High Court Of Karnataka vs Sri Jai Chaitanya Dasa @ Jayanarayana K on 27 December, 2010

[Cites 25, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

High Court Of Karnataka vs Sri Jai Chaitanya Dasa @ Jayanarayana K on 27 December, 2010

Bench: Manjula Chellur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 20 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE  it  

CRL. ccc No.20/_2oo.9gf:. 

BETWEEN :

High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore, .
Represented by _ V A" ~  

Registrar General. V   AACOMPLAINANT
(By Sri.P.1\/I . Nawaz, AddI." AdI;'oe.a'tOe General J

AND:

1. Sri. JVaiI--ChaI*t.anjfa_3DaSa  Jayanarayana K.

42 years, SA/O1,_-vMr§ 'K. C ,D«.. _Na.rr_1biSan

Secretary o1"IN'I'E'RNATIQ_N.i=~'.L SOCIETY FOR
KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS,

a societyE'regiStere.d uInc¢_r' the Karnataka Societies
registration" Act,' 1960-,

and claiming to'-have its registered office

 V'  . atvs-Ha1ie:KriiShna Hﬂij

'Chord ROag1;"~7Rajajinagar,

  'BangaI'Ore~--' ~10,',.

2. Sr.__i. Mad.hu=_f'andit Das.
President of INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

 KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, a society

 Amggistered under the Karnataka Societies

" Registration Act, 1960 and ciaiming to have

'its registered office at Hare Krishna Hiil, Chord Road.
Rajajinagar, Bangaiore ~ 10.



IX)

3. Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi, Sr. Counsel
No. 21/22, 11 Floor, Krishna Towers,
Srci Main Road, Gandhinagar,
Bangalore M 560009.

4. Sri. V.H. Ron (LEX PLEXUS]
No. 24, Iivlain Road, Gandhinagarh _
Bangalore w 5600.32.  B'

5. Sri. Ramesh Babu, Advocate  
No. 21/22, 11 Floor, 31" Main Road, 
Krishna Towers,  
Gandhinagar, Bangalore ~-- 09.  

6. Sri. S.A. i\/Iaruthi Prasad, Ac!vocat.é,~--.._'~.., 
No. 65/1, 21'" Floor, 2"? C_r'oss..,7'  H  
4th Main, Gandhi Nagar,__  ' '   

Bangalore -- 09:.'   ' -  ACCUSED

(By Sri.M.iVI.; Pailiaci-a3?r,, Sr-..,jCvounsell"for.,Shri T.V. Vijaya

Raghavan, Advo'-C._a;tj.e for 'R.lB&_' 2};  

(Shri P.P.~ Ra.o,'Sr. Ci;-;unsel'for Slhri; Raghavendra S.

Shrivatsa & _Shr1._--V_, Sririivasa Raghavan, Advs for M / s. Indus

Law for R3)'. ' V'  B  

( Shri Vivek s, Red,dy'-.Adv"fo1"R4},

[ Shri S.S. Naganand Szj. "Counsel for Shri S. Subramanya,

Adv for R5), and B' *

 _ { Sh1?ij--«:.S.G. Bhagavan_,___Aadv for R6]

    petition is ﬁled under article 215 of the
Constitution»ofiiridia read with Section 15(2) and sections 11
& 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to take

0 _ appropriate "action against the respondents/accused arising

'out of RF}?. 421/2009 (Misc. Civil No. 14057/2009}. VVhi1e

0"  ,disr:1issing the Misc. cm No. 14057/2009 the Hon'b1e Court

 "«viewed_« that
_ <_alCl_I1'lii11lSt1'at10n of justice and allegation pr1ma--{ac1e attempt

 "to contempt of court within the meaning of Sec. 2(0) of
, Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

the entire controversy is one affecting



This CCC coming on for further hearing and having
been reserved for pronouncement of orders this "day,
MANJULA Ci-IELLURJ, made the following: -. 

ORDER

This matter is placed before '"ﬂ";1'S' Court Hon'ble Judges of this Court differed order dated 8.2.2010 in ccc tcripﬁieo/2o'o9. V

2. The facts in which initiation of contempt proceedings are mentioned heAre=.i1'nder:.--'A..:tVh' ' o.s.7934,!oi_VV§i,ras izfiled .:i5efo.re'ti1e_.__c::ty Civil court by International Society for Krfi-shiiaigConsciousness. Bangalore, (for shoiijt a .society registered under the Societies Act," ]_86C;. Bombay. The suit was for deciaration o.f"tit1'e and permanent injunction, in respect of 'property of A~ISKCOvHNm«ten1p1e at Bangalore. The judgment tand,decree«.y§faVsV"ei.n.:~~favour of the plaintiff. RFA.-421/09 is filed chai1enging~ said judgment and decree. Similarly another

-~.___suit in Ov.,'$A§1758/O3 was pending between the same parties same came to be dismissed. Challenging the said udgmerlt: and Decree RFA423/09 came to be initiated.

3. RFA.42l /09 came up before a Bench consisting of Hon'ble Justice KL. Manjunath and Hon'ble Justiee.:'jC_.i?.V.A Kurnaraswarny. The appellants »~ ISKCON, ~ said appeal sought for early hearing. of S.K.V. Chalapathyi senior counsel for respondent no.1 ISKCON ternple and he hadvidnopobjpeertion * to proceed with the appeal for merits. The appeal came to be admivtted' on:-Tl

4. On 2.7.09, y {K-1 to club RFA.42I/20_QS§--,'.. refused and the matter was in matter was posted to 7.7.09. -'came be listed on 10.7.09. The Bench observed to the previous date of adjou,:r11rr1ent,u the'"learned Judges had received a cover 2'~photogra;)hs showing Justice KL. Manjunath also:'tviVth";~so~n1e writing below the photographs said to have__bee.11~ by Sri. Jayapatakaswamy Shishya Sarnooha. Beneh made an order, which would be referred to later. above said photographs were taken at ISKCON 'Temple at Bangalore in 2003, It was for the parties to explain how those photographs came to be sent in the name" of the opposite party. Therefore, both parties were d_ire_ctedV.vto explain by way of affidavits who could photographs. The matter again was b1isted."on'*-- and"

thereafter, the matter came JJ'lJI'ie"..p"i'L?.'-.'I_é meanwhile two letters said -to have "oeeriV'V'a'cidressed to._* Hon'ble Justice K.L. Manjunath:,"'«by two M one by Sri. Shekar Shetty Srinivasan was disclosed. Theletter Judge by Shekar Shettj '_to_;l'1aV'e colleague of Mr. S.K.V. Babu had approached Mr. to appear for one of the partiesVV1'inv'RFA.4:2_'another letter said that Mr. S.A. Martithi an Jadvocate approached Sri. S.V. 'JV"psriniirais-a.11;i-- A. requesting him to appear for one of the the said appeal. Hon'ble Justice K.L. M'a,njJunath'i:J3.:had worked as junior colleague under Sri. shekarvllﬁlhetty, a senior Advocate and Mr. S.V. Srinivasan, was"'~«pra.cticing along with Justice K.L. Manjunath till the efevation of Justice Manjunath. Mr. Maruthi Prasad was also 6 a junior colleague of Justice KL. Manjunath. Being embarrassed with the contents of the said two le't'te:i's,f"the Bench wanted to get clarifications. Hence they concerned advocate to file their affidavit,s._-'HHovveve1*,Vdtheseuu letters were shown to Mr. S.K.V. Ciha1zipat'hviandalso :"to'.1V:'r:. Udaya Holla.

5. Mr. S.K.V. vfjhalapathvn{inVVV'""the t)reseI'1"ce of his colleague Mr. Rarnesh the above said two Advocates Mr. Shekar Shetty and" light of the above submiss--ionsTA'o.f' C'hala--pathy, Mr. Rarnesh Babu and asked to file their affidavits.

However, "Ju§4.t:c§" Kﬁtliirriaraswamy --w one of the Bench directed "the re;gisVt.r_v___to. place the matter before a Bench to which Jvtustice'Kumaraswamy is not a Member. The detailed _ "lb referred to later. By 7.8.2009 both appellant V . and'.4'respfo.n'd'ent had filed their affidavits in pursuane of the Vidirccétioris of the Court.

6. On 11.7.2009 some newspapers reported the proceedings of the appeal dated 10.7.2009. I11"..l.3eccan Herald and Praja Vani it was reported that K.L. Manjunath had stopped visi,tir1'g s:mgai§:je""1»sKco:3I""

temple on the ground that he haci..'err{;eri;ainied"so'1ne9ﬁoui3ts and had cautioned the innoc-én't..deVote.e9s. V

7. The letters addressed: Justilce ilflanjunath and the recusal application are Very relevant. It is stated in this applic.ati_o*n filed by the ls' conternnor f_orA.cvor1te'z"1'ipt proceedings that after ﬁactualv hearing commenced on 2.7.2009 at Waited for 3 full days prior to 2.7.2009.'».fi'hereafter,_ regular Bench for hearing RF'As. WaF3.§:':.C1L1v3V;1}ged.V.'"ThC""P1f0C€€C1iI'lgS on 10.7.2009 pertaining to »anonyznouspletter, photographs and the statement of the leam'ed'V '{:'o.uris'ei for the 1*" conternnor was within the kno"wled.ge"of this contemnor. According to him, he had a I'eas_onable apprehension that Justice K.L. Manjunath was biased against the i~'f='*- contemnor. Therefore, he sought for recusal of H0n'b1e Justice K.L. Manjunath, from hearing:xRFA 421/O9. Order dated 7.8.2009 is also relevant in RFA.-4i21./ 2009 directed the parties to file V explanation. On 11.8.2009 at the refqgu'est"A_go£'At--:§e'--1eeifﬁee1"] counsel for the conternnors the rnattei-._ ad3'goguLr.ned" on: the submission that the matter is"Ve.n'trustedV"t0"sei-iioreécounsei Mr. Paikaday.

8. Meanwhile, iisted before another Divisi:0n"';B.en.ci1_ Manjunath and Justicev*B;V.=9.Nagarathn'a~.«0n Mr. M.M. Paikaday appearetdgand argued On 15.9.2009 the Division Bench found 'appropriate~':t0 initiate contempt proceedings «_vagai_nst VconteVn'in.0rs' 1 to 6 and directed the registry to plac'e«. before the Horfble Chief Justice. A separate orderedaisoiﬂeafne to be made by Hon'b1e Justice K.L. 01';/ianjaunath regarding certain events which had taken place "_fprioI*-._to 38.8.2009. This order of 15.9.2009 came to be

-- chailenged in a Spi. Leave Petition C.C.C. 15717/O9 before the Hon'b1e Apex Court. Their Lordships dismissed the V" 2 lliiangxlalorej _l "

Special Leave Petition observing that as the "matter has --been sent to another Court for consideration", thereIW'isl'p"--o;io' necessity to interfere with the impugned ordergand.1hr{lier'V "

held as follows:

However, we make it that ..'t_l1§ _ Division Bench shall C0§1:Si'!Tl€:I' rnatter'V:afre.s,hVVV untrammeled by the obselivaﬁons rnadlein the impugned order."v it ll ll V Thereafter, the matter came'l-tip Bench of Hon'ble Justice"Kp{V1'~ Sreedh:-ifrl Hon'b1e Justice Subhash B. 3* 9' 9l.:_ In this?'-".:3u_ol'emCvt_o'-contempt proceedings initiated against theu..clontemno"rs, are six contemnors. They are:

pisvt gontemnolrllis described as Secretary of ISKCON at is the President of ISKCON at Bar1g'i"..1l0f.«'_5:' > 3""... sCOI1tC1'I11'1OI' is a senior counsel Mr. S.K.V. :lChL&I_alpathy arguing the Case for the respondents in ;RﬁA.421/09.

10 4TH contemnor is another counsel Mr. RH. Ron___for Lex Plexus who had filed vakalath for the "respondents No.42l/O9 and he was instrL1cting/assisting: counsel Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy; 51" contemnor is another c'oun_sel. colleague of Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy; it it t I l 61-" conternnor is also c{m1§§§¢:1t: Maruthi Prasad, who was _g of tlustice K.L. Manjunath. t H V l l

10. After4ll§jearingail_ the.:_4partiés;--*"on 8.2.2010 Justice K. Sreedhalr'g.l.{'aoiI::A3bydirected dropping of the criminal against all the conternnors but Hon'E5ie,.Ju.sticetSu'bh'ash B. Adi directed continuance of the«.ipro'ceeding's--Vagainst; the contemnors 1, 3, 5 8: 6.

.i91*oceedi13gs:"were directed to be dropped against the Mr. Madhu Pandit Das and Mr. V.H. Ron.

Asthe two' Judges differed in their opinion, the matter was placed Before this Court for opinion. _'

11. According to Mr. Paikaday -- the learned counsel for the conternnor no. 1, on 10.7.09 both the senior cotznsels Mr. Udaya Holla and Mr. S.K.V. Chaiapathy arguinﬁofj' appellants and respondents informed the Court" it have utmost confidence in the CQuT't'~1Mh6fi t_he'"Ven\re1opesv--.' containing the photographs with some were in the Court. At that time, theiietwas no"a.pp'rehensi_:on Vofjany " V sort on the part of the 1st cpontetpnnorp for h*eariné of the appeal by Hon'bIe Justice 'According to the learned counse1,_co_py of .2009 was not furnished requested the matter Atrai1Vs»fe;1'redaitoaanother Bench or the Bench to recuse the matter. According to him tf:1'e'b_ias aliegedvxby the 151 conternnor is a reasonable one «in {few various events that happened. He further Aeontends.' statement of the judge was in the newspapers and"-.not__in Court proceedings and the affidavit filed by __ Vt1'1nep 13* ..c<);:1temnor has clearly mentioned what would be the of the statement of the learned Judge in the newspapers and how it creates an impact on the minds of the general public.

12. Relying on sections 14 & 15 Courts Act, he contends that thevﬁuthole Was wrong and therefore, according to him_.'therc° was"no'a justification for initiating acti"or1:""against.th'ejhvlstxcontemnor and submits that if partyvtt'ha'sve.:li'elasonahlleapprehension that a particular Court the same is expressed, of the Court.

With these; initiation of action against th'e'ai::'ove contempt proceedings by placing decisions. The relevant paragraphs.._of' each are mentioned below:

.S_up:reme Court Cases 513 in the case of .Asfi"~'Ar1; BENGAL AND OTHERS vs. SHIVANANDA '}xrgi.D~i;;'o;rHERs, the relevant paras are 24, 25, 29 and.4'33_"'-1:,' ll Paraw24: "Unlike suits, proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not conducted strictly following the provisions contained in the Code of Civil 13 Procedure but are held in accordance the procedure devised by the High itself under which a fair 11earing"*«lis~'..l__::

provided to the parties concerned l decision is rendered.

principles of natural ju.stic;eA-rat'etobserveﬁj strictly in letter and spiritf. Onebf requirements of natural justice is...th_atl'tvhe'" hearing should be »a judge unbiased mind ;.

.Para--25:'*BiasV'may be defined as a precoiitcc-ived--. opi1'1'ion" or" a predisposition Or pjred'e'te.1_'minjati'o~n to decide a case or an issue lr;-;,__a_particularmrgiiyanner, so much so _that%su_c'hj predisposition does not leave the n1ijnd:.l;opbe'11j_lto.conviction. It is, in fact. a, condition kof mind, which sways l V judgntents and renders the judge unable tlo~.j_exercise impartiality in a particular essential __\\® Para--29: As pointed out earlier, an of adjudication is that the judge is impartial requirement judicial and neutral and is in a position to apply his mind objectively to the facts of the if he case put up before him. is predisposed or suffers from prejudices org«.._ has a biased mind, he disqualifies hims.elf from acting as a judge. But Frank,__jJ."'of~ the United States in Linahan, In re_'_ in "If hOW€V€l?:, 4' 'partiality' be defined :'tolmean'v_i' = ' the preconceptions' the mind the Jndge, done has" ll ever had ,_'a no one w:a11;=:ii1;e¥ " htumaln fnind, 4 lnodblank are born ____ i3i'ith_ pi{e~dis'po-sitiolns... Much by the myth ~ by... taking the * oat;hA'~.olf"~o'lfﬁce as a judge, a '=:na_n ceases to be human and strips himself of all V hpredilections, becomes a by passionless thinking machine."

Para--33: Bias, as pointed out earlier, is a condition of mind and, therefore, it may not always be possible to furnish actual proof of bias. But: the ,9 courts, for this reason, cannot be said to be in a crippled state. There are ways to discover bias: for evaluating the facts and circumsta:n'cesAi.ovi'll the case or applying__,i1h,e tests""of;-+féa1'_' likelihood of bias"?__ I ilreasonablle-ir,___l it suspicion of bias", dev4'Smith in p'V.;ItA1lA'(:licial':."'--~ Review of Adrnin:i's'tratiVe .ACi'.iVdfi, Edn., PP262, explained that "reasonable 'siisp.ieio,rif"' te_st:looks mainly to outward --- fgrvhile "real likelihood" ; test ' on V-the'eourt's own In'{plv98'Z?.]l4' L-:'V1A3'\Pii'\.l«::J_Ifl'H TAHKUR vs. UNION or INDLAZAND stated as under:

«"glPara?'*l 7}' tests of the likelihood of , bias vﬁha't 'is"'releVant is the reasonableness of the a;pp1"e_hension'*"iii that regard in the mind of the party'; proper approach for the judge is not to _ __ llAlool§..VpatiAl.:his own mind and ask himself, however, A "Am I biased? " : but to look at the mind it l the party before him.

Para--18 Lord Esher in Allinson V. General Council of Medical Education and Registration" said:

16

"The question is not, whether in fact he was or was not The into cannot ' the . __ court that. In biased.

inquire administration 013 -_Aju it d it Whether by a reco.gniseld:'lelgal court or by personsa. WholfL.A. V' 2 although it court, __ rea(:tir1_g_fi1:1_ 'an sirr1ila1i_ capacity} pL}biic..V_ _' » ' " policy requires _:tl1C_re if it :6? the any person "" " 'talielvﬁpart in it be in such a he might be 'V suspeeted of being biased."

Para--19 : In Metropolitan Properties Co. Ltd, vs. Lannon", Lord Denning MR.

observed:

_ ''...in considering whether there was t a real likelihood of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the justice himself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or in fact favour one side at the expenseV..()_i_:"tl1te "

other. The court looks at the which would be givenwto other"

Even if he was as imtplartpial nevertheless if right--mind_ed'_persons.AWot:1d*:Tl'~~ it think that, in thelleirc-.u_mstanees,Vtiierefwas a real likelihood of on his then he should no i. sit. V In (1972) 3,SUPREME.VC¢'Ui3T.~~gAs'§;s--V"74o in the case of GOBIND .:oi%*'*iviA1~1ARAsTRA. their Lordships laeld:_a.s ' ' [iii]: gwhhich applications for ti*iansferll:a5=e:ll"'_made stand on a slightly different footing from those where a party iriakes"""an allegation, either inside or :'otitfside the court of a scandalising nature improper motives t.o the judge the case. But in the garb of a transfer application a person cannot be allowed to commit contempt of court by making allegations of a serious and scurrilous nature scandalising the court and irnputing improper motives to the 18 judge trying the case. But then the nature of the allegations will have to be closely examined and so long as they do not satisfy the requirements of what may be__.__ regarded as contempt of court punishment can possibly be inilicted.'..'~~~--. f A' Their lordships in the above case were referring application. It was held that though some flatit1.id'e'--.hlaVs'=to be .« given in a transfer application. but the .qu"estion'WasV whether ; or not the application in that casehad eiieeaeded the limits permissible under iaw; ;fl'i~aonsi'er :ap'p1ieati.ons maybe made under circumstances control, like acquaintance o«El_'tl1.e parties or personal interest in the subje<3.t'lmatt'e.rl. Buigpliyrhen the application contains material oynotl to lcnalign the personal integrity and particular Judge and has directly attacked the Aofhio-topadriis.riisc1;r,a§r1on of justice, it would amount to Contempt against _th'e.VlA§t*1dieiary. If necessary, the higher Court takes u""'-__l"'action "for: transfer after inquiring into the material and the p:."cir'e11riistances avaiiable, including the report of the Judge of it lower Court concerned. Therefore, transfer applications 19 stand on a slightly different footing from those Where a party makes direct attack against the Court. In the above case the applicant was an advocate who made the transfer application. Ultimately after considering the n1aterial*Vin«..the transfer application their Lordships held that . material constituting contempt of Court,__

13. Sri. RP. Rao -- learned se:nioI3'_'_'co'uns'el_"arguing. the 3rd contemnor contends th_at_Justice K, S.reec1'h--a_r "Rao * V has considered the matter aafr_el:s'h__ 't1ntran'i'n1eled_i§ by the observations made by the ljivision According to the learned: d._"fir1'dings that Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathyl has the application for recusal is contrary its t'he_'i:_nater1a'l on record because Mr. S.K.V. neither' drafted nor filed the same in Court. It is also 'coriteiided that the findings that Mr. lVI.K. Paikaday made' his "s';1b5'Inission seeking recusal of Justice KL. '.V.l\/lanj on the representation of Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy is it correct and the same is clearly explained by Sri. ' Chalapathy in his defence statement and the letter of M.1\/I. Paikaday corroborates the defence taken by Mr. 2!) S.K.V. Chalapathy. Therefore. in the absence of any__ other material, there ought not to have been an order -to against the 31" conternnor Mr. S.K.V. reliance on the following decisions_h.e_soughtlfor it ' the proceedings against the 3*'?! coritemln.or* Chalapathy, senior counsel: x V _ in [1969] 3 AH 13.12 1()__(§:3ll'2'.-..:_ir;.._v_the..case o{5RE BRAMBLEVALE, LTD. ;jit'~was.'lheldv"as_tinder H V /fhe appellaf1¢*\.4;v'ouy'/C';:,pe_:reiAe:a.se'd because conternrpth of «azofience of a ll mi.1é;t"b'é: proved with séch lligorisistent with the .. oi?;;A.the"-oileiice"charged and the court to be satisﬁed beyond ll'«reaso1i'able:.i.d.on'b_tl.that the appellant still had .ybovoks bolveinber 1968.

conternpt of Court is an offence of a character. A man may be sent to A it. It must be satisfactorily proved. the time--honoured phrase, it must be * proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. I'~.} Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against But there must be some other evidence;"'*---- .l In (1969) 1 sca 304 in the case_-'of BANDOPADHYAY and omses ifs. sir2§TE- lot' BENGAL AND ANOTHER, Vtir1e__.following arel'l'!}l1e4_vdrellexralnt1'; paras: V V l V "Para~9: whether there is contempt of court' orisa_.$_ei'ious_',tone. The court is both__ the'accuser_:'asfwell~ as judge of the Vthlellcoulrt to act with as gfgat,}:'1fEﬁ:ns;§é;§;:§r;laslpossibie making all ailowan'tj;es err of judgment and difficulties ai'is_ing clfroih..iiriyeterat.e' practices in courts and tribunals; when a clear case of V.Contu"macioL1..s conduct not explainable o:the1jwisel.'"a1fi.S.es that the contemner must be It must be realised that our system of often results in delay of one kind or an_otheVrl.i:: The remedy for it is reform and punishment departmentally. Punishment under theulaw of Contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged. "

In 1993 Supp{l) SCC page 529 in the    a

PAL Vs. HIGH COURT Of MADHYA" ' g. 

through Registrar, the following paras  'releirantrt    A

"Para-41: The po'slit1'Qr1 of law that from the above decisioln's.._ll'lis_Vthat"-the power conferred upon the..V_SuprerneV-ltgourtand High Court, being Cou1*£s-of Articles 129 and 215 of respectively is an inherent 'power igand jurisdiction vested1s_~..aA:'V-special;._ohe_ derived from any other ionlyl from Articles 129 and lWthe«LCQnstituiion of India [See e".*N.lTan'eja:v;7 ljlhlaj Manu /sc /01 1 5/ 1988:

, and therefore the gygconstitutioniallly yested right cannot be either V-l,a._.lab.fidged by legislation or abrogated or cut they be controlled or limited by or by any provision of the Cr.PC or any Rules. The caution that is to be observed in ex.e__rcising this inherent power by summary it lll"'--..procedure is that the power should be used "sparingly, that. the procedure to be followed should be fair and that the contemner should be made aware of the charge against him and given. reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In (2001) 3 scc 739 in the case of MR1r§tIN'gi-oi*i'§ji?;s_ AND ANOTHER Vs. SAYED HAS'I;E5URA OTHERS their Lordships While 'et:1diee'e1ng"'_the.. contemptuous conduct held» the powers the it Contempt of Court Act have to-«-bxeiiexercisedélcautiously and sparingly after effect of the contemptuous co'nduct.:"Th°e jurisdiction of contempt of the Courts.

Therefore,__pthe..in1age the mind of the public cannot contemptuous attack.

In (2o'o.1)*5_sc'c 551 in the case of Re: BINEER '"th'Ci~:"V Lordships held that the law of essentially meant for keeping the administration of justice epuifefland transparent. On one hand we must [strive maintain the dignity and majesty of the Courts at all "..costsi"but also bear in mind the jurisdiction of contempt is of Aspelcial nature and has to be sparingly used. CHHOTU RAM VS. URVASHI GULATI AND [2001] 7 SCC 580. In this case their Lordships ret_Verred"'to Lord Denning {in Brambievale Ltd- Re} and the4"é3arnie'. as below: -

"A contempt of court 'offence of criminal character. A niarirnayfbe 'sent for it. It must be sat,isfaVcto"ri]y pro'v<e_d';= ff'-1'o.}_1sef the tirnewhonouredu phrase,-fit-- fniust be"'proved beyond reasonable it proved by showing that, when about it, he t.o1d§~viir3s€_'-- further evidence"_«<._t.oV. Once some fies can be thrown into himfﬂ But there must be some._ Where there are two equa1!.yffconfsiste=nt possibiiities open to the court. it is tofhold that the offence is proved bieyoridp reasonable doubt."

_ referring to legal phraseology "he who asserts rritijst:5' prove" opined that the Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction whiie dealing with the proceedings A :f'"C.Qf1fL€ITlpt matters {quasi--crim.ina1] has to see that standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding proof beyond reasonabie doubt.

BIJAY KUMAR MAHANTY VS. JADU ALIAS RAM CHANDRA SAHOO (2003) 1 SCC 644. In this case alsopihdtheir Lordships were of the opinion that the case dthie conternnor has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt ash contempt proceedings under the Act are 'qt:.asi~cirim_ir1al.._ 'V NARENDRA SINGH & ANa_._ v STATL: oFeMl;ié.(2o04;) .10 , SCC 699. The learned places'-.relia5nce:§ on this decision to contend by the High Court that, what committed by the 3"' p nio could have been initiatedddagainrati According to him in the absenceof that 31"" conternnor took active parti"*'eitherdrafting the recusal application or the 15¢V""conetemnor to file such application, no Vconteifnpt'proceedings could have been initiated against the p it .

3*?' c'onternnor_.5' ' BRAHMAJEETSING SHARMA Vs. STATE oV1a*"MAHARAsHTRA AND ANR, (2005) 5 sec 294. In this case their Lordships referring to article 21 of the 26 Constitution opined that presumption of innocence is to be Article 21. not only gives treated as a human right.

protection to life and liberty but also contemplates a fair procedure.

106. in this case the allegation was, a senior ad{?'oVcate"~and la b defence counsel had committed of Lordships held that nature and stand'ard'--of proofAreqtii1iec.lt'in'V a proceeding under contempt"'vs.to'fuCourt._Wa.sf'.= of procedure, that is, strict*"c.omplianCe:'of \fr':--1._tural'jVi1'stiVce. As a matter poi"'raclt;;;tm¢i%; "iowrdships"lobserved that principles of natural Vvjustice nzith--,,giteate1- rigour than any other proceedingsf.,Therefore-'according to their Lordships, Court '3:'.oliow ova p1*olced1,.tre that is fair and objective, resulting i'n,.Vni3.1prejuvdice----_to the person facing the accusation of contempt.' further observed that a person against fpwhorn accusation of Contempt was made. should know what "..fe>:xactly isﬂthe allegation made against him. R.K. ANAND vs. DELHI HIGH COURT [ 20o9}_p»s'__'_s'eC' . :\£p ..

14. The learned senior counsel Mr. Naganand arguing for the conternnor no. 5 Mr. Rarnesh Babu cont.ends tha:t.pt.he 51-" contemnor had no role to play in the entire V. RFA or the recusal application. According contents of affidavit filed in a of application at paras 8, 10 and 13 that. thellmostliriayi. facie point out accusations of 'o_ia's.pagairist 'lthe"vCo*:irt"niade by contemnor no.1. Thereforer;**this advocate'd--i.d.-not have any role to play except th-at_'he of Mr. S.K.V. 15V.llAccor;1ing'7to' the,learned"senior counsel, the Bench while passing the 15.9.2009 had not acted in accordance the. procledure contemplated under section ._i_/i ._f(:3entempt'o«f----C0urts Act, 1971. Invoking of section r1vot'*.varra--nt.ed. In that context the matter came to be challenged the Apex Court. As per the records, '.Vneit.her..oln.:_ 31.7.09 nor on 7.8.09 the two letters alleged to 0' ll..:iiave0''««.l:>een written by Mr. Shekar Shetty and Mr. S. 3' '.

' Srinivasan were seen by the conternnors 5 E»: 6. According to these two Advocates were never approached by Mr. 28 Rarnesh Babu and Mr. Maruthi Prasad. The direction was only by Hon'ble Justice KL. Manjunath as Hon'ble Justice C.R. Kumaraswatny had dictated a separate order. ;'As a matter of fact, inspite of conternnor no.5/. H knowledge of the said letter, filing a memo seekiiég for M of the said letter, the same was"not-

According to him the learned Judigex dated 15.9.2009 had no "to. earlier C' proceedings. in the absence Qi':"'1'w'.'[-1."."'~RV&1-IlpleshaBE'xb1;lWl{1'1OWiI1g the contents of the letter said'std?Vhatilee-tbeieii.written by Mr. Shekar Shetty,vit.:is --any- opportunity of being heard. iibeing at'fc;1*de'd _to_:hin1*. -' Therefore. the question of initiating contempt proceed.ings against him would not arise. So far asv*----l'.---tr'. Mamthi Prasad -- conternnor no.6, L Ivir; E3._Gv...gCB'ih'agaV*an senior counsel arguing for him contends that'"61?1 coni;e1:hnor was not the advocate on record and he was not: even an instructing counsel. therefore, the ffobsleivation of the Division Bench that conternnor no.6 was appearing for the parties, is also wrong. They also refer to "Rule 10 of the High Court under Contempt of Court proceedings. Placing reliance on the following citations and the meaning of several Words and phrases, they"Vs:ee'l{"--VVfor dropping of the proceedings against contemnort-s:no:s:l." it DEBI PRASAD --vs-- EMpEI§oii"[AIR'--.[3o) COUNCIL 202}. in this case their'Lordshipsvjohsvervedllthatr.L scandalising the Court itself of the~-s_peci_"es contempt V and also a rare one. 'Ihe.refo1:e';"1't. to he treated with much discretion. It and always with reference togjthe They further held that afford not to be too sensitivvet;-vs. such a way as not to affect l"the'-- justice, he has the ordinary remedies he feels the compulsion to use them. it Their held that the material did not reveal danyu(;1iivticis.m"~--.of the Chief Justice in his administrative llcapnacitly not amount to contempt known as scaln'dal'ising'.lthe Court.

-:lT_«PARAsHURAM DETARAM SHAMDASANI --~vsw KING EMPEROR [1945 ac. 264]{PRI\/"Y COUNCIL]. in this case 30 litigant was appearing in person and during the proceedings before the Court, said to have insulted the oppos1ngV.tcoiinsel during the arguments. Their Lordships 'ii-;_l._1TW. cases of criminal contempt as a first questio--1'i"one' has to see " * whether the conduct on its facts arnounfto li11__lav;.l The answer depends on What wasehsltated manner it was stated and the it was stated. The test, lookirigat does it, or might it tendgto obst_1ftv1:'ct_ of justice. Their Lordship'sl'*gf:u:1':*the:itg thatVll'it;t1e.....summa1-3,7 power of punishing iised sparingly and only in serious: cases Liealing with-.,__tI:.e [case of Criminal Contempt. They further' obseifil/e'eiA"t}ila't._ summary power is something which .31 Cot1i*tumustV'necessari1y possess. However, its . 'uselfulné-ss clepends the wisdom and restraint with which be exercised.

Inhthel: case of PERSPECTIVE PUBLICATIONS --vs- Voir MAHARASHTRA {AIR 1971 so 2211, their Lorclships while dealing with the newspaper article 3 I Containing scandalous allegations against a Judge of the High Court held at para 17 as under:

"17. There can be no manner of that in this country the principles ~'-' should govern cases of the present_.l.<._in_d..Var:e" i now fully settled by the previous« decisions of V this court, we may restate'=ireVsult. o'f_the discussion of the abovscasesl this contempt which is by means eXh_aues.tivel;;:

(1) It will not be" _é,;1y-. tliat committal y for _cc§r1;:e"fnlp:t ysleandalizing the courthave [215 by way of ' '?be::exe_rcise with great and only when its exerciseV"*i.sl"'necessary for the proper of law and justice:

{3} lIt»is___op.en to anyone to express fair, reasonable and legitimate criticism of act or conduct of a judge in his judicial capacity of even to make a proper and fair comment on any decision given by him because "justice is not a cloistered virtue and she must. be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men."

in the case of CK. DAPHTARY VS- O.P. 1971 SC 1132} their Lordships observed Judgment is criticised as containing. ,errorsMcoufpledV with criticism of dishonesty on the part {of Judge', trying the contempt of Courtl_c'annoti'act asC',ani.:.ap,peliate Court and decide Whether ti'1ere:llare«e_-rrors' orlvnotﬁ While referring to some passagesl:,"i"ro1;r_1 the of the NEVADA Supreme Court (USA) vw"1iereinV*--a11 had made a statement about reversalﬁ of Ctriall it Court order by the Supreme they quoted as under:

4_ "'--'Ifaiiyillconsiderable portion of a isvlled to believe that, either becausei*----ef'gross ignorance of the law or 'because of a worse reason, it cannot rely ,:_t1piov'n"'the Courts to administer justice to a ~ charged with crime, that portion of the community, upon some occasion, is very likely to come to the conclusion that it is better not to take any chances on the Courts failing to do their duty. Then may come mob violence with all its detestable At para 61 of the Judgme1:it:»Vth'e3f f1_.1I'T't11~tt':;:1'; under:

33 features. To say that respondent meant no disrespect for this Court is contrary to the plain meaning of the language and the order directing that it be upon the minutes of the district V'-it Respondent "1. contends.

present law p-laces. pAun~reaeo.na.3f)1e restrictions "bi-"Lcause;.j_it. "se1~xzes_p no useful purpose, andeven a_scurri~1ous_'vattack on a Judge_ does [not affec-tgadrninistration of hjusticéyifle' f_1Ll1_'th¢1' says that after a case _if--a_Vfudgment is severely ' and.even.uiifairlfcriticised, and assuming v"*.tha_t an adverse effect on the administration of justice, it must be "ba1anced""against the harm which would ;erisi1._e if such criticism is stopped. We are .uriah1e to agree with him that a scurrilous ' attack on a Judge in respect of a judgment or past conduct has no adverse effect on the due administration of justice. This sort of attack in a country like ours has the effect inevitable of undermining the confidence of the public in the Judiciary. If 34 confidence in the Judiciary goes. the due administration of justice definitely suffers."

In the case of GOBIND RAM --Vs-- s"1*A?}3; MAHARASHTRA {AIR 1972 so 989} their Lord.'si:ipsl.::whi1ep'" dealing with the allegations againstfpAthe.,,('y3oEL1i'tp ilnpla. t1"anpsierc application on the question whether "ant1'ounts»vto have held as under:

"The ' Ai_fnere.'lAd stateinveiﬁt in 'A "an application for fa,vl\/Iagistrate is friendly W:i.1lh"a' happens to be enj_o"ysVlv4his hospitality or with him will not it unless there is an some improper motives as wouldl"'amount. to scandalizing the court 'A._i--t:s:'el,f__ and as would have a tendency to distrust in the popular mind and the confidence of the people in the courts. it is true that in the garb of a . transfer application a person cannot be allowed to Commit Contempt of Court by making allegations of a serious and scurrilous nature scandalizing the court ,.,\\m 35 and imputing improper motives to the judge trying the case. But then the nature of the allegations has to be examined and so long as they satisfy the requirements of % regarded as contempt-.of punishment can be inflicts;-d..f'--r'

17. The learned counse'lVl'ra:lso _refei'r-ediito Law of Contempt of Courts, 'Legislatu:r€s._ and Servants"

written by Mr. K.J. on contempt of court by an advocate' L';-":;7.,$0licji.toIf »vhereir1~i.tis..Stated as under:

it contempt of court V dd ._ by solicitorn é1}_to' prejudice, bias and malice 'V Judge in the course of his judicial 'to write to another solicitor that the Judge prejudged issue of fact;

to publish book containing scandalous allegations of a pamphlet or improper and even corrupt motive against Judges:

36

d) to refuse to argue before a particular Bench since his client did not so wish;

e) to state in the Bar Association that theiy "man in the street" has lost confidVe.n_ce"s."~ in the administration of justice State; if d I) to snatch a document manibus curiae and to destroy " ~ '

g) attacking the integgrity Aofya saying that he wasvufa;bcontrac'torl_of the Municipal in collusion if the ii'vv§.CV'_<),1L1i:1.1issioner and that he was 1 "('jo1n1nr's.

Asagainlstati1is}--th'e learned Government Advocate supportinguthet suo' proceedings contends that the very recusaillv application filed by the contemnor no.1 is a ﬁ0i1«t,¢i1i§)t {tn-the face of the Court. He refers to Rule 5 of the to Article 215 of the Constitution of India V _ to contetid that the power of the High Court to punish a dcontemnor is neither restricted nor trammeled by ordinary if legisiation. Therefore, the power has to be used sparingly " ~a1'1d the procedure should be fair. He also brought to the 37 notice of the Court that the contemnors nos. 5 & 6 have not filed affidavits inspite of the direction of the Court regardiiig the two letters of Mr. Shekar Shetty and Mr. S. He relies upon the following decisions:

in the case of PRITAIVI PAL --Vs.< ~i~i1_c;g ix:/iv._1D.*-_ it "

[AIR 1992 sc 904), their Lordshiplsg while power of Supreme Court and ~,Court"to puni.shfc'oiiteihpt * it have held as under:

"15\ ..,.g'i'ior'*.g.tQ{.yV:.theL':iContempt of Courts Act, 197']c;'_ii:t was:.yheIdV ttlat the High COuIft"}1.,2t$' int_1erent: p'ov(rer--..to_gyV}i1ea1 with 21 ~01' summarily and to adopt its provided that it gives a A"fai'r_ and opportunity to the c'o'ntertinor "defend himself. But the "proced'ure____hyas now been prescribed by 3 :C""C:Se:cti.o11 15 of the Act in exercise of the ' CG'»-tioiyersconferred by Entry 14, List 111 of the Schedule of the Constitution.

. the contempt jurisdiction of the C ;Supreme Court and the High Court can be regulated by legislation by appropriate Legislature under Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List Hi in exercise of which the \f\ 38 Parliament has enacted the Act 1971, the,-.__ contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Couiit and the High Court is given constitutional foundation by declaring to be Record' under Articles 129 and Constitution and, there'foret,-itthe«'--inheren't at power of the Supreme Courtitand the High C' it Court cannot be away it legislation short _ cons'titutio,na§ amendment.' the Act lays down that the shall be in addition of the of other" relating to "o.+'» -'it necessarily foiiows iiii 'Vti'1a:t}jthexffconstitutional" jurisdiction of the the High Court under it cannot be curtailed by anf'y'tl%1ii;é',.~"in"'.the.. Act of 1971. The above p.osition'o--£..l.aw has been Well settled by this _ in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. The Chief it and Judges of the Pepsu High 1954 SCR 454 : {AIR 1954 so 186), holding thus:

"In any case, so far as contempt of a High Court itself is concerned. as distinct from one of a subordinate Court, the Constitution Vests these rights in every High 39 Court, so no Act of a legislature could take away that jurisdiction and confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority"

16. it has been further observed: A' "The High Court can deal" « summarily and adopt All that is necessary is pro'c.eci~u.re it is fair and that h'i_e"'~conternn.er aware of the charge hini'giyen a fair and re;-ilsaifiableHopjioﬁtinity to defend himself."

in the case-lof. RAJASTHAN HIGH c.c;iiiR:'if'~,[.(2oe;3;3'-secit 2;;-2v:2};° their Lordships while upholding the "High Court held that the said irnputationx'1i'estulted._in;lowei'ing the dignity and authority of .~,&_the and 'tWas____an, affront to the majesty of justice. Further .V'thei«rr'Lordships on the question of freedom of Article 19{l){a] of the Constitution, held

-j that .uthe""v1ia'biiity of free expression cannot be equated or iyecoiifujsedlll with a licence to make unfounded and iiii'-eslplonsible allegations against the judiciary. 40 Regarding the scope of submissions to be made by a Counsel before the Court, it was held that the unfoijynded and irresponsible allegations against the judicia13r,'_g'Vbyi'than advocate merely on the instructions of hisV__c_lient--f.is'not"

permissible as an advocate is not merely an agent' Qr"se1fvant of his client but is also an officer_of tlllourt. " ° Regarding the rights and of an this regard, it was held thatithgere more' serious than an act of an advocate obstruct or prevent the .y destroys the confidence or the" people, i41';.«:,t'»"31«1"C171Vé£dfI1i11iS1.I"atiO1'1. In the it --vs- JUDGES or NAGPURHIGH c'oU'i§'i":.iAi:ri"i955 so 19 (Vol. 42, C.N. 6)} the1r§_,;o1"d ships"havehel'=:1 as under:

Theiact however remains. as found by Court. that there was at the time events happened considerable "----V:m'is'conception amongst a section of the it Nagpur Bar about advocatebﬁresponsibilities in matters of signing transfer applications containing allegations of this character. it cannot be denied that a section of the Bar is \f\ 4 I under an erroneous impression that when a counsel is acting in the interests of his client, or in accordance with his instructions he is discharging his legitimate duty to his clientlxg even when he signs an application or:

pleading which contains matter '7' the Court. They think that when...tV_h'ere:vA.li:s _ conﬂict between their obligatio'r1s the and their duty to the client}theglatter'prevs1il.s_5:-.,,.l:T A This misconception: has tohel1'ootedl'oti»t..};)y a clear and emphatic pronouncements,-landgwe think it shouldggbe xiii-cislgfnisicie known that counsel who sigh..app11C;1ti'o«n'L-3ijor_ pleadings containing matter=.scan:;lai'i2ing=" -the Court 'satisfying themselves 7--.about the:"~priniassg._fa'Cieh existence of adequate groundsl"th'érefor';*~._with a view to prevent or delay vlcou-rse of justice, are themselves .,gui,1ty olflcontempt of Court, and that it is no a counsel to his Client to take any 1 such applications; on the other his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this llnature in such applications. Once the fact is recognized as was done by the High Court here, that the members of the Bar have not fully realized the implications of their signing such applications and are firmly under the belief that their conduct in doing so is-"in accordance with professional ethics. it of _, 5-4-

be held that the act of the two appel'l'a:n--ts;-i_n'. i.- l this case was done under a Inistalgentigvieizer it their rights and duties.;"'an--d J_:'ase.s; even a qualified apologg/'r considered by a Court."

19. Then coming to the the preseiiti ease, the Registrar General of tlieﬂfiigli to paras 68 & 69 in the orders dated... to initiate suo moto erim1'naiteohtegmplizppitoleeedings against the eontemnors in this_.easeA.gu':iSaid'two 'paragrap'hs-- read as under:

* the contents of the affidavits' . it and on behalf of _ -- applieanlt/l1'espondent No.1 it is evident that first re_spo_11dentl'iiau'V invited Manjunath, J, to the A * --. ternplegland after the pooja as per custom he was 'with a photo frame of the temple deity ll an.dllprasadam. The photographs were taken on t snehloccasions and the same has been sent in " 4_ the name of the appellant by courier. While referring to the newspaper reporting of the court proceedings dated i0-07.2009, it is stated in the affidavit ﬁled by the applicants/respondent No.1 43 that if the statements "attributed to have been made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. lV£anjunath",;'"---

"if correct" demonstrates prejudice against first respondent. Therefore, the applicant --1- even Sure if the statement reported in 0' could be attributed to Manju'nath«.J&, jiilvtsoli whether they were correct. In":.tfact"the Sn'. Jai Chaitanya Das was__.person_ally court along with his cou'i1s"el., Sri. Prasad and Sri.,. . S.K.V;'*" Cphalapathi; 0 "Senior Counsel, who participated in 3the.0pr:oceedings on 10.07.2009 and exprelssedhufull CiorViti'eV1_'€;Vri;Ce in the Bench the this the applica_tion_ be_enti_leci", at the same tinie"'i' sea-teﬁ&i;:iig 10.07.2009 when issue of the courier with Chalapathi, Senior Counsel' instar:tIy°.reacted that the court should the 0' "sai.d....courier and photographs and ., 'pI'00Af;C!;1r'~XVith further hearing of the appeal, clleparlty indicated full confidence, trust and ,_.000Faith.'0t7L_the applicant/respondent No.1 in the tltcourtrvltf that was the instant reaction on the part of the counsel for the applicant/respondent * l'Jo.1 on 10.07.2009, we fail to understand as to how the said counsel could have filed the application attributing bias against \

-J 44 Manjunathd, on the basis of the newspaper reports of I 1.07.2009.

deponent "the apprehension of the respondent»..f"~,."' According to tl'1ep"'"= No.1 th.at Hon'ble Mr. Justice KL. Manjunathl -1- having bias and prejudice againstu_"--...the:'. Respondent 1 has started only' on"the 'readinghofp the newspaper on 1l.07.200:9'A'. f:W'nile'~.sta.ti11g so, it was also stated that respondent expressed full confidehlo'e.:"in the'._oouit 'on 10.07.2009 through thei*1' ..""_¢m'j1:-gel. the counsel for resplonde_ntl~_ L 1*' expressed conﬁdence in the matter, then we the very same _c>ou*nsel_, ¢o1','1l.c_i._p_haye vfdrafted and filed an applioatio:i1 should recuse himseif froint'-».hearii1.g""* the appeal, while the deponent: claims .i'i1no'oence and bonafides on the basis of _the-.vstat-enlient made by the Senior V forAAt"he...respondent No.1 on 10.07.2009 to _vig"nore'~--.the letter and photographs and to V to-l"1ear the matter. Nevertheless the 0' application has been ﬁled alleging bias on the parttof the Manjunath.J. Para No.69 : "Under the circumstances we 0' are of the considered View that this is a fit Case where suo motu Contempt action has to be 45 initiated against Sri. Jai Chaitanya Dasa @ Jainarayan K, S/0. Mr. K.C.D. Nambisan, Agedgz 42 years, Secretary of respondent No.1, Madhu Pandit Das, President of Respo_riden»t_'V-..,: No.1, Sri. S.K. V. Chalapathi, Snr. Counsei..,V:.Srfi;V~ h V.H. Ron (Lex Piexux}, Sri. Ra'n'iesh Sri.S.A.MaruthiPrasad,AdVt's." i' V

20. It is relevant towsee " V contempt means and the proeedxiim -.€Qnternp}.g1te§1fi under Contempt of Courts 19? V 2 (c) defines criminaicontemptas ('C :j:__"iC.rim«i1iaI contempt" means the" (yvhether'._'by'ywords, spoken or vvr.iAtte.n, visible representations, or otherwise}. or the doing of any Wlher aet i_2:sfi1at§soe'Ver'\i\Ihich-- ' it [i] uiiscandaiises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to x A'i'-Liower the authority of any court: V p or prejudices, or interferes or tends it to interfere with, the due Course of any judicial proceeding; or {iii} interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to 46 obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner:

21. Section 14 refers to the procedure.Iwhdethderid* contempt is in the face of a Supreme Court ta" S which reads as under:

(1) When it is alifegedp, orA"'a.ppears_ Supreme Court or the Hiughycourt its down view, that a person ha_sf"beecnc._guii.ty of contempt committed in its the Court may cause such' fvbeﬁ detained in custody, tirne:_4Vbefore't}'ie rising of the Court' early as possible thereaiter,;fsha.ll«-at it St _ .(a)-{V..,_cause_f_him--to be informed in ' _writing*Of"t.he«."contempt with which he is=.charged--:._ ' fb}. _ VS 'afford him an opportunity to m'ai:e..his defence to the charge:

"{c)'"a_f1:er taking such evidence as may if necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and (cl) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just.

47 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

section [1), where a person charged with.-=__ contempt under the subsection applie's_.t:"'««.4_f'~t. whether orally or in Writing, to haV__c;""tli.e_~ charge against him tried by some Judge-other L"

than the Judge or Judgesv.in'whose prelseunfcel or hearing the offence is allregedtrj h'aye~.been':}.ir,,, committed. and the Court is of opinionvtliait it is practicable to and T1.'_1Va't- in interests of propel' admiin'istr"ation'o'fvj.1,1sti§ce the application*«._.si1ou.ld foe " it shall cause the matter with a statement Of the before the Chjef"'Jaustic'.e 'forpsiuychgdirections as he may llthitil-{fit to:?is'su'e.a's respects the trial thereof. [3}ANotwithstanjdlnvgtanyithing contained in any other 1aw.:_in~, trial of a person charged V with clontevmptv under sub--section[ 1} which is pursuance of a direction given under it [2]. by a Judge other than the Judge-F'or Judges in whose presence or hearing "offence is alleged to have been committed, if shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the statement placed 5:8 before the Chief Justice under sub-section[2] shall be treated as evidence in the case. {4} Pending the determination of the charge; :_. é Court may direct that. a person contempt "under this SeCt44i.(:."[1>">VS1Tia11 be detainedfi in such custody as it may specjifyl:

Provided that he 'be relea.sed.uQn: a bond for such sum ol*'zn_on.ey as Court, thinks sufficient"'is or Without sureties conditioned' charged shall atteindu at a1'1ci»--place«V:rnentioned in the ;.continv_e" toso attend until (iogurt:

A u that the Court may, if it thinks 'fit,«V taking bail from such person; vdVi:sch'arVge. him on his executing a iljond w;it1i1o._ut.«'sureties for his attendance as _ A aforesaid.

SectTion 15 refers to cognizance of criminal

--V conte'1I1Q"t_in'other cases other than referred to under section it V' ViZi,*w_hich reads as under: "{1} in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, .,,,.«,m_.-

49 the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by-

(a) the AdVocate--General, or

(b) any other person, with the consent "ll writing of the Advocate yGene_'r'a"l," "

(c) in relation to the Union Territory of 4D_elhi, such Law Officer as the_](3.entraI .GovVernrn.e'n't~' may. by notific_ation--.Vin the.l_'Q'fficvi7al Gazetten:-;:pecity in thisbehalf, or any other persgn' 'With __thef_'V.co'nsent in wﬁting of' such ll 2 (2) In ctifltempt of a Court may take Qactionv l »areference' made to it by the on a motion made by the"'Acivocate§Gen.eral or, in relation to a Ep__:[}1:i_on ', by such Law Officer as the 2 _V G-overnrnent may, by notiﬁcation in 'p Oifieial Gazette, specify in this behalf. if VEye'1}y'lVmotion or reference made under this it ,. section shall specify the contempt of which * s 4_ the person charged is alleged to be guiity. 'l*3xplanation-- In this section, the expression "Advocate«GeneraI" means,»

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court. the Attorney-General or the Solicitor~'T'»i General :

(b) in relation to the High Cou1fL,;l«. l"

Advocate~General of the «A of the States for has been establishefci;

(C) in relation to"fthe_.co1irt of Va Commissioner, lsu_c'ii _ Lavv'-.Q_llflicer has the Central lby notification: ' i_ _ Gazette,

23. lﬁmmakes it clear that they presclribeiiiprocfetiure.alfor (iifferent types of Cases.

Section lléi is in 'procedure when contempt is in the face of Suprerrle CVo;Jrt~--V_or'~.-High Court and Section 15 refers /._to thellones.tl1at fall under section 14. A reading of.these'.provisio--r1s further clarifies that the present case is not complaining criminal contempt other than the complaint referred to under section 14. Therefore, none provisions referred to in section 15 would apply in the ' sftrictlfsense. Hence. even if the Advocate General has given consent 01' permission to prosecute. it would not affect the proceedings in question and the proceedings cannot be referred to sec. 15 of the Act. it would be useful t:o"re;fef-to the case reported in Y.N. GANGADHARA PRAKASH RI/EDDY MD. KARNATAKA ;xfE.'p'MiI;K it PRODUCIS FEDERATION, AIR 200-3 '64o~vg;ii:§ifei}1»:"ifr«x}§}a--s_ held as under:

it is. ciear fr'orr1"a';per'usal of HSection 14(1) of thetaiingpiixitiating a contempt pro-ce.eding.ypatndddtvheiii contempt is;"aiiegf'-edly:--_coirnmittedv face of the to_inform the alleged ____ H _co.nte:rn,nors_:" the charge of _ _conternpty then afford them an d their defence to the discharge -__ar.-.d 'thereafter on taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may offered by the persons and after them, proceed either forthwith or 'adjournment to determine the matter ' the charge and may make such order for the punishment or discharge of such persons as may bejust.

These four steps provided under Section 14(1) of the Act are mandatory in nature. These steps have been engrafted under the statute following common la,W'--..p traditions in other countries and possibly keeping in View the --'--

principle that in contempt proceedings,'_ the Court acts both:-¥as"--Jnd'ge accuser, rolled into one, the"

must act with: ntmost.__'rest1'ainht'_A caution and must all tile requirements liberty of' persons is involved: Leila :¥o.s- State of Maharasthrct,

24. 'section 14 refers to procedt1re__to *Wyhe.re contempt is on the face of the Supreme 'Court "or VCourt. Apparently, when it appeared.upon'"i.tsown View that the conternnors were guilty "or ,co'I1te}n:pt',u no proceedings as contemplated under the said 'section was. ini'tiated on the same day. But initiation was only"««thereafterA. The order dated 15.9.09 is to be considered only aswthe View of the Court that contempt has been ' _rC.OvVI',11.I1'.1'1"tt€Ci as no proceedings were initiated as contemplated " inxithe I part of sub--section [1] of section 14. Therefore, the "xx '4 53 next stage contemplated is as per sub--section [I] of Sec. 14 at (61), (b), {C} 81 (Cl).

25. Apparently, upon the View expressedtdzyd dated 15.9.2009, when the mattermwas p'lac'ed_': the Hon'b1e Chief Justice, the matter wasipiaced:"'bei'orefthC Division Bench which had rthea rosterdxofp contempt proceedings. There""«wasu difference opinion between the two Judges..V:pregai.rda§--ngf§; "comrni.ssio11 of contempt and one of the Jtidges opined th.at.p11o"cov1iteriipt is committed and the other{J dthaftfconteinpt was committed by some ofthve, cointeaffg:.nors«..»

26. uAppareritiyV,A*the.:.photographs and the writing below themes. was disc'us_s_e_d. in the open Court in detail in in the order dated 10.7.2009 which reads as under: V' "

H "The matter was heard in part. After the Vfﬁcase was adjourned, We have received a cover 0' 'ffwhich contains two photographs said to have been sent by Jayapataka Swami Sisya Samuha. V4; A 54 These photographs were taken when one of us Justice K.L.l\/Ianjunath had given a visit tog'? ISKCON Temple, Bangalore somewhere in year 2003. The photo contains a presentatiialnl if .;. a picture of deity. Below the photogra_pli~--..it' é stated as hereunder:

1. RFA 421/O9 is pending, before .:J_f.1Astic"ell K.L.Manjunatl'1

2. Parties in RFA"=i=.21/09Wa1*elj4I§KCON «ll/Iurribai Vs. ISKON, Bangalo1'e_,'~ " Z V'

3. Above association of JusticevK. receiving gifts at the prerfiisesiiof luS"f:E3';CC5§\l3l"Ba1igl.g'alore.

4. "lns'pite' of association starting from 2003 Va1';_d'cont1nue of receiving gifts ...... .:

.«§;Jus~i;ice K'.L--..Manjt7.nath is still hearing the above 09, for reasons best to it lp5;v-:l\2ioraE.liy..and ethically is it right? honest Judge and to continue with the high reputation of Justice K.L.Manjunath, is he 'wright in hearing of this matter at all'??? Your well wisher \\f\ C.C.: 1.. The Honourable Chief Justice of lndia And all his other companion Judges.

2. Honourable Chief Justice of Karnataka

3. Honourable Justice KumarasW.an1y,..'_'i- High Court of Karnataka.

4. Fourth Estate." ._ These photographs were wthe "

learned Senior Counsel"'gappearirig 'the appellant Sri.Udaya Hollal*.agnd_g 1earne_df':Se1i;§or Counsel appearingfor Chalapathy. Srilldaya that his client has not clisliattrfliledl t.\11,¢; there was no occasiion get: the 4pho'to'w,b.lerein Justice ltl:.L.Manji;.natl§.Vg'receiying aMphot.o of deity from ISKCCQN; Bangalore§i'--.since the dispute between 1sKoN_y,i' Mutnbai_," isKoN, Bangalore was there mur.?hVVearl'f.er to Justice K.L.l\/iangunath '-l.._/€'vis'iiinggthe terriple. He further submitted that it client have got full faith in this court has been dispatched by the re.j3pondent HSKCON, Bangalore} to bring bad iiarne to the appellant and also to scandalise the it 'Clyjudiciary and requests the Court to hold an enquiry.

Sri S.K.V.Chalapathy, learned senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that 56 he and his clients have full confidence in the court and that his clients are not responsible for:T"»u sending the cover with photographs.

Sri.S.A.Maruthi Prasad, Advocate :"

assisting iVIr.S.K.V.Chalapathy in the « behalf of the respondent is present Hall. According to Justice "

ISKCON, Bangalore 'invited l'-him it't1ro;ughW S.A.l\/Earuthi Prasad and the othelr°H:on'lale Judges of this court were in;Vj"ite'd.._ by ISKCON, Bangalore through ' '. J Ll?'rasad and he had taken most~«offthe'lSKCON, Bangalore.'l'g.g_:f' He also; 'working under Justice K;tL.llV/ianiltinatlﬁ; a. junior" 'lawyer when Justice KjL.l\/i'ar1}una;t'h_ dwas'p_racticing as a lawyer. Inirorderto' ascertain the actual facts, We A.5s'1terrog'at_edi....S1'i'§'S.A:Maruthi Prasad in the ._""3presengce of""botth' the learned senior counsel A _g appearing_ for the parties. Sri.S.A.Maruthi a'd..n'1it;ted that prior to 2003 in all on l' [threellotzclasions Justice K.L.I\/Eanjunath on his li:1\f'i*.:Vatvion has visited the temple and he further is ; adrnittied that he alone was taking all the Judges to ISKCON. Bangalore, on festival days. On looking into the photographs he admitted that what was given as a gift in the photo is only an Eta.

57 ordinary picture of Lord Krishna with a wooden frame in a presentation cover and no valuable gift has been given to Justice K.L.l\/Ianjunath by ISKCON , Bangalore.

whenever Judges have visited ISI'{C:0Ng';V.. Bangalore, photographs have be'en..taken those photographs are the: lIrSl{CCl\];~»':....,,__ Bangalore.

Considering the contents in the cover W.it;h the photographs, vve are of..the._opinion that itﬁis a black--n1ail tactics.Tadopt_ed;_tliaiiftrsons who are involved to avoid to scandalize . and bring down of are also of has_"h'appened to Justice K.lL.Manju.natli.,g<in..Vthis"'a.ppeal shall not happen to other B'r--othe1sl:/Sislters Judges who have A1xisitedll"Lh:e 'temple 'was devotees. When the lphgoitographll'is~----tal~;en by ISKCON, Bangalore in ' 2 _, _V for them to explain how this could be sentin tlie,-:"nam.e of opposite party. Therefore, 'A 'parties are directed to file the affidavits giving explanation.

Office is directed to keep the cover and the V' -- . photo in safe custody.

Call this matter on 17.7.2009."

He also admitted $8

27. Reading of this order would indicate that definitely with mischievous intention photographs were sent togboth the Judges. Though photographs were taken Bangalore, they were sent in the name of the As already stated, these questions»h'a"v'e ptoibe Prirna facie it appears to be a tactic.toslernbarralss. the undermining the reputationldoi:"v""this Co1;rt;lBy'li:ea'di1ig the" V order dated 10.7.2003 it cann.otA"be"'sa1d th'at.__an3} prudent and reasonable person that_ the said order created suspicion or 'mind of the ]_St conternnor to {ﬁle application'.

Iphotographs which were sent to the judgeg'd.«Ll11ing' t.he'._pen:dency of the Regular First Appeal, relate togone olf"th.eVp__v_1'sits of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manjunath to"--»ISKC,ON;.EE-angalore. Primarily. the custody of these with ISKCON, Bangalore. Whether these phoutographsllllwere stealthily taken away from the custody of Bangalore, or whether someone intentionally .l h.and'ed over these photographs to outsiders, needs to be "enquired into. But the fact remains certain writings were made below the photographs making or referring or hinting 'bias' on the part, of one of the judges who was hearing RFA421/2009. Though Mr. Maruthi Prasad counsel on record, on that day he clarified ﬂ1.a;t~ the said photographs were taken inlhlhisiipiesenoe--a.s'-heiwas also present along with l§o_n'ble=.tlusticej:.flMar1j'unathall' Apparently, on that day, 3rc1 contemnor in this thatfhexland his clients have full conficlenoe his clients are not responsiblelffor photographs. On that day' Vltfhev--:»parties in the appeal to file theirrespeotﬁeaifidattits.__ -- 0

29. order came to be made * ..Vwhi.i::h<reads.rr_as unders... * _ "The appellant and the respondent 'h'aVe'§;;.i'iled their affidavits. Learned Senior r.__"ooVtrnsel appearing for the respondent Mr. " rVH_fMathai M. Paikeday requests the Court to grant a week's time to file an additional affidavit looking into the order--sheet of this court dated 107.2009 and that the respondent is yet t.o obtain the certified copy (30 of the order dated 10.7.2009. in the_._ circumstances, time is granted. it 9 Matter is adjourned to 31.7.2009."

30. By this date it was Mr. 0' counsel who was arguing the recusai: application 0 .0 respondents in the appeal. E{es_pondents toolshtirneitodjdg file additional objections after dated 10.7.2009. In RFA.421V,*-90-09 .foi'lo_wifig order was made on 7.8.2009: 0

7.%3.2oT09'"*--.. " 'it ' """ . 0 'zr_na._tter"-'.v.as'§ heard in--part on _ pp"'ithereafter the matter was A" adj our1i.§id:,i:V"to V' Subsequently the _V rnatter ldisted before this Court on 10.7.V.'2'G0.9_. ____ After the case was adjourned, on a cover was sent to both of us, the ' which is narrated by us in our order dt. 10.7.2009 and that day Sri. S.A. t"'V.aMaruthi Prasad, a Member of the Bar clarified "the circumstances under which photo was taken in ISKCON and the nature of gift (which is a photo of Lord Krishna} said to have been given to Justice K.L. Manjunath by ISKCON. \r\n 4' dim 6% Thereafter, we directed both the parties to file the affidavits giving the explanation and the--___ matter was adjourned to 17.7.2009.

Again the matter was adjourne_d;"'froin__:' 5 _.__ 17.7.2009 at the request of the responidentfs' d counsel to 31.7.2009. ~ In the meanwhile, it addressed to Justice i\kianji--11nath~,--"--t.one zbyll} 9' Sri Shekhar Shetty, ";11idwiocate stating that Sri V. Ramepsh Babu, 'c'ol1e,agj1.fe of Sri S.K.V. ChVal.alpath.y had approached him to appear for one _ RFA NO.

421/gcaos-_ peﬁrtainirig jjisxcoixi which is pendlivng5ﬁhe~iore:_'thi'szCourt vandlthat he refused lto'AappearfiA: in this case"'since the matter was periding':'bAefQre%tIu.stice KL. Manjunath and the letter "furt4h'er"'reads that even after the par'ties vwere'; directed in this case to file VEafiidavit';~he..had approached and requested vlhinito file Vakalath.

Similarly, another letter is received by K.L. Manjunath from Sri S.V. iﬁsrilnivasan, Advocate which discloses that Sri S.A. Maruthi Prasad working as a colleague with Justice K.L. Manjunath and S.V. Srinivasan had approached Srinivasan requesting him to appear for ISKCON in the 62 appeal pending before this Court and that he declined to appear for the party as requested by Sri S.A. Maruthi Prasad. Though these letters were received by Justice Manjunath, on the last date of 31.7.2009 to avoid any ur_1pleasan_tness'~lthelsel"

two letters were shown 3 A..S*.-Kt'-/l"'.l-.,__ Chalapathy and these tWO"«.]'6':L*¢.6YS were: ''also'; shown to Sri Uda3zla'--,H'olla. it On' -pe'rusal"oi these two letters, bhalapvvaithy requested to.'_:discllo'sevthe_ contents of these letters. Accorclli.dng'1*,}, request the matter was_ day: l Vllchaiapathy in the lpres.;§:1ce"b1"-- Sr'i_:¥?.an1es'l1'VBabu submits that these two-,f\dVociates are denying for having approached Al'the<._two Advocates who have _ .. add"i'e_ssed'."1etters"to Justice K.L. Manjunath. be noted at this stage that 'Justice K.L. Manjunath had worked as a Sri Shekhar Shetty from 15*"

V.Se"pj;einber 1974 to 10m February 1977 and hfrom 11.2.2007 um his elevation sn s.v. Srinivasan was practicing with him and that Sri Maruthi Prasad was a junior Colleague of Justice Manjunath and Sri S.V. Srinivasan. C In the light of the submissions of Sri S.K.V. Chalapathy it is for Sri Ramesh Babug and Sri Maruthi Prasad to fife their affidav.i..t_'."i .. A List this matter on 11.8.2009 at zi.3o1_=.§§';'r'ii;«":';- r.-

"Per C.R. Kumaraswamy, J_ _ Heard the dictat.iorijof' brot?.ier,.V His Lordship Sri KL. Manj-~unath'.v- lfa ;;1iii1I,_gis._,is defamed in such a way.._ias_Vnot"tsffaffectvvgthe administration' justice" the ordinary remedies for de4i'z;irifiatic)nii;» V It ﬂtof hfundamerital importance only be done;_" 01}-ld iriiéainiffestiyf' undoubtedly bei'see_i1 t'o7Iioe 'done; '''Therefore in this back matter before a Bench of "*_which _Justi.ce.._Ci;.RI_.Kumaraswamy is not a "'e_miberxafter obtaining necessary orders from ' " the Chief Justice.

(C . R. KUMARASWAMY) JUDGE circumstances, place the matter =.f:b.e'fo"re the Hon'b1e Chief Justice for necessary . g_.f)rders."

64

31. By this time, it could be gathered that t.he_--appeal was heard partly on merits initially. but the matts:ejr"'t..o'o}§Va11 ugly turn when photographs with writings were Judges hearing the appeal. The matter walsliiroimlu time to time directing the parties to f,i_Ie~affidair'its was sought to file additional 'a:fl'i'duav1't"o'i7 S? fact 1st contemnor filed such The genesis for the the photographs with writing as noticed By the time, judges was filed, affidavits i:f:z.'97.2009 and 30.7.2009 were pét1\\"'j'0'jf"tli'r:qrecolrdslplrrrapizingallegation of 'bias' against Mr. Mavnjupnath this, two more letters - one from Mr. She'kar Shetty and another from Mr. S. Srinivasan, '*both--- adlvocaltes referring to the approach made to them by .¢o'n:¢mxi'0:_s git; were part of the records. By this time the matter took serious turn.

= As already stated above, an application dated 3';8l.'20AC)9 came to be filed by the 15*" conternnor requesting Justice K.L. Manjunath to recuse hirnseli' from hearing and in'= V 65 the matter. On 17.7.2009 the 1-'*1 contemnor filed an affidavit adverting to the material contained in the newspaperledated 1 1.7.2009 with regard to the proceedings of the 421 / 2009. It is in this affidavit certain allegations.yarieyfrnade; The contents of this affidavit are verygrelevantl understand whether there isg.conternptl'0n the.".[fa.LC€: ofithel' record by the 181 contemnor. relevaflt" tiara-5 of the affidavit reads as underzj "e1 1 submit that with photos asahas Eileen 'SV.€1'it_ to' Hon"ole Court was also receiv<ed _on__09'.-O7.,2009"laddressed to the .._s«i:}_cl'r;etafy' 1% "Respondent at :¥__Ba_ngalo'r.e~..and"thlesame is filed herewith as }i.1i:iexure;1=i.,;'v.»I"~at§(1'«stationed in Mysore and _ _ atterided hearing of the appeal at the High lvCourt lat'~«iBan_galore on 10.7.2009 by directly from Mysore and only on reaching the ' office in the evening of 10th July, I to notice that a similar cover as shown the court was also sent to us. Thus, when "the matter was heard on 10"' July, neither myself nor the counsel for the first respondent were aware of the cover addressed to the Secretary of the first respondent.

66 '?) The 18$ Respondent and their counsel was shocked with the events that took piace"-_ in the court, wherein an attempt was made to prejudice the case of ;_.

respondent. The 18' respondent on _recVeiving:'a _ sirniiar cover at their office,AA>Vbro«u_gL1t it .to'«the"--:? notice of their Counsel on1«p1C:'t_'_*5 stating that they not'.responsvi'b}.e,_for sending such cover toeanyybody ie't.a'i'one tdithe Hon'b1e Court; _.I ernphaticaiiy deny 't'hat"V'the 18% Respondentiiistinvolvigd cover to the Hohfbie CourtVor,anyt:od§}"else';_.. detaih-:_VV.of 'incident that took i0;'7;v20§()9 are reported in various" V11eWspapervs_. 'The reports appearing in 'Deccan Praavani issues of the _ V neiviéspapeprs dated' 117.2009 are extracted as _ "f_'He said he used to visit the temple as a * ,:,:''devote.e'_1unti1 2003 and stopped thereafter due 'vislcveral doubts. This should not happen to "thee innocent devotees visiting temples". V'r--'.':.'.aii'r1iiar reports have appeared in the Prajavani, Indian Express, Times of India, DNA City, the Hindu, Kannada Prabha, Samyuktha Karnataka etc., Copies of the "x_Frorn_the abovevparas it is clear without even ascertaining 67 article published in the aforesaid newspapers are collectively produced herewith as_..__ Annexure--H series.

25) I submit that the said statement, is correct, attributed to have been mad'e"b:3}:'_t.he.: ' V Hon'ble Mr. Justice demonstrates, if 1 may say_ prejtxdice it against the 13' Re'sdpo--nzdent.'v-V statement has seriously and it irnﬂrnensegly tarnished the re3p~u_tati_on' and :pi*estige'Vot' the 15$ respondent Litutioncddihffhde respondent has received hundreds of p'h_on.e_ cailfsdddfrom its devoteesdhﬁforn country V V Itdo'solpernnigrv:s~a(ea._r that this is my name «. ..--the contents of this affic1iaxfitv.are.tri:.e" correct to the best of my ' 'know1ed'ge_,d'information and belief vhtietiier the newspapers are true and correct, this alleged bias against one of the judges, Mr. "V.:}\.:/:Iai1jtu_r1ath..J. though senior counsel Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy .rA~t.§:f§ar1'1er occasion had submitted to Court that he and his vciients had utmost confidence in the Court. 68

33. In affidavit dated 30.7.2009 the relevantciparas read as under: 0 in "6] I most humbly and respectfully"su:ft;Init::

that pursuant to the heari:n§lt'_h'at«.V topoléfp in Court on 10.7.2009, news'.rep.orts appeared 30 in various newspapers"'-on reports appearing in ' "dated 11.7.2009 are eritractedﬂ in'; 245? the affidavit dt 17".*07;2oQ9i} indicates serious prejudice.Va:<id:'bi'as& on of this Hon'ble; gagaipnsgt "the'if'liﬁhvrespondent.

Hence, "'appreliend that the Is:

respoi'idei*it1.;i;nay j.:ust1'.ee at the hands of :n:'C'OuI%t""..a'Ild hence it may not be desirable-- _Ho.n.7ble Court to hear this matterﬁirther and accordingly an application ;'1'"s,filed that H0n'ble Mr. Justice KL. Manjunath be pleased to recuse himself "bench hearing R.F.A.No. 421/2009 3' -_rfor'the. ends of Justice and good conscience. 0' .. v:_12] Re. Paras 6 & 7: The averments made ' inﬂlpara 6, that I have filed some newspaper Ecutting, which wrongly reported the proceedings dt. 10.07.2009 and has sought to draw false conclusion of bias against the 69 judges are false and the same are not admitted. It is significant to state here theig admitted fact on record. that on 3 when the Hon"b1e Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath"

passed over the cover with photographs ' s.K.V. Chaiapathy, the ::"'se';:iio; '=_gc-Iopunisciy aPl3earing for the 1st. Respoiiﬁ-'.3eiat.A.theb.i:71stant it reaction of Sri S.K.V."Ch-aplapathy, the'd..Sen"ior... Advocate was. that he requested th-eicourt to ignore the said.:ic.Ver 'pvhpctographstandvv to proceed with ftlrther appeal.

This i.nstant reaeti.on Von':__thev_ of the learned" Cou..r1se1:t«for€ the 1*" clearly indiCates----the'3'..fu1i'-confidence, trust and faith. the Hon'b1e court.

The' 4apprei1.ensiion'i'of 131 Respondent that the'-.1fIon'bxl'e_eiﬁtustice KL. Manjunath is = having V-bias': and 'prejudice against the 19* Respondent 'h'a'sstarted only on the reading of the.neiVt?s«paper on 11.7.2009. wherein the said V. i.e., Deccan Herald and Prajavani haw-eﬁattribtlted the statement published by to the judge. that the Hon"b1e Mr. A' Justice KL. Manjunath was visiting ISKCON ' ternpie of the 1*" Respondent til} 2003 and that His Lordship stopped visiting the tempie because of doubts. The starting point of 70 apprehension on the part of the 1~'%1...___ Respondent, that the Hon'ble court is and prejudiced against the I-'*1 Respondent'_jtVs.__'__:"V5 due to the said statement attributed"-to judge, which appeared in _th.e»'newsspapers»0.n 11.7.2009.

dated received by the 15' Respo~n_dent"o.n which order also ve1y'_cle.ar1y_p indicates' the H0n'ble Cot1rt'=witlf_=_o.ut_any enquiry and without giving to the 1*" Respondent,"has::l::ohVi.otusly to the it l::";sV.th_e:_'V l.SF"'l§es'pondent who has V "photographs in vthetnamle ofsthe p_0site' It be submitted that the 5' 'Deccanﬁerald and Prajavani newspapers are reputed newspaper and of long standing and " p are for their honest and accurate ﬂfhe statement of the Appellant that reports are wrong and on the said wrung report, the 151 Respondent cannot. allege bias against judges etc., are unsustainable Vboth in law and on facts."

However, on [reading the ..Ordert=.r,,.'_ 10.7.2009, a: copy}, as whichthlwas d' opinion against ISKCON Bangalore. That the learned Judge is having a belief that ISKCON.-'--._ Bangalore are "Blackmailers who ado13t:"<«.y_9'~i. scurrilous methods for 'avoiding the benchf""anfd~ 'T ;. t.hat devotees should beware of them. Ob'."'i.0L1'5'ib'*. 9' M the sanctity of the temple is putA»t0_sta1+ﬁe. "

Para»»9: It may be "the it Appeal RFA.No.421/2009.,' came ._up Admission on June 19, _before--

presided over admgifg Justice K. L.Manjunath and ' ' the Appellants have movedat the-t_I.me. of Aaidmi'ssio'n" itself, an application"for'early léieariiigillofl"'the,R.F.A. it is submi1_;tTe€l.'~ .Co'u:nSel ﬂfo'1"~this Respondent did not oppose?'the'earlyfheariiig of the Appeal, and thee umatte'1'.__earned"-..to< 'be listed for hearing immediate'ly, on J._1,1ne'l29. 2009 and in fact, the , ieouiisel for "p.€S_'p'0If.d€I'lt No.1 waited for three full in prior to 02.07.2009 from morning till rising hr» for the matter to reach and the "'hearirig'j_a.etually commenced on July 2, 2009 at "'"a.bo-ut 4:00 pm and thereafter the regular Bench _ forhearing RFAS changed. I aiso state that on l"'1A_«0.'7.2009, when the anonymous letter was shown to our Counsel, he instantaneously submitted that the same be ignored and 73 requested this Hon'ble Court to proceed with hearing of the Appeal. These facts are narrated' for the purpose of showing the bonafides of t1_d'e= 15*' Respondent and to expose t.he -1- unfounded allegation of 'benchwhuntingﬂ, _ V

10. Thus on the facts and :_cilr.c'un1sta.nces', the 1s: Respondent is: _having reasonable J' aPI3I'ehension that J K.L.Man3'unath fis 1:A)g1'_asied._".._gagainst__ gthis Respondent. it h_uInble~--._si._1hm_ission that since the learned and having pre-jud.i_ces§:' is unable to actgaska _thiS V lit..'t_herefore Inost respectfully su'oInitted-- V Respondent reasonably apprehends' real likelihood of bias V _{ attributabledd V to Hon'ble Mr.Justice fVKf»'L';M"anjunath""fwill operate against the 151 affecting a fair assessment of the ofvthe case in the final decision of this Judge may be pleased to recuse himself froni the Bench hearing this Appeal in order to A "akeep up the majesty of Justice and Judiciary for "the ends of Justice, equity and good conscience."

we 74

34. Counter affidavits are also filed to this affidavit regarding the author of the photographs an"d_ the presumption who could have sent the photographls,lVlete;;. :V1'~3y reading the Contents of the above material, orieihvasto V' an opinion whether the 15* contierﬁnor. the contempt or not. As observed thedd case WEST BENGAL v. l!'~1,'"{"i'9é8} 5"

Supreme Court Cases_.V513__.p'i§$_ ;~,bu_id be wzreaﬂted as a preconceived opinion 0}'; -predetermination to decide a ca.SCt0If. an 'manner, so much so that such :jr_1:ot_':elave the mind open to conv1'.ction._ l"Itl?'._1'»s,_¢V in fact;~.a condition of mind, which sways judgments" and._ ref;-de1=ss_ "the judge unable to exercise impartialitvddlinil apartl-cular case. In the case of RANJITH v.._UNIo'N""'oF INDIA um (1987) 4 sec 611 it is _pj.>ope1* approach for a judge is not to look at his._row1f1- and ask himself however, honestly "Am I biased?f'3but to look at the mind of the party before him.

35. The material above indicates reckless accusations

-»v.a:gainst. one of the Judges who was hearing the appeal, 75 definitely makes out a prima facie case against the 15' contemnor as he was accusing the Bench withjV"rec~k.Iess accusation alleging bias, irresponsibility, u'r.ii"airnesvs" unethical. _

36. Whenever, whoever it may 'be, interferes in .'the'*q discharge of duties or judici'a,1:""functions'oi? avitgludge, it ii amounts to contempt the' siai'ne"t'd&efiniteIy "cannot be ignored. By resorting any attempt is made to get a case Judge of a particular an act of contempt as it amounts ' independence and the administratioiiv of law cannot be used as 'forum shopping cent'res'e...:_:7'They are 'temples of justice'. Its image cannot be"-marred by unscrupulous accusations and .aIi'egations, --,_'Adyocates being officers of the Courts, are e iteiipectedv protect the image of the judiciary and are expe'cted««vAto"exercise their duties with utmost care, diligence ,andscaution.

.-/ 76

37. Then coming to the case of 3" contemnor Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy, one has to see what exactly WaS~7'lll'1.(3 role played by this contemnor. The application dated"

letter dated 5.10.2009 and the affidavit of thel"l-1}" ll are relevant. One has to see:"\yho'«ha'~:l prepar_ed"':these applications. The application -reqluxelstingu Justice K.L. Manjunath to reci_Jl:s'eyghir;:i.se}_f lfrorn tl'2Veu"Blench is 0 not filed by Mr. S.K.V.,--- Qhalapathiyslllcffice. has also not identified the IS' conteninor JaVi.i¥"lC}:hailta_nyadas. The letter of senior counseléli/11',__ dated 5.10.09 is also part of the. «1*ecord..s 'Il1is-=t__is.._aci«dre_ssed to 3?" contemnor Mr. advocate. As per this letter Mr. Paikedaygdenies._niaking..;subn1ission in the open Court that he was arguing the regarding bias against the Judge V' ._ con_cleri,.i-ed on the instruction of the senior counsel Mr. S.K.V. Ron.

0 ' '1::O.7.09 the very senior counsel Mr. Chalapathy the 3*"? :'1contem.nor unhesitatingly and categorically had full confidence in the Bench hearing the matter. 0 Therefore, when senior counsel S.K.V. Chalapathy had not /.

/~.

77 drafted t:he application dated 3.8.09 nor the affidavitof the is' contemnor dated 17.7.09, the contents of documents. cannot be held against Mr. As a matter of fact, in the defe__n.ce__pstaternenetl; 2-_?d contemnor, he categorically says':.&t;hatVsuhselquent adjournment of the matter this-if contemnor was informed by =cponten1n.orA that he had engaged Mr. Mathai counsel practicing at Delhi to appear the recusal application." was instructed to address of the appeal in the 3"? contemnor, he appeared __o'nVseu¢£;{i1pva}1;us§crdniy to argue the main appeal sincethe calusle 'list indicated that the appeal was ~"'~,...,pos:te:d ifor 'furtherulhelaring. He emphatically denies any .._.nlexus' or his office with reference to the on 17.7.2009 and as well as the application lﬁdated 3.822009 by the 1*" contemnor. He contends that but "_for_th'e matter coming up for hearing of the appeal, he would not have appeared in the Court. He categorically says he 78 would not have appeared in the Court if the matter was listed for hearing on the recusal applicationj&..'i*vIte'l'further clarifies that when a question was put to Paikaday whether he was arguing" the on: the ' basis of the instruction, he said b"'ye:s_'.l A"As"the*~ .iri«st1*uctingV counsel was instructing "the 315 contemnor, another senior co:,.u.1s'el_in»structing.Mr;' Paikaday would not arise.

39. Convterrirjor r}_o.1; by one Mr. V.H. Ron appearinlgforvh letter of Mr. Paikaday further"'cla1-ities tnhatﬂthe 3?" contemnor never instructedll l\/{rt address the arguments. Therefore,l't}1e defence'-._taken by the 3rd conternnor based on the': rnaterial;~----would only indicate that the application was signed by one Mr. Kiran Ron - a partner o'fi.LeX firm and Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy has j noth4i12gs'to with either the contents of the application or luujtihelaffidavit. Therefore, viewed from any angle, Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy the 3?" contemnor has not committed any 79 contempt in the face of the Court. Therefore, the proceedings as against the 3"' conternnor deserve to be d1*oppe_dﬂ' ~

40. Then coming to the contemnors 5 8:

and Mr. Prasad, this Court notes that:.theylneyer-.fil"e§¢}.aa,,ALfi;;iavitls"~_ .1 as directed by the Court in the regular appeal it was discussed in the open advocates seem to have approached Srinivasan, through the letters. to Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy to ofiicegttir. the 531 contemnor is attachedf for the appellant had also Thelllletters were addressed to the concerned l3abu was Very much. present at that time, th"e.ughtMr. ti;/;ia1'*:tiVti Prasad the 6"' contemnor was not .--vV.A_presVeri:t. 3L"1"i1e context-ti--on taken by them is that they were not V.'-._g1*(en--VCopies the letters inspite of filing a memo requesting for the..s'alrne,l '.l't:E__1eiﬁ'efore, they were not able to file affidavits. '.Apparentlyt the contents of the so called two letters of the ll..adyoCa.tes"referred to above addressed to Justice K.L. Manjunath ,..lfwei§elnot secret any more. it was openly said what the letters mlcontained and Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy had also informed the 80 Court that the conternnors 5 82: 6 deny the contents of the same. When the contents of the letters were very much the knowledge of the contemnors 5 81 6, they ought to affidavits. Apparently, they have not filed the as it may, Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy "_1?1o+, tl_enied_.: the T contents of those letters. Therefore, 'prima facifeyltlle rrratetrilaly contained in the said two letters amounts tol'contefrnptV;onVVthe face of the Court. Therefore, t.he,_proc'eedinlgs jdezservelto' he proceeded against the St" & 6"' contemnorsdf» In View oft-he d1scussi_on'-andreasoning, this Court is of the proceedings against 3rc.: Comemnor Mr. S.K»V\':Chgl5Lpath3';:.ﬁ~'§s€~'[fl}B«10 be dropped and are accordingly dropped. The clontemp'-t proceedings as against the contemnor no. ll l'tv.Jai"ChaiAtanya Dasa"'@"Jayanarayan K., 5"' contemnor Ramesh Baby; no. 6 Mr. SA. Maruthi Prasad shall be proceeded sd/gm ludga

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court