Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The appellants, six in number, are members of the Executive Committee of the District Bar Association at Muzaffarnagar within the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the contempt proceedings were started against them, because of certain resolutions passed by the Committee on 20th April, 1949, copies of which were forwarded to the District Magistrate and other officers by a covering letter signed by appellant No.1 as President of the Bar Association.

To appreciate the contentions that have been raised in this appeal, it would be necessary to state a few relevant facts. The resolutions which form the basis of the contempt proceedings relate to the conduct of two judicial officers, both of whom functioned At Muzafarnagarn at the relevant time. One of them named Kanhaya Lal Mehra was a Judicial Magistrate while the other named Lalta Prasad was a Revenue Officer. It is said that the first appellant as President of the Bar Association received numerous complaints regarding the way in which these officers diposed of cases in their courts and behaved towards the lawyers and the litigant public. The Executive Committee of the Association took the matter in hand and, after satisfying themselves that the complaints were legiti- mate and well-founded, they held a meeting on 20th April, 1949, in which the following resolutions were passed:-

It admits of no dispute that the summary jurisdiction exercised by superior courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in the courts. It would be only repeating what has been said so often by various judges that the object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to judges, personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened.

(3) (1900] 2 Q.B. 36.

The judge, in the course of the trial, gave a warning ,to the newspaper press that in reporting the proceedings of the court, it was not proper for them to give publicity to indecent matters that were revealed during trial. Upon this, the defendant published an article 'in the Birmingham Daily Argus, under the heading "An advocate of Decency", where Darling J. was abused in scurrilous language. The case of Wells was then over but the Assizes were still sitting. There can be no doubt that the publication amounted to contempt of court and such attack was calculated to interfere directly with proper administration of justice. Lord Russell in the course of his judgment, however, took care to observe that the summary jurisdiction by way of contempt proceedings in such cases where the court itself was attacked has to be exercised with scrupulous care and only 'when the case is clear and beyond reasonable doubt.

With regard to Kanhaya Lal, the a legations are that he does not record the evidence in cases tried by him properly, that in all criminal matters transferred to his court, where the accused are already on bail, he does not give them time to furnish fresh sureties with the result that they are sent to jail, and lastly, that he is not accommodating to lawyers at all. So far as the other officer is concerned, one serious allegation made is, that he follows the highly illegal procedure of hearing two cases at one and the same time, and while he records the evidence in one case himself, he allows the Court Reader to do the thing in the other. It is said also that he is short-tempered and frequently threatens lawyers with proceedings for contempt. Some of these complaints are not at all serious and no judge, unless he is hypersensitive, would at all feel aggrieved by them. It is undoubtedly a grave charge that the Revenue Officer hears two cases simultaneously and allows the Court Reader to do the work for him. If true it is a patent illegality and is precisely a matter which should be brought to the notice of the District Magistrate who is the administrative head of these officers. As regards the first part of the resolution, the alle- gations are made in general terms that' these officers do not state facts correctly when they pass orders and that they are discourteous to the litigant public. These do not by any moans amount to scandalising the court. Such complaints are frequently heard in respect of many subordinate courts and if the appellants had a genuine grievance,it cannot be said that, in ventilating their grievances they exceeded the limits affair criticism. The only portion of the resolution to which 'prima facie objection can be taken is that which describes these officers as thoroughly incompetent in law and whose judicial work does not inspire confidence. Those remarks are certainly of a sweeping nature and can scarcely be justified. Assuming, however, that this portion of the resolution is defamatory, the question arises whether it can be held to amount to contempt of court. To answer this question, we have to see whether it is in any way calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice in these courts, or, in other words, whether such statement is likely to give rise to an apprehension in the minds of litigants as to the ability. of the two judicial officers to deal properly with cases-coming before them, or even to embarrass the officers themselves in the discharge of their duties. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that whether or not the representation made by the appellants in the present case is calculated produce these results is to be determined solely and exclusively with reference to the language or con tents of the resolutions themselves; and that-no other fact or circumstance can be looked into for this purpose, except perhaps as matters which vate or mitigate the offence of content: offence is found to have been committed that pleas of justification or privilege are speaking available to the defendant in contempt proceedings. The question of publication also in the technical sense in which it is relevant in, a libel action may be inappropriate to the law of contempt. But, leaving out cases of ex facie contempt, where the question arises as to whether a defamatory statement directed against a judge is calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the capacity or integrity. of the judge or is likely to deflect the court itself from a strict and unhesitant performance of its duties, all the surroundung facts and circumstances under which the statement was made and the degree of publicity a was givine to it would undoubtedly be relevant' circumstances. It is true as the learned counsel for the respondent suggests that the matter was discussed in the present case among the members of the Bar, and it might have been the subject-matter of discussion amongst the officers also to whom copies of the resolutions were sent. No doubt, there was publication as, is required by the law of libel, but in contempt proceedings, that is not by any means conclusive. What is material is the nature. and extent of the publication and whether or not it was likely to have an injurious effect on the minds of the public or of the judiciary itself and therefore to interference with the administration of justice. On the materials before us,, it is difficult to say that the circumstances under which the representation was made by the appellants was calculated to have such effect. There might have been some remote possibility but that cannot be taken note of. We are clearly of the opinion that the contempt, if any, was only of a technical character, and that after the affidavits were filed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court, the proceedings against them should have been dropped. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. There will be no order for costs either here or in the court below in favour of either party.