’ sorry—it is another to “feel”: ‘Sorry. It is in this context that we have been obliged. to make the opening remarks at the commencement of this judgment. |
, We do not think that merely’because the appellant his tendered his apology we should set aside the séntence 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 scapdalize 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,. it would in virtually be tentamount to 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-respéct, 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, make them fall in line. with their wishes, by threats of character assasination and persecution, will be preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of profes- _
- . + Sional ethies and believe-in maintaining the decorum of Courts,
Ne
No Judge cah take a decision which doct not displease one’
. Side or the other. By the very nature of his work he has to decide ~ matters ‘against one or other of the parties; - If the fact that he
* a
838° SUPREME COURT REPORTS > -f1984} 3 scr.
renders a decision whith is resented to by .a litigant or his lawyer . were to expose him to. such risk, it will’sound ‘the death knell of the _ institution: A line has therefore to. be drawn somewhere, some day, "by some one. That is why the Court is‘ impelled to act {rather than. merely sermonize), much as the Court dislikes imposing punishment — . whilst exercising the contempt jurisdiction, which no doubt has to be © _-. exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. We do not think ’ that we can adopt an attitude of unmerited leniericy at the cost of principle and at the expense of the Judge who has been scandalized, We are fully aware that it is not.very difficult to show magnanimity when some one else is the victim rather than when oneself i is the . ‘ yictim: To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence i is not. very difficult~ia fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so rather than to adhere to the nail-studded path ¢ of duty. Institutional perspective demands that considerations of populism are not allowed .
to obstruct the path of duty.. We, therefore, cannot take a lenient or indulgent view of this matter, the day must ‘be dreaded when a ‘Judge cannot work with independence by reason of the fear. that a disgruntled member of thé Bar can publicly. humiliate him and heap disgrace on. him with impunity, if any of his orders, or .the decision rendered ‘by him,’ displeases any of the Advocates ° appearing in the matter. Coo.
We firmly believe that considerations ‘regarding maintenance
: of the independence of the judiciary and the morale of the Judges demand that we do not allow the appellant to escape with impunity
_ on the mere tendering of an apology which - in any case does not wipe out the mischief, We are of the opinion that the High Court.
_. was therefore justified in imposing a substantive sentence. And the sentence imposed cannot be said to be excessive or out of Ppropor-
. tion. *
Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
nN v. Ke . Appeal dismssed.