Karnataka High Court
Registrar General, High Court Of ... vs G.N. Vishwanathappa on 29 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: ILR2002KAR2300, 2002(6)KARLJ48
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
ORDER
1. This contempt proceeding has been directed against Advocate Sri G.N. Vishwanathappa who is a lawyer practising at the Sidlaghatta Bar. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class forwarded a complaint to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in which he stated that an incident took place in the open Court on 7-3-2000 while the FDP case bearing No. 1 of 2000 was called out. We do not need to go into the details of the incident but suffice it to say that the learned Advocate is supposed to have behaved and used language that was disrespectful and offensive to the Presiding Officer who concluded that his behaviour is actionable under the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned District Judge forwarded the complaint to the Registrar General of the High Court because the High Court is the Competent Authority to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act. The proceedings were placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice who directed that suo motu proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act for criminal contempt be instituted against the learned Advocate. Pursuant to the registration of the contempt proceedings, notice was issued to the respondent-lawyer.
2. It is interesting to note that the respondent in his reply has given a large number of instances in support of his plea that all was not well in that particular Courtroom. His submission was that the quality of the orders and the type of the orders that were being passed were highly detrimental to the parties and that the Bar was having an extremely difficult time with this Judicial Officer. He has produced copies of several orders for the purpose of illustrating his point and his submission is that the incident has been reported in the wrong context insofar as he had only attempted to stand up for his rights as an Advocate and had done what was necessary to protect his client. Consequently, his submission was that no act of contempt has been committed by him and that the notice should be discharged. The evidence has been recorded in this case and we have carefully perused the whole of the record. We make it very clear that we do not desire to go into the aspect of evaluating with a fine toothcomb as to whether the Judicial Officer was right in his narration of what transpired or whether the learned Advocate is right in what according to him actually happened in the Courtroom as all of this really constitutes word against word. While, normally this Court would have no reason to disbelieve the correctness of what the Judicial Officer reports, we need to take cognizance of the fact that while narrating facts or describing incidents that a few inaccuracies could come up or that the description may be pitched a little too high. Instead, what we have done is to have evaluated the whole of the incident and we have done an assessment as to whether at all it is serious enough to warrant action/punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. In our considered view, the incident in question was not of that gravity as to attract punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act and furthermore, the background of the case is such that we would prefer not to have to take that step.
3. While there can be no two opinions about the correctness of the submissions canvassed by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the learned Advocates are officers of the Court and that it is expected that they shall at all times function in the Courtroom in a manner that is in keeping with the dignity, decorum and the requirements of the institution, the proceedings and the office which they hold, and that if there are incidents of gross misbehaviour or misconduct that they must be severely dealt with. We are guided by the observation of the Supreme Court wherein it has been repeatedly laid down that if an Advocate is guilty of professional or other misconduct that the Courts are required to take a doubly serious view because Courts are dealing with a professional from whom the Courts legitimately expect much higher standards of professional and academic conduct.
4. We are required however to deal with an embarrassing aspect of the other side of the problem which has seldom ever come up for consideration before the Court. From the various administrative actions which the High Court is required to take from time to time, we cannot shut our eyes to the sad incidents and the disturbing incidents where a Judicial Officer misconducts himself. It is impossible for us to hold that such incidents never take place and the very very difficult aspect that has surfaced in this case would be as to what is to be done when an incident or a series of such incidents manifests themselves. Are the litigants and members of the Bar totally helpless? It is true that there are remedies prescribed particularly by way of bringing the problem to the notice of the higher authorities administratively, etc., but in such a background, there can be embarrassing situations where rights are sought to be trampled upon or unpleasant situations occur because of the Presiding Officer insisting on passing damaging, incorrect or unpleasant orders and giving effect to them. If this happens persistently it may not always be the remedy to argue that the appeal proceedings, revision proceedings or administrative proceedings are the only solution and we are aware of the cases wherein a lawyer or a litigant may have to stand up for one's rights in order to avoid injustice or miscarriage of justice then and there as the damage cannot always be undone later after the order has taken effect. In such a situation, it would be difficult or rather absolutely wrong to categorise what happened as an act of contempt. The law of contempt presupposes that the person has acted in rank defiance or with such disrespect as the dignity and status of the Court or the Presiding Authority has been seriously offended and undetermined and again, the question would arise while examining such situations as to whether the incident is a serious one or a trivial one.
5. Having indicated our broad views with regard to the manner in which the contempt powers of the High Court are to be exercised in this sensitive class of cases, we need to observe that the present situation is not serious enough to warrant any punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is clear to us that some heat was generated in the Court on that day and the learned Advocate who is the contemnor has submitted that there was a long background to the incident and that what happened was inevitable. We do not justify what happened because we are of the view that even where a situation may be unpleasant that we look to the opposite party to always uphold the overriding aspect, namely, the dignity of the proceeding and the Court and not to aggravate the situation. In this view of the matter, while discharging the notice we bring it to the attention of the respondent-Advocate that he should hereinafter at all times ensure that there is not repetition of such incidents and that nothing that would undermine the dignity and position of the Courts and the Judicial Officers should take place in future. With these observations, the notice to stand discharged and the proceeding to stand disposed off on merits.