Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(32) While dealing with the contemnors in exercise of our powers as a Court of Record (Article 215 of the Constitution), we have followed a very fair procedure. The contemnors have been informed of the charges/allegations against them. They were given opportunity to take the legal advice, although being lawyers (and not lay contemnors) they are supposed to know the law and the procedure. They have been given opportunity to make the statements and to file the reply to the show cause notice in their defense. Although strictly not necessary, they have been permitted to be represented through counsel. After recording their statements what is however observed is that initially they have not shown any repentance, but affirmed their contumacious and contemptuous actions, particularly in regard to the scandalous memorandum dated 21st September, 1991, till 4th October 1991, when they tendered apology.

(33) Having observed a very fair procedure and after initiating the contempt proceedings with great caution, we have examined the actions and the conduct of the contemnors in the light of the totality of circumstances. We have come to an unhesitating conclusion that each of the contemnors is guilty of gross contempt of Court.

(34) Now the question arises whether the apology tendered by the contemnors should be accepted or not. It may be noted that the apology has not been tendered by any of the contemnors immediately after the notice was served on them. They had no factual defense and, therefore, if there was genuine repentance the apology should have come at first available opportunity. Even when their statements were recorded in the Court on 1.10.1991 they did not offer any apology. As a matter of fact, an application was moved to adjourn the hearing for eight weeks. When this request was rejected and the arguments continued, there were repeated requests by the advocates appearing for the contemnors to adjourn the hearing on one ground or another. It was stated by Shri Rajiv Khosla that he wanted to engage Shri Ram Jethamalani, who was out of station. Till the hearing was concluded on 3.10.1991 the tone of the arguments was not of repentance or regret, but was of challenging the proceedings. On the contrary, Shri B.D. Kaushik and Shri Rajiv Khosla affirmed the contents of the memorandum dated 21.9.1991 and stated that they stand by it Shri Kaushik admitted that he read the memorandum aloud in Chief Justice's Court. However, the statements recorded in the first part of the day on 4.10.1991 were a sudden somersault, Shri B.D. Kaushik stated: "I as President of the Delhi Bar Association own moral responsibility of the events which took place in various courts on 26th September , condemn the same. It is regretted. I further state that we will try our level best not to repeat such an incident in future and there will be no recurrence."

(35) A similar statement was made by each of the contemnors, who were the office bearers of the Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari, in their capacity as the office bearers. The statement was made by Shri Jatan Singh and Shri P.S.Rathee, who are not the office bearers of the Association, saying that they stand by the statement of the President of the Delhi Bar Association.

(36) However, in the subsequent statements, S/s B.D. Kaushik, Rajiv Khosla, R.K. Sharma, R.N. Vats and Jugal Wadhwa, all the office bearers of the Association, stated that the apology tendered by them was in their individual capacity. The manner and contents of the apology leave much to be desired. We are not persuaded to accept them as sincere or bonafide. Only Shri R.L. Tandon, Advocate, stated that the apology was sincere and had come from the bottom of their hearts - but not the contemnors, some of the contemnors had earlier expressed regret and condemned the happenings of 26.9.1991 in their capacity as the office- bearers. Since Along with the contemnors at least about 400 members of the Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari , aiding and abetting the contemnors, had committed gross contempt of this court on 26.9.1991, the apology had to be in their individual capacity as well as in their capacity as the office-bearers of the Delhi Bar Association, representing the said about 400 advocates. The call for the' gherao' was given by the Delhi Bar Association in their memorandum dated 21.9.1991. Pursuant to the said call about 400 advocates from Tis Hazari Courts led by their officer - bearers, the contemnors, had "gheraoed" the various Court rooms in the High court and committed several contumacious acts. The subsequent statements made by the contemnors were only in their individual capacity and do not, therefore, correctly reflect the feeling of repentance and apology by about 400 members of the Delhi Bar Association who had participated in the incidents on 26.9.1991.

(96) Was it then, an apology?

(97) Apology is a speech of the heart. Remorse is its seed. It is nourished by atonement and sustained by some spiritual essence. It is a state of grace. Was it then, an apology? The sequence of events and the proceedings lay bare the truth. And-the truth is that it was not an apology but a farce. Its stemmed not from the heart but from the teeth. It was all along a war game of attrition and nerves. First defiance, then veiled threats and later owning of "moral responsibility" and expression of regret over the incident. They were all tactical moves. Cool, calculated and deliberate. There was neither any repentance nor any remorse. 'Regret' and "apology" were used merely as tools to blur the vision. In the process they impaired further this fragile and precious institution.