Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. This statement made by the writ petitioner contemner, through his affidavit filed now, must be true, since on the earlier hearing, the counsel-contemner himself owed responsibility stating that he alone is responsible for drafting writ petition. Earlier, he categorically admitted that the contemner-petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta was merely rubber stamp and he did not know any thing and it is he who drafted the entire writ petition. Strangely, the present stand of the counsel contemner is that the allegations contained in the writ petition, as against the respondent No. 1-judicial officer are correct and justified and he is ready to argue writ petition on merits and as such there is no necessity to appear before the Additional District Judge and to file an affidavit of apology as it would be against his conscience.

27. In regard to the liability of the both counsel and client, as mentioned in the first aspect, relating to the contumacious allegations made against the judicial officer in the writ petition, it is to be stated that the counsel for the contemner himself owed the responsibility for having drafted the writ petition and admitted that the writ petitioner was only a rubber stamp. The contemner-writ petitioner also has filed an affidavit before this Court that he did not know the contents of the writ petition and reposing trust in his counsel, he simply signed the affidavit, as directed by his counsel, and he never gave any instructions to his counsel with reference to the alleged allegations as against the judicial officers. However, as indicated above, as directed by this Court, the contemner-petitioner without any delay rushed to the District Court and filed the affidavit before the Additional District Judge, tendering unconditional apology for having filed such a writ petition. To the said effect, he has filed affidavit before this Court also. In both the affidavits filed by the contemner-petitioner, it is categorically stated that he did not know the contents of the petition; the counsel contemner has never explained to him the nature of the contents and he never instructed his counsel to make those scurrilous allegations against respondent No. 1, the judicial officer in the writ petition. This is not disputed by the contemner counsel, as he himself openly admitted before this Court on earlier hearings that he only drafted the writ petition and he owed full responsibility for the contents of the petition.

Page 2557

29. Let us now analyse about the first aspect against the counsel-contemner. For this purpose the relevant portions of the scurrilous allegations made in the writ petition drafted by the counsel on record are quoted as under:

Page 3 & 4: "for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Hon'ble Governor of the State of Jharkhand through and on behalf of the respondent No. 4 to accord sanction for criminal prosecution of the respondent No. 1, for his judicial action/orders, as aforesaid, under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in view of the fact that the learned respondent No. 1 is falling/has fallen in the net of provision of Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code, which is quoted below for ready reference and perusal of this Hon'ble Court, on the ground that the aforesaid judicial orders passed by him is illegal, malafide, contrary to law and the materials on judicial record, deliberate judicial order favouring the respondents No. 2 and 3 and in complete partially, keeping in waste paper basket the well settled law as well as established principle of impartiality, which is the core quality of a judge presiding over a judicial proceeding. The facts on judicial record as stated hereinafter will show that the respondent No. 1 has deliberately ignored to follow the order passed by his superior authority, such as, learned District Judge, Giridih and this Hon'ble Court, knowing it fully well that he is passing illegal order to show favour to the respondents No. 2 and 3.

39. So, these paragraphs contained in the affidavit filed by the contemner lawyer would indicate that even after he appeared before Justice Permod Kohli and tendered unconditional apology, he never realized his offensive action, but on the other hand tried to justify his move of drafting and filing of writ petition containing unsavoury allegations against the judicial officer without any basis.

40. The counsel-contemner, having tendered unconditional apology before Justice Permod Kohli on 15.01.2007 for his act of contempt, it is quite painful to see that he has now chosen to file an affidavit in I.A. No. 395 of 2007 on 12.03.2007 criticising and commenting about the act of Justice Kohli initiating contempt proceeding against his client and himself. Once he accepted that he only drafted writ petition, then he must own responsibility by placing materials to show and explain under what circumstances he made the very serious allegations against the judicial officer alleging that he has been dishonest and passed order for some consideration inclusive of money. Further he wanted to justify his action by requiring this Court to go into the matter in deep even though the client has not supported him by stating that he had never given instructions to make such allegations against a Judge. As indicated above, his client engaged another senior counsel and filed affidavit, tendering apology before both the Additional District Judge as well as before this Court and also seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file appeal before the appropriate forum. When that is the fact situation, we are at a loss to understand as to how the erstwhile counsel for the petitioner, who is a contemner-lawyer can persuade and insist this Court to go into the veracity of the allegations made against the judicial officer in the writ petition filed by the contemner client. This attitude depicts the conduct of the lawyer, who is bent upon accusing, insulting and threatening both Judge of subordinate judiciary as well as Judge of High Court, which is quite unbecoming.