Allahabad High Court
In Refrence vs K.P. Seth, Advocate on 7 April, 2015
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 34 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 15 of 2012 Applicant :- In Refrence Opposite Party :- K.P. Seth, Advocate Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A. Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Kr Tripathi,Kk Arora,Rahul Sripat Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Sri Kamla Pati Seth, Advocate (K.P. Seth) S/o Late Jagdish Narain and Mohd. Qurban, Advocate on behalf of Bar Association, Rampur, identified by their respective counsel Sri Rahul Sripat and Sri K.K. Arora are present in the Court.
2. This criminal contempt has been initiated against two contemnors, Sri Kamla Pati Seth and Mohd. Qurban, Advocates, and registered on a reference made by Sri S.P. Singh, District Judge, Rampur vide letter dated 4th July, 2012. It is stated therein that two contemnors alongwith large number of other Advocates entered Court rooms, raised slogans, took out Advocates who were present and working in the Court, forcibly, and disrupted Court proceedings on 06.06.2012, between 12.15 P.M. and 1.15 P.M. Report of disruption of Court functioning, slogans etc. was made by the other presiding officers of Rampur Judgship namely, Sri Shyam Lal Kori, Chief Judicial Magistrate; Sri Navneet Kumar Giri, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate; Sri Mumtaz Ali, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2; Sri Gyanendra Singh Yadav, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 3; Sri Sita Ram, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate; Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2 and Sri Yajuvendra Vikram Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate etc. Again on 7th June, 2012, such a report was given by Smt. Alka Bharti, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rampur to the effect that at about 1.00P.M., when she was busy in Court, Sri K.P. Seth and Sri Qurban Ali, Advocates who were also office bearers of Bar Association as President and Secretary respectively approached the gate of Court room, prevented litigants and Advocates from entering the Court room, forcibly, and raised slogans. After lunch, aforesaid Advocates again disrupted Court proceedings and functioning.
3. Complaint letters were also made part of the reference letter of District Judge, Rampur. Relevant extract of complaint of Smt. Alka Bharti dated 06.06.2012, reads as under :
Þiqu% vijkUg djhc 1-00 cts tc nSfud is'kh ds le; vf/koDrkx.k o okndkjh U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr Fks rFkk eSa U;kf;d dk;Z lEikfnr dj jgh Fkh] rHkh ckj ds v/;{k Jh ds0ih0lsB] ckn okgklfpo dqckZu vyh o Jh tquSn [kku dqN vf/koDrkvksa ds lkFk U;k;ky; esa vk;s vkSj ukjsckth djus yxs rFkk tkfrlwpd 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vHknz Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx fd;k rFkk vf/koDrkx.k o okndkfj;ksa dks tcjnLrh U;k;ky; d{k ls ckgj ys x;s rFkk iqu% U;kf;d dk;Z djus easa O;o/kku mRiUu fd;k x;kA ckj v/;{k us ;g Hkh dgk fd ;fn esjs i{k esa eu&ekfQd vkns'k ugha gksxk] rks U;k;ky; esa dk;Z ugha djus fn;k tk;sxkAß English Translation by the Court :
"Again at 1 p.m., while dainik peshi being underway, the counsels and litigants were present in the court and I was discharging my judicial functions; at that very time Bar president Sri K.P. Seth, general secretary Sri Kurban Ali and Sri Junaid Khan, alongwith some other counsels, came over to the court; resorted to sloganeering, used indecent language laced with casteist words, forced the counsels and litigants out of the court room and again obstructed judicial proceedings. The Bar president also threatened that if a favourable order is not passed, the court shall not be allowed to run."
4. Taking cognizance of aforesaid contempt reference, this Court issued notice to Sri K.P. Seth, Mohd. Qurban and Sri Junaid Khan, Advocates vide order dated 26.07.2012, to show cause, why they should not be punished for above act of contempt.
5. On behalf of Mohd. Qurban and Sri Junaid Khan, Advocates affidavits were filed tendering unconditional apology, but having gone through, the Court rejected the same vide order dated 27.09.2012. Sri K.P. Seth, Advocate did not filed any reply but sought time, which was granted.
6. Thereafter, Court formulated charges against three Advocates vide order dated 10.10.2012, as under :-
"Sri K.P. Seth, President District Bar Association, Rampur Sri Qurban Ali, Advocate, Secretary, District Bar Association, Sri Junaid Khan, Advocate.
(i) That you on 06.06.2012 at 10.30 a.m. alongwith some other Advocates entered into the court room of Smt. Alka Bharti, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 1, Rampr and shouted slogan by using indecent language and thereby disrupted the court proceedings.
(ii) That you on the same day at 01.00 p.m. again indulged in slogan shouting, using unparliamentary and abusive language against the Presing Judge coerced and also coercing litigants and advocates to leave the court room and thereby stalled and threatened to stall the functioning of the court only because you, K.P. Seth, solicited favour from the above noted Additional Civil Judge in different judicial proceedings.
(iii) That you all on 06.06.2012 along with other members of the Bar Association resolved to boycott the court of Smt. Alka Bharti and transmitted the resolution to the District Judge, Rampur and again withdrew it without any reason, which was also an act of contempt, due to being instance of acts done by you for gaining undue favour from a Judge in a judicial proceedings, which was being handled by the above noted Smt. Alka Bharti by bullying her down by the above acts and threat to boycott her court The above charges was explained to the contemnors to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried."
7. Sri Rahul Sripat, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Sri K.P. Seth, while Sri K.K. Arora, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Mohd. Qurban. In respect to Sri Junaid Khan it is informed that during pendency of these proceedings he is no more.
8. These proceedings are now confined to two contemnors, Sri K.P. Seth and Mohd. Qurban, Advocates.
9. Though, aforesaid contemnors have taken defence in respect to the charges by filing replies, but, when today matter was taken up, Learned counsels appearing for the two contemnors, at the outset stated that they are not contesting the matter, but admitting the guilt and therefore, Court may not look into the defence they have taken in their replies. Both contemnors, also stated that being office bearers of Bar Association when resolution was passed, they got indulged in the aforesaid activities, for which they have no excuse at all but they are now not putting any defence before the Court, but admit their guilt and pray for mercy and benevolence. They further requested to accept their unconditional apology.
10. On behalf of contemnor no. 2, i.e. Mohd. Qurban, an affidavit sworn on 7th April, 2015 was also filed, stating therein that he is not entering into merits of the pleadings and defence and submits unconditional apology.
11. Sri Rahul Sripat, and Sri K.K. Arora, Advocates appearing on behalf of two contemnors stated at the Bar that Court may ignore their defence taken in their replies in respect to the charges and instead, showing magnanimity and benevolence, pardon them and they assure that in future no such conduct shall be shown. Both contemnors support what their counsels, stated and pleaded for leniency in the matter, requesting the Court to pardon them.
12. So far as question of acceptance of apology is concerned, it is already on record that before formulation of charges, when contemnors tendered apology, looking to their replies and other circumstances, Court rejected the same.
13. Today, situation is that contemnors, almost have come to the corner and apology, apparently, means to avoid severe punishment. The guilt has been admitted by them, hence, charges stand proved. That being so, question of apology, apparently, is with intention to avoid serious punishment of imprisonment or fine or both, as the case may be.
14. The question as to when an apology can be said to be bonafide and unconditional has been examined in detail by a larger Bench of five Judges of this Court in Suo Motu Action taken by the Court Vs. Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya, Advocate [2009 (4) ALJ 434] and some of the relevant observations made by the Court are reproduced as under :-
"66. The ordinary dictionary meaning of apology is a speech in defence; a regretful acknowledge or excuse for failure. An explanation offered to a person affected by one's action that no offence was intended, coupled with the expression of regret for any that may have been given; or a frank acknowledgement of the offence with expression of regret for it, by way of reparation. (Refer to Murray's Dictionary). In short an apology is something written or said in defence of what appears to other people to be wrong and is an expression of regret.
67. To apologize, is to speak in justification, explanation or palliation of a fault. It is to serve as a satisfaction for any failure that may have caused dissatisfaction. It carves out an excuse or defensive argument acknowledging and expressing regrets for a fault without setting up any defence. The fault committed, cannot be reversed but it can be repented for. An apology is a substitute which is peculiar in nature and such character is very subtly reflected in the speech of Benjamin Disraeli the former British Prime Minister who said it in the following words in his speech in the House of Commons on 28.7.1871:
"Apologies only account for the evil which they cannot alter."
69. To our mind if an unconditional apology is tendered, then it should be tempered with a sense of genuine remorse and unflinching repentance. No justifications for the cause are to be pleaded and insisted inasmuch as, once such an apology is tendered, then in that event the guilt is almost unhesitatingly admitted and an expression of contrition exhibiting a real mood not to commit any such mistake in future is indicated. It is in such circumstances that the court starts contemplating as to whether the trust that the court desires and legitimately expects can be reposed or not.
70. An honest unconditional apology is normally received by the court with implicit faith. The faith is diminished if it is tainted with consequences. However, unconditional apology, even if tendered voluntarily and not strategically to avoid punishment, is no absolute assurance of discharge. The court has to weigh the circumstances keeping in view the object for which such powers are preserved especially in superior courts.
73. ........ An apology is not a palliative medicine to mesmerise a court for sometime. It has to generate a sort of a permanent belief that the tender of apology is genuine and is likely to have a baneful effect. Not a casual or formal passing of affairs to avoid punishment. Such an apology with defence raises a presumption of predominant whim of contradictions and lacks in sincerity.
74. A suspicious and defensive approach by the contemnor herself cannot invoke sympathies or any other equitable considerations. There appears to be a barrier of confusion in her about her own fate which might have impelled her not to give up her defence. There is no open commitment to an unqualified apology and is hedged by desperate attempts to justify her stand. Inspite of the long opportunity available to the contemnor we are surprised at her stolidity for a remorseful apology. The apology is superficial and is only an upholstery with no sense of depth in it.
76. The elements of remorse, repentance and contrition are what can be described as the life and blood of a bonafide expression of apology. To detest the existence of such virtues for judging an act of contempt, is to deprive the law of its morality which it deserves and which is also necessary to preserve the same. It is like asking to live comfortably in a room with all its air having been pumped out.
78. Remorse is deep regret experiencing the pain of a guilty conscience. It is self-condemnation. Once the guilt is realised, then the natural feelings of humanity that assert themselves, is known as remorse. Shakespeare with his undoubted mastery of thought and language has depicted this at several places in the character of Macbeth and lady Macbeth, when they talk of the merciless killings of innocent persons at the behest of Macbeth. To quote one such line:-
"I am afraid to think what I have done;
look on it again I dare not."
15. Looking to the circumstances in which alleged apology has come forth at this stage, it cannot be said to be bonafide, sincere and unconditional. In our view, contemnors deserve appropriate punishment, though, considering the fact that contemnors have accepted guilt and have tendered apology to the Court, we would be justified in giving due weightage to this conduct while determining as to what appropriate punishment would be, in this case.
16. Before coming to punishment part, we find it necessary to observe that of late it has become a regular feature in the subordinate courts where judicial proceedings are being disrupted by Advocates collectively or in the group of individuals and otherwise by raising slogans, using abusive language and many a times creating other kind of disruptions like breaking window panes, striking on the doors of court rooms heavily and preventing litigants and others to enter Court rooms etc. Virtually, in the State of Uttar Pradesh substantial period of functioning in subordinate courts is getting waste due to such disruption and obstruction by Advocates.
17. It is true, that two contemnors were office bearers of Advocates Bare Association i.e. they were holding office of President and Secretary, but, nevertheless both were Advocates first, and had serious responsibility towards maintaining decorum and allowing smooth functioning of Courts. If collectively, Association of Advocates took a decision to do some thing which was not just, legal or valid, it was expected from them not to become a part of such proceedings and instead they could have taken appropriate steps for keeping themselves away, instead of becoming part of such illegal and contemptuous activities of their colleagues. Unfortunately they failed in showing respect to the Court and maintaining its majesty. They took active participation in doing some thing which was ex-facie illegal and amounts to criminal contempt, by lowering down the authority and dignity of officers of Court in particular and Court of law as an institution in general.
18. People have lot of faith and confidence in the system of administration of justice with hope and trust that institution of justice shall come forward to do away injustice, caused to them, and would impart complete justice to them. Where process of administration of justice is interfered with in such a manner, the faith and confidence of public is bound to fade away.
19. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and conduct shown by two contemnors before this Court, we award punishment of simple imprisonment for a day i.e. till raising of the Court and fine of Rs.2,000/- each, failing which, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days'.
20. Besides, in exercise of our powers under Chapter 24 Rule 11(3) of The Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, framed under Section 34(1) of Advocates Act, 1961, we restrain two contemnors from practising in Civil Court/District Judgeship, Rampur for a period of thirty days. They shall not enter premises of Civil Court/District Judgeship, Rampur for a period of thirty days', which shall commence from 23rd April, 2015.
21. Conduct of both contemnors shall also remain under constant observation of the District Judge, Rampur for a period of two years' and in case, they are found indulged in any otherwise activity causing disruption etc. in the court, matter shall be reported to this Court forthwith. Copy of this order shall be communicated to District Judge, Rampur forthwith, for compliance of aforesaid directions.
22. The two contemnors present in the Court, at this stage, stated that they are surrendering before this Court to serve the sentence and may be taken in custody. They also prayed, that they be permitted to deposit fine within such time as the Court may direct.
23. In view of above, contemnors are taken in custody to serve sentence of one day simple imprisonment and shall be released on rising of the Court. Fine of Rs.2,000/- each may be deposited by the two contemnors within a week.
24. Criminal contempt application is accordingly disposed of with the directions as above.
Order Date :- 7.4.2015 A. Verma