Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Courts to punish for contempt of itself. Similar provision as regards the Supreme Court is contained in Article 129 of the Constitution. Apart from the Constitution, the Parliament has enacted the Contempt of Courts Act conferring power upon the Supreme Court and the High Courts to take action suo motu or on motion made in that regard in the manner laid down in the Act. The Contempt of Court Act was enacted (in the post-constitution era) first in 1952, being Act 32 of 1952 which replaced the contempt of Courts Act 1926, 1952 Act was replaced by Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (Act 70 of 1971). The Act makes distinction between 'civil contempt and 'criminal contempt' as defined in Section 2 (b) and (c) of the Act. Contempt powers vest in the High Court but under Section 11, the High Court has jurisdiction to enquire into or try a contempt "of itself and any Court subordinate to it" and as per Section 10, the High Court has and exercises "the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself. Section 14 deals with contempt committed in the face of the Supreme Court or the High Courts. Section 15 deals with criminal contempt in other cases i.e. cases other than referred to in Section 14.

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

Section 15 may also be quoted so far as relevant, as under:

15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases.--(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by-
(a) the Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, or
A criminal contempt is punishable by the superior Courts by fine or imprisonment, but it has many characteristics which distinguishes it from ordinary offence. An offence under the criminal jurisdiction is tried by a Magistrate or a Judge and the procedure of trial is regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provides an elaborate procedure for framing of charges, recording of evidence, cross-examination, argument and the judgment. But charge of contempt is tried on summary process without any fixed procedure as the Court is free to evolve its own procedure consistent with fair play and natural justice. In contempt proceedings unlike the trial for a criminal offence no oral evidence is ordinarily recorded and the usual practice is to give evidence by affidavits. .................Ordinarily, process of trial for contempt is summary. A summary form of trial is held in the case of civil contempt and also in the case of criminal contempt where the act is committed in the actual view of the Court or by an officer of justice........ The practice of proceeding summarily for the punishment of contempt out of Court has been the subject of comment and protest, but the practice is founded upon immemorial usage....... Proceedings for Contempt of Court are of a peculiar nature; though it may be that in certain aspects they are quasi-criminal, but in any view taken are not exercised as part of the original criminal jurisdiction of the Court, as was held in re: Tushar Kanti Ghosh, AIR 1935 Cal 419 (FB). The High Court held that since the proceedings for Contempt of Court do not fall within the original criminal jurisdiction of the Court no leave could be granted for appeal to Privy Council under Clause 41 of the Letters Patent of that Court.

24. It is to be kept in mind that it is difficult to expect direct evidence about one's complicity in an incident of this kind. It can be gathered only from circumstances. A question would arise as to whether the conduct/role of the Dy. SP warrants any action for Contempt of Court. We have noticed the definition of 'criminal contempt' above. Criminal Contempt means, inter alia, doing of any act which amounts to scandalising or tending the scandalise or lowering or tending to lower the authority of any Court. Though there is allegation in the report of the District & Sessions Judge that the Dy. SP was leading the group of policemen suggesting that he was present at the place and time of incident, even if he was not present at that time he was apparently aware of slogan shouting against the District & Sessions Judge by SIs Sakaldeo Yadav, S.A. Khan and others. The definition of Criminal Contempt is wide enough to include any act which tends to scandalise or lower the authority of any Court. The 'act' also, in my opinion has to be given a wider meaning to include, say, covert acts of instigation or support. If the Dy. SP with full awareness of the gravity of the situation allowed the incidentto take place his bona fide would become suspect. It is curious, as per his own show-cause that till 2.45 p.m. "no seriousness of the matter was reported" to him. This clearly is a false statement. At the particular time Inspector Srikant Kachchap had realised the gravity of the situation and as stated by him, being Inspector of the Town PS he went to the Court premises to prevent the police officers from entering the Court room because he though it was part of his duty. The conduct of the Dy. SP in going for the routine inspection of the Strong Room simply suggests that he wanted the police officers to act as they liked. This suggests his covert support for them. As noticed above, even the ADGP stated in his report that had the Dy. SP taken prompt action the incident could have been avoided. Where the omission is part of a plan or a design, in my opinion, it would be more than simple dereliction of duty which in the ordinary course would have merely justified administrative action. In the facts and circumstances I am inclined to think that the incident took place with the tacit support of the Dy. SP and therefore, he cannot be absolved of the culpability of the incident. I would accordingly hold Dy. SP Sudarshan Pd. Mandal, guilty of contempt.