Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On being aggrieved by the above order of dismissal dated 2.4.79, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition No. 570 of 1979 before this Court but was not successful as the SLP was dismissed on 25.7.79.

The appellant on being disturbed by the dismissal of his Writ Petition moved a Contempt Petition on 16.4.80 under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') making some serious allegations against the two Hon'ble Judges of the High Court who dismissed his Writ Petition on 2.4.79 and thereafter the Review Petition on 23.4.79 and also impleaded Shri R.P. Sinha as the third respondent in that petition. According to the appellant, the contempt petition was registered as M.C.C. No. 136 of 1980 and placed before a Division Bench on 29.4.1980 which after hearing the appellant summarily dismissed contempt petition. While it was so, the Registry of the High Court examined the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the appellant in M.C.C. No. 136/80 under Rule 5 of Rules regarding contempts framed by the High Court (Notification No. 8958 - Nagpur dated the 24th October, 1953) and placed the matter before the learned Chief Justice of the said High Court who on that motion/reference passed an order on 2.5.1980 to place the matter before a Division for further action. The Division Bench before which the matter was placed took cognizance of criminal contempt and directed issue of notice on 13.5.80 to the appellant directing to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of Court to which the appellant filed his reply raising certain preliminary objections stating that the notice was bad for the reasons, namely, (1) The Section of the Act under which cognizance had been taken was not specifically mentioned; (2) Though the offending portions are marked the notice does not show sufficient cause as to why the words and expressions used therein have been construed as contemptuous; (3) The procedure followed by the High Court was contrary to the rules framed by it; and (4) No consent of the Advocate General has been obtained. The appellant, on the basis of the above objections prayed to discharge the rule of contempt.

9. That both the Judges have violated the sanctity attached to the seat of Justice and have committed a Contempt of their own Court. Both have acted malafidely in bad faith.

PRAYER It is, therefore, prayed that Contempt Proceedings under Section 16 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, may be initiated against Justice J.S. Verma and Justice U.N. Bachawat of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the aforesaid grounds."

The High Court after examining the above scandalising remarks made by the appellant in his contempt petition rejected the objections of the appellant/contemner holding that the cognizance of the criminal contempt was taken by it on suo moto, that the contemner was informed that the Court was invoking its jurisdiction under Article 215 of Constitution of India to punish him for contempt, that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not confer any new jurisdiction by its authority, that in a suo moto action by the High Court, consent of the Advocate General was not necessary, that non quoting of the provisions Section in the notice is immaterial and that the contemner had full notice of the charge of contempt levelled against him and concluded, "We see no defect in the notice served upon the contemner, nor do we find defect in the procedure followed." Then after referring to certain decisions of this Court in Perspective Publications v. State of Maharashtra, [1969] 2 SCR 779; C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, [1971] 1 SCC 626 and Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court, [1974] 1 SCC 374, the High Court made the following observation with reference to the facts of the case:

relating to Mr. Justice Bachawat, it was said that "he silently witnessed the proceedings. He never uttered a single word or intervened when his senior faltered and succumbed to false averments of the Presiding Judge as if he was not an independent Judge but serving faithfully and obediently his master."

Finally, the High Court held that the contemner, Mr. Pritam Lal is guilty of criminal contempt of not only scandalising the Court and lowering its authority but also substantially interfering with the due course of justice. Coming to the question of sentence, the High Court taking note of the defiant attitude of the contemner who even did not think it necessary to apologise but tried to justify the aspersions, sentenced the contemner to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Hence the present appeal.

The 1884 edition of Belchamber's Practice of the Civil Court says at page 241 that -

"Every superior court of record, whether in the United Kingdom, or in the colonial possessions or dependencies of the Crown has inherent power to punish contempts, without its precincts, as well as in facie curiae............."

In 9 Halsbury's Law of England (4th Edition) by Lord Hailsham at page 3 under the caption "Criminal Contempt", the following passage is found: