Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. After the above order was dictated in the open Court, Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, began to threaten the learned single Judge in a most derogative manner challenging his authority for having issued the contempt against the writ petitioner, his client. Immediately, the learned single Judge, on noticing the unbecoming behaviour of the counsel, passed the following order:

After the above order was passed in the Open Court. Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner threatened the Court by saying that "by initiating contempt proceedings, the controversy will not die down and it will flare up". He used these words in a most offensive and derogatory manner in the Open Court in full view of a large number of lawyers including some senior members of the Bar. He further remarked that he is already facing two Contempts and is ready to face another. This action on the part of the learned Advocate is itself contemptuous. I am constrained to initiate proceedings for contempt against Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', Advocate, to protect the majesty of law and dignity of the Court. Slave this action amounts to Criminal Contempt, I direct the Registry to place this matter also before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration by an appropriate Larger Bench. Proceedings against Mr. Jha will be placed as a separate contempt proceedings. I feel that personal appearance of Mr. Jha is necessary before the Bench. He is directed to furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) before the Jt. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court with an undertaking to appear before the appropriate Bench when the matter is listed. The Registrar will communicate to Mr. Jha the date of listing of the matter before the appropriate Larger Bench after obtaining instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 8. The next day, i.e., on 22.12.2006. the Joint Registrar (List and Computers) of this Court placed the file before the Chief Justice through a note for a direction for initiating criminal contempt against both Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, the writ petitioner and against Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal' his lawyer, as directed by the order dated 21.12.2006 in the writ petition No. 7126 of 2006. The Chief Justice, by the Administrative order dated 22.12.2006 directed for instituting the contempt proceeding against both of them and directed for posting the matter before the Larger Bench of 5 (five) Judges to be presided over by the Chief Justice on 5.1.2007.
9. In the meantime, on 4.1.2007, a Letter Patent Appeal has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-contemner, Ashok Kumar Gupta through the same counsel, K.K. Jha 'Kamal' challenging the order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the learned single Judge Justice Permod Kohli initiating contempt proceedings against both. Ultimately, both Letters Patent Appeal and the contempt matters came up before the five Judge's Bench on 5.1.2007 as already directed.
10. Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', the counsel contemner was present. He made his sub missions before the Larger Bench. After hearing Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', the counsel contemner appearing for the contemner-petitioner; the Larger Bench felt that there is prima facie material to initiate contempt proceedings against both of them and accordingly issued show-cause notice to them. Since an advocate is involved in the contempt proceedings, the Larger Bench thought it fit to issue notice to the Presidents of various advocates Associations. Bar Council and the Advocate-General for seeking their assistance in the disposal of the contempt matter against the counsel of this Court. In the same order, the Larger Bench felt that Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order of learned single Judge, is not maintainable as no orders have been passed by the Single Judge under Rule 17 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules and the learned single Judge merely referred the matter to the Chief Justice to post it before the appropriate Bench for initiating contempt proceeding and passing further appropriate orders as there are materials for contempt and, accordingly, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. The said order passed by the Larger Bench on 5.1.2007 is as follows:

52. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to refer to the various observations made by the Supreme Court while dealing with the cases where the advocate committed the contempt of Court. They are as follows:

53. In the Constitution Bench judgment in Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. the Supreme Court observed as follows:

If, however, the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such Court. It can be punished summarily as contempt.One is a wrong done to the Judge personally while the other is a wrong done to the public. It will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court's administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. It is well established that it is not necessary on prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law.
It is high time that we realize that the much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the Legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system.

56. The Supreme Court in the case of Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, observed as follows:

To punish an advocate for contempt of Court, no doubt, must be regarded as an extreme measure, but to preserve the proceedings of the Courts from being deflected or interfered with, and to keep the streams of justice pure, serene and undefiled, it becomes the duty of the Court, though painful, to punish the contemner in order to preserve its dignity.