Gujarat High Court
R.M. Christie vs R.K. Thapa And Ors. on 27 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)3GLR2328
Author: R.P. Dholakia
Bench: R.P. Dholakia
JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, J.
1. For editing, printing, publishing and circulating Annexure 'A' to the petition an article against Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' and the Judges of the Division Bench, the Court was moved by the petitioner, and on hearing the petitioner, the Court took cognizance and issued Rule on 16-2-1998, which was made returnable on 2-3-1998. At the request of the respondent No. 1, on 2-3-1998, we adjourned the matter to 9-3-1998. On 9-3-1998, learned Advocate for the respondents requested for time and we adjourned the matter to 16-3-1998.
2. The petitioner-in-person has preferred this petition and has argued in person. The respondents are served and Mr. P.M. Vyas, learned Advocate, made submissions on behalf of the respondents. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 remained present in the Court while the respondent No. 3 has not remained present for some personal reasons.
3. For a news item published in a news-weekly "Bhrastachar Virodhi Abhiyan" dated 20-1-1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Abhiyan'), the petitioner has approached This Court to initiate action against the respondents under the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. For editing, printing, publishing and circulating the news-weekly, charge is served on the respondent No. 1 and it appears at page Nos. 10,11,12,13 and 14 of the petition which reads as under (reproduced verbatim except names of learned Judges):
That you R.K. Thapa, the Managing Editor of the news-weekly called "Abhiyan" has published in the above news-weekly in its issue dated 20-1-1998 - a report of the statement made by you, a copy of which is annexed to the application marked Annexure-A and the purport of which is as under:
(A) That Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' of the Gujarat High Court is involved in the scam, involving corruption and irregularity with the Judges of the Labour Court, Tribunal Court, Office of Labour Commissioner, the office of the Factory Inspector and Labour and Employment Department.
(B) That Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' has given a large amount of bribe as corruption to the Judges of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court, so as to give judgment in a Contempt of Court case (Criminal Case No. 1693 of 1996) on 12/13/14/16/18-9-1996 convicting the respondent No. 1, i.e., yourself, and sentencing to undergo S.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
(C) That a statement is made by respondent herein that the Hon'ble High Court has concocted imaginary contempt of Court case against him and got him convicted in Criminal Case No. 1693 of 1996 on 12/13/16/18-9-1996 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment of 6 months' S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- so, as to conceal and suppress the involvement of Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' of this High Court in a scam of corruption and irregularities with the Labour and Tribunal Court, Office of the Factory Inspector and the Labour and Employment Department.
(D) That the respondent No. 1 herein has alleged that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court (Coram: 'X' & 'Y', JJ.) had received the large amount of bribe to pass the above conviction order, to save and protect Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A', who was involved in the scam of corruption and irregularity.
By your such an act of publishing these allegations against the Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' and against the Judges of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court, you intended to lower down and did lower down the image, prestige, impartiality and the integrity of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' of the Gujarat High Court and also the Judges of the Division Bench of this High Court, who delivered the judgment in Criminal Case, against the respondent No. 1, and further irregularities and bribed and corrupted the Judges of the Division Bench of this High Court. The said judgment, convicting you (Respondent No. 1 herein) to suppress the illegal and corrupt activities of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' of the scam which he has with the Judges of the Labour and Industrial Courts and Labour Commissioner's Office, the Factory Inspector Office and the Labour and Employment Department.
4. So far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned, charge is at page Nos. 14, 15, 16,17 and 18, which reads as under (reproduced verbatim except name of learned Judge):
You - Bhupendra Patel - the Respondent No. 2 herein, Owner, Editor, Publisher and Printer have published in the news-weekly known as 'Abhiyan' and as such you published in the issue of 20-1-1998 a statement made by one R.K. Thapa, the Managing Editor of the said news-weekly 'Abhiyan', i.e., first respondent No. 1, a copy of which publication is annexed to the application as Annexure-A, and the purport of which is as under:
(a) That the Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' of Gujarat High Court, who is involved in scam, involving corruption and irregularities and His Lordship even bribed and corrupted the Judges of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court to give judgment-convicting respondent No. 1 (R.K. Thapa) herein, thereby to suppress the illegal and corrupt activities of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A', who is involved in a scam, involving corruption and irregularity with the Judges of the Labour and Tribunal Court and also with the Labour Commissioner's Office, Factory Inspector's Office, and the Labour and Employment Department.
(b) That Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' has given a large amount of bribe to the Judges of the Division Bench of this High Court, so as to give judgment in a contempt of Courts case (Criminal Case No. 1693 of 1996) on 12/13/14/16/18-9-1996 convicting the respondent No. 1 herein and sentencing him to undergo 6 months' S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
(c) That a statement is made by the first respondent, which is printed and published by you in your paper that the Hon'ble High Court has concocted imaginary contempt of Court cases against him and got him convicted in the said criminal case, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of 6 months' S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to conceal and suppress the involvement of Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' in the scam of corruption which he has with Labour and Tribunal Courts, Labour Commissioner's Office, the Factory Inspector's Office and the Labour and Employment Department.
(d) That the respondent No. 1 herein has alleged that the Judges of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has received a large amount of bribe to deliver judgment in Criminal Case No. 1693 of 1996 to save and protect Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' for his involvement in the scam of corruption and irregularities.
By your such act of publishing the above scandalous and contemptuous allegations made against Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' of the Hon'ble High Court and the Judges of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court, you intended to lower down and did lower down the image, prestige, impartiality and integrity of the High Court and Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' and also of the Judges of Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court and further by the said act, you interfered with the administration of justice with a view to coerce and pressurise to decide the cases in the manner suggested by you.
By your above mentioned act, you have committed the contempt of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, punishable under provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
5. As regards the respondent No. 3, charge framed at page Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 reads as under (reproduced verbatim except name of learned Judge):
That you-Hasmukh H. Patel, the respondent No. 3 herein who is the Administrator of the newspaper-weekly known as Abhiyan, printed and published in your weekly newspaper issued on 20-1-1998 a statement made by R.K. Thapa (Respondent No. 1 herein) is printed by you and a copy of which is annexed to the application at Annexure-A, the purport of which is as under:
(a) That Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' of High Court of Gujarat, who is involved in scam involving corruption and irregularities and His Lordship gave bribe (and gave corruption) of large amount to Judges of Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court to give judgment-convicting respondent No. 1 (R.K. Thapa) herein, thereby to suppress the illegal and corrupt activities of Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' who is involved in a scam of corruption which he had with Labour and Tribunal Courts, Labour Commissioner's Officer, Factory Inspector's Office, and the Labour and Employment Department.
By this act, you interfered with the administration of justice with a view to coerce and pressurise to decide the cases in the manner suggested by you in Annexure-A to this application.
(b) That Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' has given a large amount of bribe to the Judges of Division Bench so as to give judgment in a contempt of Courts case (Criminal Case No. 1693 of 1996 on 12/13/14/16/18-9-1996 convicting the respondent No. 1 herein and sentencing him to undergo 6 months' S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
(c) That a statement is made by the respondent No. 1 in the said newspaper that the Hon'ble High Court has concocted imaginary contempt of Court cases against him and got him convicted in Criminal Case No. 1693 of 1996 and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. This was to conceal and suppress the involvement of Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' in a scam of corruption and irregularity which he has with Labour and Tribunal Courts, Labour Commissioner's Office, the Factory Inspector's Office and the Labour and Employment Department.
(d) That the respondent No. 1 herein also alleged and you published and printed in newspaper that the Judges of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has received a large amount of bribe to pass the order convicting respondent No. 1 to save and protect Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A', who is involved in the above scam.
By this act, you interfered with administration of justice with a view to coerce and pressurise and decide the cases in the manner suggested by you the report of which is annexed at Annexure-A to this application.
By your above-mentioned act, you have committed the contempt of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and other Judges of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, punishable under provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
6. In reply thereof, it is contended by the respondents that Annexure-A at page 24 is not a part of the news-weekly which is being edited, printed, published and circulated by them. Their say is that though they are persons publishing the news-weekly "Abhiyan", Annexure-A is not a part of news-weekly dated 20th January, 1998. It is further contended by Mr. P.M. Vyas, who is appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the respondents are admitting to have edited, printed, published and circulated the aforesaid news-weekly but page 4 is not a part of their weekly which contains the alleged contemptuous news item. However, in the alternative, it is submitted that even if it is published by them, according to them, it is their honest opinion which is required to be enquired into by the competent authority under the law. Which is the authority competent under the law, on a question being put to Mr. Vyas, he stated that the authority to whom the letter is addressed is the competent authority or in case of news item, whichever may be the competent authority to enquire into the matter. He submitted that the respondents are of the opinion that they have edited, printed, published and circulated and if ultimately their opinion is found to be wrong on an enquiry being held, only then, question will arise whether they are responsible or not and whether they should be punished or not. He submitted that it must be decided in some proceedings that this news item is false to the knowledge of the respondents, and only then, it can be said that their opinion is false, baseless, motivated, muddy and is made with an ulterior motive and with an intention to malign the person named in the article. In short, Mr. Vyas submitted that an opinion expressed cannot be said to be falling within the purview of the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
7. Before us, on oath, it was submitted in separate affidavits by all the respondents that Annexure-A is not a part of news-weekly being edited, printed, published and circulated by them. It is submitted further that the allegations that they are the editor, printer and publisher must be proved in accordance with the principles laid down in a criminal trial as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention raised by the respondents in their affidavits is that the document must be proved in accordance with the Evidence Act and an opportunity must be given to cross-examine. We put a pointed question to the learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, as to whom he would like to cross-examine. He stated that it can be decided at the stage of trial. Alongwith the affidavits, certain documents are annexed by respondent No. 1 which will be referred later on. At present, we would just indicate that in view of these statements made on oath by all the three respondents, we suggested to Mr. Vyas to produce the news-weekly before the Court and to our surprise, he stated that if some time is given, i.e., 3/4 days, only then, it can be produced. An apprehension was expressed before us by the petitioner and the Additional Government Pleader appearing in the matter that if time is given, news-weekly which may be lying in the office or godown will be removed and it will not be possible to get the news-weekly produced before the Court. It is under these circumstances, we directed Inspector of Police, Shahpur Police Station to search the premises and produce before us if such a news-weekly is found there. Production of entire news-weekly (Annexure 'AA') was necessary and desirable for the purpose of proceedings. As contended by the respondents that they are responsible for Annexure 'AA', the first page of news-weekly, but not for Annexure 'A', fourth page of the news-weekly, they ought to have produced before the Court entire Annexure 'AA' when called upon, but were not inclined to produce and hence, order was passed for a search by Police Inspector of Shahpur Police Station directing him to produce the news-weekly if found from the premises. We were also of the view that, if Annexure-A is not a part of the news-weekly 'Annexure AA', which they have edited, printed, published and circulated, they would not face proceedings and therefore, we requested them to produce the same. But hesitating reply given by the respondents prompted the petitioner as well as the Addl. Government Pleader to disclose their apprehension and in view of the order passed by This Court, the Police Inspector reached the place with panchas and during the search, found the news-weekly from the premises of the respondents situated at 485, Moti Hamam's Pole, Gheekantha, Ahmedabad. The petitioner as well as the learned Addl. Government Pleader stated that had the order not been passed by the Court, apprehension would have been turned into a reality and there would have been no proof of the material immediately available and in our opinion, the apprehension expressed by them cannot be said to be imaginary. In any case, we have got the complete news-weekly which has been attached by the Police Inspector in presence of panchas from the premises of the respondents from where they are carrying on their activities and that news-weekly clearly indicates that Annexure-A is part of the news-weekly which was edited, printed, published and circulated by the respondents. This short issue, after search, has come to an end and it is clear that Annexure-A is an article edited, printed, published and circulated by these respondents. Thus, knowing that Annexure-A is their product, the respondents, in view of half page of the weekly being annexed with the application, came out with a false defence. They stated on oath that the same is not a part of their weekly, knowing fully well that it is. Thus, a false statement on oath is made by the respondents.
8. Another lie which has been pointed out to us by the petitioner in the affidavit (in para 2) of the respondent No. 1 is against the order of pronouncement by a Division Bench of This Court in case of Arun H. Mehta v. Mahesh Harshadrai Desai. The present respondent No. 1, who was the respondent No. 4 in the said case, has been convicted and appeal was preferred before the Apex Court. Before us, a statement was made by the learned Advocate for the respondents as well as by the respondent No. 1 that the said appeal is still pending before the Apex Court. This statement is made despite xerox copy of the order has been served on the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents which is at Annexure-BB of the affidavit-in-rejoinder (at page 44) which makes it clear that the present respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 4 of that application did prefer an appeal before the Apex Court and the same has been dismissed by an order dated 14-7-1997.
9. Mr. Christie, Party-in-Person and Mr. P.M. Vyas, learned Advocate for the respondents are present. The respondent No. 1 is absent while the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are present.
10. The petitioner requested that keeping in mind the fact that the respondent No. 1 is in habit of making incorrect or false statement and misleading the Court, strict view of the matter is required to be taken. Alongwith affidavit-in-reply, the respondent No. 1 has annexed other document which is at pages 14 to 16. As a Convener, the respondent No. 1 has addressed a letter dated 30th July, 1997 to His Excellency, the President of India and copies are forwarded to Chairman, Rashtriya Manava Adhikar Panch, New Delhi, and Director, Central Bureau of Investigation. The relevant typewritten portion, as it appears in the letter dated 30th July, 1997, is reproduced bellows:
(3) Annesure 'C':
List of events and allegations against Highest Judiciary:
Taking in consideration your goodself will notice that according to ANNEXURE - 'A' to 'C' there are so many allegations against high judiciary and accordingly, we have expressed our opinion about irregularities are seems to be correct against Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A' of Gujarat High Court, and we demanded actions against relevant Labour Commissioner and Chief Factory Inspector and President of Industrial Court and Labour Courts etc. Large scale irregularities and corruptions and he is involved in corruption of Rs. 10/- lacs which he had dismissed the petition coming in knowledge, we have informed Hon'ble Shree A.M. Ahmedi, Chief Justice of Supreme Court and Hon'ble Shree G.D. Kamat, Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and made different representations before relevant higher authorities.
Being disappointed by such representations Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'A', Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'X' & Hon'ble Mr. Justice 'Y' made a scandal against us with their colleagues and put up a bogus criminal contempt case against us and by taking immediate, immediate ex parte decision 6 months' imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/-, fine was imposed upon us, which is against the principles of Natural Justice, against which Appeal No. 2,052 of 1996, was filed but by their contact they pushed to vacate the same, due to which we have to face 6 months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and could not get justice and we are economically, socially badly affected." (Reproduced verbatim except names of learned Judges) Thus, against the highest judiciary also, he has made allegation (Copy of order in Appeal No. 2052 of 1996 is at page 44).
11. The learned Judges of This Court, in an application preferred by Mr. A.H. Mehta, convicted the respondent No. 1 and two others under the provisions contained in the Act and it appears that, the respondent No. 1 has added names of these two learned Judges of This Court making allegations against them that they are equally responsible as the bogus case is disposed of by them because the allegations were made against their colleague - a learned Judge of This Court. We need not repeat whatever is stated as the entire paragraph is reproduced earlier. The aforesaid allegations and the allegation which we referred earlier, are required to be considered in light of the provisions contained in the Act. Section 2(c) of the Act defines "criminal contempt" as under:
Criminal contempt" means the publication whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers ortends to lower the authority of, any Court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
12. The Apex Court pointed out the meaning of scandalising the Court in the case of Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India reported in JT 1996 (6) SC 529 as under:
40. Scandalising the Court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of Judges as Judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a Judge in connection with office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slender. Yet defamatory publication concerning the Judge as a Judge brings the Court or Judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on Majesty of justice. Any caricature of a Judge calculated to lower the dignity of the Court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or Majesty of justice. It would, therefore, be scandalising the Judge, in other words, imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a Judge is scandalisation of the Court and would be contempt of the Court. Even imputation of lack of impartiality or fairness to a Judge in the discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt. The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to Majesty of justice. When the contemner challenges the authority of the Court, he interferes with the performance of duties of Judge's office or judicial process or administration of justice or generation or production of tendency bringing the Judge or judiciary into contempt. Section 2(c) of the Act, therefore, defines criminal contempt in wider articulation that any publication, whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court; or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner, is a criminal contempt. Therefore, a tendency to scandalise the Court or tendency to lower the authority of the Court or tendency to interfere with or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or tendency to challenge the authority or Majesty of justice, would be a criminal contempt. The offending act apart, any tendency if it may lead to or tends to lower the authority of the Court is a criminal contempt. Any conduct of the contemner which has the tendency or produces a tendency to bring the Judge or Court into contempt or tends to lower the authority of the Court would also be contempt of the Court.
13. In the instant case, the respondent No. 1 after disposal of the petition resulting in conviction, levelled imputation and in his words that was the outcome of corruption involving huge amount and nepotism. The judgment delivered by the Court may be wrong according to the party against whom it is delivered and for that party, the remedy provided under the statute is to be followed. The party against whom the Court has delivered a judgment has no right to criticise the Judge. He levelled serious allegations for which, Mr. Arun H. Mehta preferred application under the provisions contained in the Act. The Court examined the matter in detail and after examining all the aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 of this petition and others who were joined as respondents in that petition are guilty to contempt and passed an appropriate order in the matter. The matter was carried before the Apex Court by the respondent No. 1 herein and as stated earlier, he failed.
14. With a vengeance in his mind, the respondent No. 1 continued the activity of making imputation for the disposal of application resulting in conviction. The respondent No. 1, in the instant case, repeated similar comment which he made earlier and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 joined with respondent No. 1. The writing published this time was not only similar to a writing published earlier but it also contained contemptuous allegations against the Judges who decided the matter. In the instant case, the respondent No. 1, instead of stopping such activities, continued despite the order passed by the Apex Court. Allegations are made with a calculated mind involving a Judge in scam, nepotism, corruption and irregularity and same are made out of vilification owing to the disposal of the petition wherein findings came to be recorded against him. This time, he named two more Judges in a letter addressed to the His Excellency the President of India under copies to other persons which we have referred hereinabove. In Annexure 'A', imputations are made as findings are recorded against him. This is done with a view to weaken the administration of Justice and to get the desired results. These respondents appear to be of the view that no Court should decide against them even if the facts or the law may not be in their favour. The reckless allegations are required to be taken seriously and dealt with in the manner laid down in the law failing which, a wrong signal will go to the other Judges and in particular to the members of the judicial services in the lower cadre. It seems that the respondent No. 1, with the active aid and assistance of other respondents, wants to see that the orders are passed by the Court as desired by him and if Judges do not submit to the demands, then they would be maligned and/or scandalised to demoralise them. This was expressed by the learned Judges in their earlier decision. As the decision was against the respondent No. 1, he has repeated the act. Therefore, in our opinion, these respondents are required to be dealt with very strictly. After passing the order by the Apex Court, if they would have stayed their hands, if they would have remained away from such activities, matter would have been quite different.
15. In the words of Apex Court in the case of J. Vasudevan v. T.R. Dhananjaya reported in AIR 1996 SC 137, "it is really to see that unclinching faith of the people in the Courts remain intact". It is the duty of the Court to see that the prestige of the Court must remain intact and its dignity must be upheld. By circulating such news-weekly, if the faith is shaken (may be by a small class of people), it would encourage them to settle their disputes on the streets where muscle power and money power would win and the meek would suffer. That would be a deathknell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow. Peoples' faith in the system of administration of justice would remain intact provided the institution administering justice is not attacked by making such false, frivolous and vexatious allegations which are amounting to scandalising the highest Court of the State.
16. After reading the literature which is published and circulated by the respondents, if a bad faith is created in the mind of the people that the system is insecure and there is every doubt to get justice, people will loose faith in the institute. Judiciary is one of the strongest pillars in a democracy. No one can be allowed to touch the same with a view to vibrate the same, whoever tries to tremble must be dealt with strictly in accordance with law.
17. In the society, rule of law prevails and people have absolute faith in the Constitution and the judicial system. The act of the respondents is nothing, but a calculated act to shake faith of others in the system and once the faith is shaken, may be by a small class of people, it is likely to disturb the rule of law prevailing in the country at a later point of time. We cannot permit to have a rule of jungle making inroad on the Majesty of justice calculated to undermine its authority and public confidence in the administration of justice. By imputing Judges with improper motive, bias, corruption and partiality, the people will lose faith in this system. It is known that Judges require a degree of detachment and objectivity which cannot be obtained if Judges are constantly locked at their chambers for fear of harassment, abuse and irresponsible demands for prosecution or resignation. It is four all these reasons, the Parliament considered that the scandalising the Judges is a contempt of Court and has made an Act to prevent scandalising the Court and the contempt of Court is punishable with imprisonment and/or with fine.
18. Annexure-C, which runs from pages 23 to 26 (both inclusive), is another document running in 15 paragraphs. The respondent No. 1 has annexed letters written by him for information, one of such letter is Annexure-C. In para 1 of Annexure-C, he has made allegations of bribery for dismissing the Special Civil Application and till today, no action is taken in the matter. In para 2, he has made allegations against the sitting Judges of This Court having low moral character and having illegal relations with a staff member. Allegations are made that for appointment of Additional Magistrates, bribe is taken. He has also made allegations with regard to appointment of Private Secretary to Hon'ble the Chief Justice stating that Private Secretary to the Chief Justice, who has been retired before five years, has been given extension by accepting half of his salary. Hon'ble the Chief Justice is the appointing authority and thus, allegations are made against Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In para 3, he has made allegations against two Judges of This Court, who disposed of the matter against the respondent No. 1. In para 4, he has made allegations against one sitting Judge of This Court by stating that he is accepting amount of bribe through his son, who is practising in This Court. He has made allegations against the Industrial Court, Labour Court, Chief Factory Officers, Labour Divisions, Section Officers, etc. There are allegations that on the clerical post, appointments are made only if the persons who are nearer and dearer to the High Court staff and the Registrar has earned good money out of this. Even in conducting examination for the Magistrates, the respondent No. 1 has levelled allegations. With regard to transfer, bribery is alleged. He has made allegations against Private Secretary of the Judges. In various paragraphs, allegations are made and on reading Annexure-C, it clearly appears that, he has levelled allegations against the entire Institute. Reading the affidavit-in-reply (Annexure-C), it appears that, he would not like to spare anyone. This is how, with a calculated mind, the respondent is acting. He is not a layman, but he is a Union leader.
19. In the case of State of Gujarat v. S.O. Trivedi reported in 1993 (2) GLH 514, the Court had an occasion to consider similar question wherein scandalous allegations made against the sitting Judges of the High Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate were printed and distributed by pamphlets. Considering the contents of pamphlet and the defence of the opponent, the Court found that it was an intentional attempt on the part of the opponent to scandalise and lower the authority of Court. The Court held that the opponent committed gravest possible contempt. The Court considered the decision of Ashwini Kumar Ghose and Anr. v. Arbinda Bose and Anr. wherein the Bench of the Apex Court held as under:
No objection could have been taken to the article had it merely preached to the Courts of law the sermon of divine detachment. But when it proceeded to attribute improper motives to the Judges, it not only transgressed the limits of fair and 'bonafide' criticism but had a clear tendency to affect the dignity and prestige of This Court.
20. In the case of Rama Dayal Markarha v. State of Madhya Pradesh , the Apex Court held as under:
When there is danger of grave mischief being done in the matter of administration of justice, the animadversion cannot be ignored and viewed with placid equanimity. If the criticism is likely to interfere with due administration of justice or undermine the confidence which the public rightly repose in the Courts of law as Courts of justice, the criticism would cease to be fair and reasonable criticism as contemplated by Section 5 but would scandalise Courts and substantially interfere with administration of justice. As said in Gray's case, 1900-2 QB 36 any act done or writing published calculated to bring the Court or Judge of the Court into contempt or to lower his authority is a contempt of the Court, because nothing is more pernicious in its consequences than to prejudice the mind of the public against Judges of the Court responsible for dispensing justice.
It is also to be borne in mind the setting in which the Court is functioning and the attack on the administration of justice. In this country, justice at grassroot level is administered by Courts set up in rural backward areas largely inhabited by illiterate persons. It is they who bring their problems to the Court for resolution and they are the litigants, or consumers of justice service. Their susceptibility is of a different type than the urban elite reading newspapers and exposed to wind of change or even wind of criticism. The people in rural backward areas unfortunately illiterate have different kinds of susceptibilities. A slight suspicion that the Judge is pre-disposed or approaches the case with a closed mind or has no judicial disposition would immediately affect their susceptibilities and they would lose confidence in the greater harm than infusing or instilling in the minds of such people a lack of confidence in the character and integrity of the Judge. Coversely, it makes the task of the Judge extremely difficult when operating in such area. In this case the setting is in a small backward rural area in the State of Madhya Pradesh and which aspect has especially appealed to the High Court in adjudging the appellant guilty of contempt. Again, the contemnor is a lawyer belonging to the fraternity of noble and liberal profession. A criticism by him would attract greater attention than by others because of his day-to-day concern with the administration of justice in that area and his belief about the Judge's judicial disposition would adversely affect a large number of persons. Therefore, when in such a background it is said that the Judge has a wayward bend of mind and wields a wayward pen and that he took a deliberate turn in the discussion of evidence because he had resolved to convict the accused would indicate that the Judge has no judicial disposition and that he prejudges the issues and there cannot be a greater infamy and calumny apart for the Judge of the Court. People around would loose all confidence in him and in the ultimate analysis the administration of Justice would considerably suffer, and, therefore, would constitute contempt.
21. Our attention is drawn by the petitioner to a case of R.L. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu , wherein the Court held as under:
the High Court, as a Court of Record, being clothed with a special jurisdiction, has also all incidental and necessary powers to effectuate that jurisdiction. Consequently, it had the power to order satisfaction.
22. Mr. Charistie, the petitioner herein, submitted that this is a case wherein no leniency can be shown to the respondents. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 has been held guilty of contempt. The matter was carried to the Apex Court which resulted in dismissal of the appeal, yet, before This Court, he made a statement that the appeal is pending before the Apex Court despite the fact that the order has been produced on record. It is further submitted that he is making false statement on oath regarding Annexure-A about which, we have discussed earlier in our judgment. It is submitted that in view of this repeated contempt and the conduct of the respondent No. 1, serious view of the matter is required to be taken. Once the person is found repeating the act of committing contempt of the Court, it calls for maximum punishment provided under the provision. Looking to the aforesaid aspects, Mr. Christie, drew our attention to a reported judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Tukaram v. Santosh Mahadeorao Sayam and Ors. 1995 Cri. LJ 577. There was repeated and deliberate act and the Court opined that there was scant regards for the Court's orders. There is wilful disobedience on their part. Mr. Christie submitted that though the respondents tendered unconditional apology, the Court considering their conduct and attitude, refused to accept the apology and held that they are not entitled to any leniency. The Court further opined that they have no regard for the orders passed by the, Tribunal and the Court and that they are treating the judicial orders as paper tigers.
23. In a serious matter like this, the Court opined that persons who are repeatedly and wilfully flouting the orders of the Court do hot deserve any suspension of sentence and fine and refused to even suspend the order of sentence and fine.
24. In the case of C.K. Daphtcay v. O.P. Gupta and Ors. , a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court considered the contention that unreasonable restrictions are placed and it serves no purpose and even scurrilous attack on a Judge does not affect the administration of justice. It was submitted that after a case has been decided, if a judgment is severely and unfairly criticised and assuming that this has an adverse effect on the administration of justice, it must be balanced against the harm which would ensure if such a criticism is stopped. The Apex Court pointed out as under:
We are unable 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 inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the Judiciary. If confidence in the Judiciary goes, the due administration of Justice definitely suffers.
25. Christie, the petitioner before us, submitted that the respondent No. 1 must be a stopped from publishing such news item in his newspaper. It is submitted by Mr. Christie that whatever he has produced before the Court and whatever the respondent No. 1 has stated in the newspaper cannot be said to be a criticism, much less fair criticism, and it is nothing, but a calculated attack on the Judges of This Court.
26. We have gone through the petition and other documents placed on record by parties. A charge is drafted and is given to the respondents. The Court has taken cognizance of the same and therefore, the respondents are required to face the charge framed against them. We have considered some material placed by the respondent No. 1 alongwith the affidavit at the time of hearing. As held by the Apex Court, when on the facts, charge against the respondents is quite clear and simple, it is not necessary that a formal charge should be drawn up by the petitioner or the Court. In the instant case, however, charge is framed by the petitioner and is served on the respondents. We have considered some of the averments made in the Annexures which have been produced by the respondent No. 1 at the time of hearing and contents are written by the respondent No. 1 and are so clear that for that, no formal charge is required to be framed.
27. The Apex Court in the case of Vinay Chandra Mishra , has pointed out the duties. It observed as under:
Hence, when the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with a special and specific power to take action for contempt not only of itself but of the lower Courts and Tribunals, for discharging its constitutional obligations as the highest custodian of justice in the land, that power is obviously coupled with a duty to protect all the limbs of the administration of justice from those whose actions create interference with or obstruction to the course of justice. Failure to exercise the power on such occasions, when it is vested specifically for the purpose, is a failure to discharge the duty.
28. Suffice it to say that, there is no repentance but we find that the respondents tried to mislead the Court by filing false affidavits, the details of which, we have discussed earlier. When contemnors are editing, printing, publishing and circulating the newspaper scandalising the Court, strict action must be taken.
29. The petitioner, learned Advocate for the respondents and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are present. Yesterday, when the Court was about to rise, the respondent No. 2-Bhupendrabhai Hargovinddas Patel placed an affidavit. The respondent No. 3-Hasmukhbhai Hargovinddas Patel, has also placed an affidavit. Bhupendrabhai Hargovinddas Patel has admitted that he is the editor of the newspaper. He admits the contents of the petition and states in writing before the Court that in future, he shall not publish such material and has tendered an apology before the Court. On similar line, Hasmukhbhai Hargovinddas Patel has also filed an affidavit.
30. The respondent No. 3 has remained present before the Court and has stated that he shall not repeat in future such act and has requested that a lenient view of the matter be taken. Learned Advocate Mr. Vyas, after discussing with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has stated that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall not repeat such act in future and they shall be more careful in publishing any news item. The respondent No. 3 states that though he is an administrator, in fact, he is required to look after the persons working in the Press and he has to mark their presence and has to disburse salaries. He is not concerned with publication of news item. But as he is a responsible person of the newspaper which is being published, he stated before us that he admits the contents of the petition and prayed for mercy.
31. In view of the apology tendered by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, though belatedly, Mr. Vyas submitted that they have been advised to act properly, and leniency should be shown to them. It is further submitted by him that at the instance of the respondent No. 1, news item appearing at Annexure "A" is edited, printed, published and circulated and no serious view of the matter is required to be taken so far as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.
32. From what is discussed above and stated by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is clear that Annexure "A" is a part of Annexure "AA" the news-weekly edited, printed, published and circulated by the respondents wherein the article in question is printed. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, just before dictating final order, pleaded guilty. Annexure "C" to the affidavit is not written by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 but the respondent No. 1 has addressed the same to the authorities named therein. It is under these circumstances that we are passing the following order:
The respondent No. 1 is held guilty for criminal contempt and is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are held guilty for criminal contempt. However, in view of what we have discussed above, we direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only).
Amounts of fine to be paid within a period of fifteen days.