AFR

Reservedon06.05.2015Deliveredon02.07.2015

CourtNo.34Case:CONTEMPTAPPLICATION(CRIMINAL)No.12of2013Applicant:InReOppositeParty:SriMahendraPrasadShuklaAdvocate&OthersCounselforApplicant:A.G.A.,SudhirMehrotraCounselforOppositeParty:AjaiShankarPathak,Dr.V.K.Rai,M.K.Singh,PrashantPandey,RudraKantMishra,S.P.Srivastava,VivekMishra

Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.Hon'bleDineshGupta,J.

(DeliveredbyHon.SudhirAgarwal,J.)

1. Referencevideletterdated15.4.2013wasmadebyShriAmitKumar

Prajapati, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra (hereinafter

referredtoas'ACJM')statingthaton12.4.2013afterlunchhourswhenhe

wasdischargingjudicialfunctioninCourt,hearingmiscellaneousandbail

applications,AdvocatesGovindNarayan,UmakantSingh,RavindraSingh,

Titu Prasad Gupta, RoshanLal Yadav, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Bhola

Singh,RajeshKumarSrivastava,VikashShakya,PravejAkhtar,Jagjeevan

Singh etc. were present for hearing of their applications and bail

applications,ManojKumarPandey,Secretary,BarAssociation,Sonbhadra

appeared in Court and enquired from aforesaid advocates, who were

presentinCourtastowhytheyareworkinginCourt.Inthemeantime,

about 1520 more advocates alongwith Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Om

PrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathak,Advocatesenteredthecourtroom

andsaidthatadvocatesareabstainingfromjudicialwork,thenhowthe

court is functioning. ThePresidingOfficer tried toconvince themthat

courtisnotabstainingfromjudicialworkandthoseadvocateswhoare

willing, shall be allowed to work, whereupon the aforesaid advocates,

namely, Mahendra Prasad Shukla, OmPrakash Rai and OmPrakash

Pathakgotannoyedandstartedshouting,"NyayalayChoraurBeimanhai"

and despite the advocates are abstaining from judicial work, court is

2functioning.Theyalsostartedusingabusivelanguage,whichisnottobe

disclosed.Inthecourtroomitselftheaforesaidadvocatesraisedslogans

nayayalaymurdabad,adhivaktaektazindabad,onaccountwhereof,the

courtfunctioninghadtobedeferredforsometime.InthatwayMahendra

PrasadShukla,OmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathakand1520other

advocatesobstructedfunctioningofthecourt.

2. It is further stated that on 21st May, 2013 also, about 4050

advocatesenteredthecourtroomofChiefJudicialMagistrate(hereinafter

referredtoas'CJM')andpreventedthoseadvocates,whowereworkingand

askednottoworkwhereuponCJM,Sonbhadrasaidthatthoseadvocate

whoarewillingtowork,cannotbestoppedfromfunctioninganditisduty

ofcourttoattendcasesof litigantsandadvocates, whoarepresentin

court andwilling to workwhereupon the disturbing advocates started

raising slogans nayayalay murdabad adhivakta ekta zindabad and

creating obstruction in judicial work. Mahandra Prasad Shukla was

GeneralSecretaryofBarAssociationatthattimeandhewasalsopresent

incourtroomofCJM,creatingobstructioninjudicialwork.

3. Reference letter further states that Mahendra Prasad Shukla,

Advocate treats himself anauthority ontohimself and in the habit of

misrepresentationanddisturbingcourtfunction.Heusedtoattemptto

createunduepressureupon judicial officersbyshowingcontemptuous

conduct,timeandagain.InCaseNo.208/97StateVs.Santoshandothers,

pendingincourtofCJM,inwhichMahendraPrasadShuklahimselfwas

anadvocate,heproducedforgedsuretyandotherdocumentsinfavourof

accusedSantoshSingh.InthisconnectioncomplainantJaswantSingh

submittedanaffidavit on2.2.2013 in thecourt of CJMandwhenhis

brotherenquiredaboutfictitioussuretyfromMahendraPrasadShukla,

advocate,thenMr.Shuklathreatenedhimtodestroy.Takingcognizanceof

theoffence,CJM,on16.2.2013,orderedtoregisterFIRagainstMahendra

PrasadShukla,Advocate.

34. Reference letter further says that conduct of Mahendra Prasad

Shukla,OmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathak,advocatesandother

1520 advocates, shown in his court, not only has the effect of

scandalizing the court but also lower down its authority since the

aforesaidact wascommittedopenly, in presenceof litigatingpublic in

courtroom,andsameamountstoacriminalcontempt.

5. UndertheorderofHon'bleTheChiefJustice,dated26.3.2015,the

referenceletterwasplacedbeforeBenchhavingdeterminationofcriminal

contempt.ADivisionBenchconsistingofHon'bleRavindraSinghandAnil

KumarAgarwal,JJ.On30.9.2013,afterperusingReferenceLetterdated

15.4.2013,issuednoticestoMahendraPrasadShukl,OmPrakashRaiand

OmPrakashPathak,Advocatestofilereply,whyproceedingsofcriminal

contemptmaynotbeinitiatedagainstthemandtheymaynotbecharged

forthesame.Besides,theCourtalsodirectedDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra

toinquireintothematterandfindoutnamesof1520otheradvocates,

who also participated in disturbing activities in court roomof ACJM,

Sonbhadraasstatedbyhiminhisletterdated15.4.2013.

6. Pursuant to aforesaid order, District Judge, Sonbhadra made

inquiry and submitted report dated 21.10.2013 giving names of 8

advocates, whowerealsopresent incourtof ACJMon12.4.2013after

lunch hours and had created obstruction in judicial function while

accompanyingtheaforesaidthreeadvocatestowhom,noticeswerealready

issuedbythisCourt.Theseeightadvocatesare SheshNarainDixitalias

BabluDixit, AtmaPrakashTripathi, ChandraPrakashChaubheyalias

GudduChaubhey,KalpNathSingh,ShivRajSingh,BrijKishorSingh,

PrabhakarRamPathak,SatydeoPandey.

7. TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra mentionedthenamesofaforesaid

advocatesinviewofstatementsofAdvocatesJagjeevanSingh,RoshanLal

Yadav,Titu PrasadGupta,RavindraSingh.Thestatementsofaforesaid

advocates were also supported by Shri Tarkeshwar Tiwari, the then

4AssistantClerk(Criminal)andShriRajKaran,Stenographer,postedin

courtofAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadra.

8. After perusing theaforesaidreport of District Judge, Sonbhadra,

thisCourt,videorderdated11.11.2013,issuednoticestoaforesaideight

advocates.

9. AlltheContemnors,soughtforcopyofinquiryreportsubmittedby

DistrictJudge,Sonbhadra.On5.5.2014,undertheorderofCourt,the

samewassupplied to them, whichhas beenacknowledgedbyall the

contemnorsintheordersheetdated5.5.2014.Thereafter,contemnorsfiled

repliespursuanttonoticeissuedtothem.

10. Thegeneraldefencetakenbyall11contemnorsisasunder:

(i)MahendraPrasadShukla:

HehadgonetoappearintheCourtofAdditionalChiefJudicial Magistratetoopposeabail applicationwhereuponthePresiding Officerdeclinedtohearhimstatingthatheshouldgetnoobjection fromBar Association which has passeda resolution to abstainfromtheCourtandhewasnotallowedtoparticipateinjudicial proceedingsandhisnamehasbeenwronglymentioned.

(ii)OmPrakashRai:

His namehas wrongly been includedandactually he was notpresent.

(iii)OmPrakashPathak:

Hewas not present in theCourt Roomand didnot disturb theproceedings, as alleged, and his name has wrongly beenmentioned.

(iv)SheshNarayanDixit:

As a matter of fact, at that time when the alleged incident is claimedtohavetakenplace, hewaspresentandworkingintheCourtofDistrictJudgeandhisnamehasbeenincludedonaccount ofenmityofsomeotherAdvocates,whohavesomeenmitywith him.

(v)AtmaPrakashTripathi:

Hisnamehasbeenincludedduetoenmity.Hehasnotdoneanyact,asalleged.

5(vi)ChandraPrakashChaubey:

Hewas notpresent intheCourtRoomwhentheallegedincident tookplace.

(vii)KalpNathSingh:

HehasactuallyworkedintheaforesaidCourtofAdditionalChief JudicialMagistrateandnoincidenttookplaceinhispresenceandat that time when the alleged incident took place, he was not presentintheCourt.

(viii)ShivRajSingh:

He has gone to work in the Court and has not created anydisturbanceinCourtproceedings.

(ix)BrijKishorSingh:

HehasgoneintheCourttoappearinamatterandhasnotcausedanydisturbanceintheCourtproceedings.Hehasalsonotusedany abusive language etc. as alleged and his name has beenincludedonaccountofenmityofsomeotherAdvocates.

(x)PrabhakarRamPathak:

HewasnotpresentintheCourt.

(xi)SatyadeoPandey:

Onthedateofallegedincident,hewasatAllahabadandhisnamehaswronglybeenmentioned.

11. BeforethisCourt,thecontemnorsingeneralalsotenderedapology.

Thesamewasconsideredon19.2.2015andtheCourtpassedfollowing

order:

HeardSri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel for the High Court, learnedA.G.A.fortheStateofU.P.

Allthecontemnersarepresentinthecourt.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the contemners that contemnersarepractisinglawyers, onacallofstriketheallegedincident has occurred, they tender unconditional apology. Consideringthesame,itisdirectedthatincaseallthecontemners tenderunconditionalapologybeforeSriAmitKumarPrajapati,the thenAddl. C.J.M. Sonbhadrawithinthreeweeksfromtoday, theapologyshallbetenderedinwritingbeforeSriAmitKumarPrajapati whoshall sendhisresponseon it to thiscourt withinoneweekthereafter.

Liston23.3.2015.Onthatdayallthecontemnersshallappearin person.

612. Shri Shesh Narayan Dixit and Shri Atma Prakash Tripathi,

Advocatesvideletterdated24.2.2015,ShriBrijKishorSingh,Advocate,

vide letter dated 3.3.2015, Shri Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Shri Om

PrakashRai,ShriOmPrakashPathak, ShriShivRajSingh,ShriKalp

Nath Singh and Shri Satyadeo Pandey, Advocates vide letter dated

9.3.2015filedtheiraffidavitsbeforeShriAmitKumarPrajapati,thethen

ACJM,Sonbhadratenderingunconditionalapology.ShriChandraPrakash

Chaubhey,ShriOmPrakashRaiandShriPrabhakarRamPathakfiled

theirseparateaffidavitstothesameeffect.

13. Learned court below vide letter dated 20.3.2015 informed about

aforesaidactoftenderingapologyonthepartofcontemnorsbutfurther

pointedoutthatcontemnorshavenotcommittedtheseactsofcontempts

forthefirsttime,butearlieralsosimilaractwasdonebutJudicialOfficers

condoned their act and did not proceed further. The conduct of

contemnorsisseriouslycontemptuousandcondemnable.Hethereafter,

leftthemattertobeconsideredbythisCourt.

14. AlltheentireaspectswereconsideredbyCourton9.4.2015.Having

satisfied that it was not a case where contemnors deserve to be

dischargedonacceptanceofapology,thisCourtframedchargesagainstall

the contemnors. The three contemnors no.1, 2 and 3, namely, Shri

MahendraPrasadShukla,ShriOmPrakashRaiandShriOmPrakash

Pathak,Advocateswerechargedasunder:

"That you Mahendra PrasadShukla, Advocate on 12.4.2013 after lunchat2.00P.M.whiletheCourtwasdischargingjudicialfunction ofhearingMisc.Applications/BailApplicationsofAdvocatespresent, youalongwithOmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathakand1520 otherAdvocatesenteredtheCourtRoomandsaid,^^vf/koDrkx.k U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr gSa U;k;ky; dSls dk;Z dj jgh gSA esjs ;g dgus ij fd U;k;ky; U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr ugha gS tks vf/koDrkx.k dk;Z djsaxs mudk dk;Z U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxk]thisinfuriatedyouandsaidU;k;ky; apksj o csbZeku gS vf/koDrkx.k ds U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr jgus ij Hkh dk;Z dj jgh gSs youabused the Court and also raised slogan in the Court RoomU;k;ky; eqjnkckn vf/koDrk ,drk ftUnkcknOnaccountthereofproceedingsofthe Courtwerestopped.Inthiswayyouhavenotonlyscandalizedthe

7Court,buthavealsolowereddowntheauthorityoftheCourtbesides interfering in administration of justice, thus, all of you havecommittedcriminalcontemptdefinedunderSection2(c)readwithSections10,14and15ofContemptofCourtsAct,1971(hereinafter referredtoas"Act,1971")punishableunderSection12ofAct,1971."

15. Rest of theeight contemnors, namely Sri SheshNarayanDixit,

AtmaPrakashTripathi, ChandraPrakashChaubhey, KalpNathSingh,

ShivRajSingh,BrijKishorSingh,PrabhakarRamPathakandSatyadeo

Pandey,werechargedasunder:

"That all of you Shesh Narayan Dixit, Atma Prakash Tripathi, ChandraPrakashChaubhey,KalpNathSingh,ShivRajSingh,Brij Kishor Singh, Prabhakar RamPathak and Satyadeo Pandey on12.4.2013afterlunchat2.00PMwhiletheCourtwasdischarging judicial function of hearing Misc. Application/Bail Application of Advocatespresent,enteredintheCourtRoomalongwithMahendraPrasadShukla,OmPrakashRai,OmPrakashPathak,Advocates, usedindecentwordsagainsttheCourtandalsocreatedobstructionin judicial proceedings. Thus all of youhavecommittedcriminal contemptdefinedunderSection2(c)readwithSections10,14and15ofAct,1971punishableunderSection12ofAct,1971."

16. Thecontemnorswerealsogivenopportunitytofiletheirrepliesto

thechargelevelledagainstthem.

17. Inreplytothechargeframedagainstcontemnors,replieshavebeen

filedbyMahendraPrasadShukla,(contemnorno.1),OmPrakashPathak

(contemnorno.3), SheshNarayanDixit(contemnorno.4),ShriKalpNath

Singh (contemnor no.7), Shiv Raj Singh (contemnor no.8), Brij Kishor

Singh(contemnorno.9),SatyadeoPandey(contemnorno.11).

18. ShriV.C.Mishra,learnedSeniorAdvocateassistedbyS/ShriAlok

Kumar, Shukla Yasharth Srivastava and Ashok Verma, Advocates

appearedonbehalfofcontemnors,SheshNarayanDixit,AtmaPrakash

Tripathi,BrijKishorSingh,ShivRajSinghandKalpNathSingh.

19. ShriV.P.Srivastava,learnedSeniorAdvocateassistedbyShriAjay

ShankarPathak,Advocatehasappearedonbehalfofcontemnorsno.1,3

and11i.e.MahendraPrasadShukla,OmPrakashPathakandSatyadeo

8Pandey,respectively.

20. ShriVinodKumarRai,Advocatehasputinappearanceonbehalfof

OmPrakashRai(contemnorno.2).ShriRudraKantMishra,Advocatehas

putinappearanceonbehalf of contemnornos. 6and10 i.e. Chandra

PrakashChaubheyandPrabhakarRamPathak.

21. Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

contemnornos.1,3and11statedthatthoughtheaforesaidcontemnors

havefiledtheirrepliestothechargebuttheyarenotcontestingthematter

and surrendering themselves to the court, admitting guilt, and seeks

mercy.

22. However,ShriV.C.Mishra,learnedSeniorAdvocate,hasadvanced

elaborates arguments in defence, which have been adopted by other

learnedcounselappearingforothercontemnors.

23. ShriV.C.Mishra,contendedthatReferenceLetterwasmadebythe

thenACJM,Sonbhadradisclosingonlythreenamesi.e.contemnornos.1,

2and3,andtherefore,noproceedingsagainstanyothercontemnorsis

admissibleunderlawastheinvestigationdirectedbythisCourt,tobe

madeby District Judge, to findoutnamesof other1520advocates,

mentionedinReferenceLetter,andReportsubmittedbyDistrictJudge,

Sonbhadra, identifying names of contemnors 4 to 11, is neither

contemplatedunderAct1971norRulesframedbyCourt,therefore,the

aforesaidreportandproceedingsinitiatedonthebasisthereof,arewholly

illegal. The investigationdirectedby thisCourt tobemadebyDistrict

Judge, Sonbhadra and report submitted by learned District Judge is

whollyunauthorizedandillegal,hencenocontemptproceedingwouldlie

againstthoseadvocates,whowerenamedininquiryreportsubmittedby

DistrictJudge.Thesaidinquiryreportasalso subsequentproceeding

initiatedagainstcontemnornos.4to11,areillegalandlackjurisdiction.

24. Comingonthemerit of thematter, Shri V.C. Mishraurgedthat

9namesofcontemnornos.4to11havebeengivenbyadvocates,whohave

rivalrytothesecontemnors.Mentioningnamesofcontemnors4to11,by

twoorthreeadvocatesbeforeDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra,wasonaccount

of animosity. Theyhave been falsely implicated. There is no otherwise

evidencethatthesecontemnorswerepresentorcommittedanyillegalact

etc.whichmaycomewithintheambitofthetermcriminalcontemptas

defined under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971. He further contended that

statementof advocatestakennotebyDistrict Judge, Sonbhadrainhis

report,iswhollyhearsayandcannotbereliedsincecontemnorshavenot

been given any opportunity to cross examine those advocates, who

deposedanddisclosednamesofcontemnors.Hefurthercontendedthat

contemnorsincomplianceofthisCourt'sorderdated19.2.2015,tendered

unconditionalapologybeforePresidingOfficer,whomade areferenceto

thisCourtandhehasacceptedthesame,thereforeproceedingsareliable

tobedroppedagainstallthecontemnors.

25. ShriSudhirMehrotra,learnedSpecialCounselnominatedbythis

Courttoassist,however,submittedthatReferenceLetterdated15.4.2013

aswellasinquiryreportsubmittedbyDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraareself

speaking, clearly showing highly derogatory conduct of contemnors

disturbing court proceedings, which clearly amount to criminal

contempt.ThePresidingOfficerhasalsoremindedthatcontemnorshave

not committed these acts for the first time but repeatedly. He also

submittedthatpowerofthisCourttopunishforcontempt,isnotconfined

toReferenceletterreceivedfromsubordinatecourtbutthecourtcanhave

informationsubsequentlyorotherwisealso,eitherfromsubordinatecourt

or on its own or under order of this Court. He submitted that the

Referencelettermadebysubordinatecourtisnottobereadasaplaint.

The term 'Reference' under Section15of Act, 1971 is nothingbut an

information communicated by subordinate court to this Court, since

ultimate power for punishing contemnors for committing contempt of

10

subordinatecourtvestsinthisCourt.TheauthorityofthisCourtisnot

confinedtotheletterofreference.The'reference'isnotdefinedintheAct

1971.Itsimplyconstitutesaninformationreceivedfromsubordinatecourt.

In a given case, after initial information, the court may require some

further information, which may also come from subordinate court or

otherwiseandallthatinformationwillsatisfytheterm'Reference'.

26. All the learned counsels appearing for contemnors unanimously

submitted that since contemnors have tendered apology, court should

acceptthesameanddischargeallofthem.

27. Wehaveheardlearnedcounselforpartiesasalsorelevantstatutory

provisionsandexpositionoflawlaiddownundervariousauthoritiesof

thisCourtaswellasvariousothercourtsandApexCourt.

28. Herethecontemnorsthough11,butareapparentlyintwosets.First

setincludescontemnors1to3andsecondsetincludescontemnors4to

11i.e.Therefore,wefinditappropriatetodiscussthematteroftwosetsof

contemnorsseparately.Firstofallweproposestodiscussfactualaspects,

andthereafter,thelegalsubmissionsinvolvingboththesets.

29. So far ascontemnornos. 1 to3areconcerned, theyhavebeen

charged of using scurrilous language in court of ACJM, Sonbhadra,

preventinglitigantsandadvocatesinpursuingtheirmattersbeforecourt,

abstaining judicial functionandraisingslogans inCourtroom.All the

aforesaidacts,if true,dosatisfydefinitionof 'criminalcontempt'under

Section2(c)ofAct,1971.Noindividualreplyhasbeenfiledbycontemnor2

tothechargelevelledagainsthim.Thecontemnors1and3havefiledtheir

affidavitsinreplytochargeframedagainstthem.

30. ThedefencetakenbyMahendraPrasadShukla (contemnor1) in

affidavitswornon6.5.2015isthat,heisanadvocatepractisinginDistrict

Court,Sonbhadra,has21yearslengthofpractiseandhisenrollmentwith

BarCouncilofU.P.isof1994.Heearlierfiledanaffidavitdated9.12.2013

11

tenderingunconditionalapology.On9.2.2015,whenmatterwastakenup,

hesaidthatheisnotcontestingproceedingsonmerit andistendering

unconditional apology. The Court then permitted him to tender such

apologybeforecourtbelowandincompliancethereof,hefiledapologyvide

affidavitdated9.3.2015beforeShriAmitKumarPrajapati,nowpostedas

Civil Judge(SeniorDivision), MuzaffarNagar atKairanaandtendered

apology.Comingonmerit,hesaidthatKalpNathSingh(contemnor7)

lodgedFirstInformationReportdated20.3.2013,registeredasCaseCrime

No.164/2013underSection406and420I.P.C.,P.S.Pannuganj,District

SonbhadraagainstsixpersonsincludingoneJagJeevanSingh,Advocate,

whohasbeennamedasawitnessinreferencelettersentbycourtbelow.

CopyofreportisAnnexureNo.1totheAffidavit. Someoftheaccused,

namely,JagjeevanSingh,Advocate,JangBahaduraliasBachchacameto

thiscourtinWritPetitionsNo.6087of2013and6086of2013forseeking

quashingofFirstInformationReport.Thewritpetitionsweredisposedof

videordersdated10.4.2013andbothordersaresimilar.Oneoftheorder

dated10.4.2013readsasunder:

HeardthelearnedcounselforthepetitionerandthelearnedA.G.A.

Thispetitionhasbeenfiledbythepetitionerwithaprayertoquash theF.I.R.ofcasecrimeno.164of2013,undersections420,406IPC, P.S.Pannuganj,DistrictSonbhadra.

From the perusal of the F.I.R it appears that on the basis of allegationmadethereintheprimafaciecognizableoffenceismade out.ThereisnoscopeofinterferingintheF.I.RTherefore,theprayerforquashingtheF.I.Risrefused.

However,consideringthefacts,itisdirectedthatincasepetitionerappearsbeforethecourtconcernedwithin30daysfromtodayand applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiouslyifpossibleonthesamedaybythecourtsbelow.

Withthisdirection,thispetitionisfinallydisposedof.

(emphasisadded)

31. Trial in the aforesaid matter was pending in the court of Chief

JudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadraand12.4.2013wasthedatefixed.Since

12

courtwasvacant,thecasewastakenupinthecourtofACJM,ShriAmit

KumarPrajapation12.4.2013,whencourtgrantedinterimbailtooneof

the accused, Sat Pal alias Bablu. Despite knowledge of order dated

10.4.2013passed by this Court, Shri Amit Kumar Prajapati, the then

ACJM, Sonbhadra, in league and collusion with Jagjeevan Singh,

Advocate,grantedinterimbailtoanotheraccusedSatpalaliasBabluon

12.4.2013.Sincetheaforesaidcriminalcaserelatestonumberoffarmers

whowerecheatedbyaccusedpersons,theyraisedtheirvoice.Withthe

incidentasallegedinreferencelettersentbythenACJM,thecontemnor1

hasnoconcern.However,contemnor1,appearingonbehalfofinformant

wasopposingbail applicationandhadfiledVakalatnameon12.4.2013

beforetheconcernedACJM.Subsequently,bailapplicationwasrejectedby

CJMon 17.4.2013. Shri Jagjeevan Singh, Advocate was expelled from

membershipofSonbhadraBarAssociationvideresolutiondated7.2.2012.

On 11.4.2013, there was an emergency meeting of Sonbhadra Bar

Associationinwhichadecisionwastakenforabstainingjudicialworkon

12.4.2013onaccountofdissimilarityinholidaysinCivilCourtandState

GovernmentOfficesandalsoforfrequentpowercuts.Theincident,took

placeon12.4.2013,betweencomplainantandaccusedpersons,andnot

judicialofficerandcontemnor1.Thedayofincident, i.e.12.4.2013,was

lastworkingdayofthethenACJM,ShriAmitKumarPrajapatiinDistrict

Court,Sonbhadra.Regardingthesaidincident,anewswaspublishedin

localHindiNewspaper'Hindustan'VaranasiEditiondated13.4.2013.The

Sonbhadra Bar Association, Sonbhadra also passed a resolution on

16.4.2013againstShriJagjeevan Singh,Advocateaswell asthethen

ACJM,Shri Amit KumarPrajapati, against their conduct. Thecopyof

resolutionhasalreadybeenplacedonrecordasAnnexureNo.9tothe

Affidavit,whichisreproducedasunder:

^^vkt fnukad 16-04-13 dh cSBd esa dfFkr fM~fLV~d ckj ,'kks0 lksuHknz ds

inkf/kdkjh Jh txthou flag ,M0 ds v'kksHkuh; vkpj.k ,oa ,-lh-ts-,e- lksuHknz

13

Jh ver iztkifr ds U;kf;d dk;Z lapkyu ds rkSj&rjhds ij ppkZ ds mijkUr

cgqer ls fuEufyf[kr izLrko ikfjr fd;s x;s&

1- U;k;ky; ifjlj esa dfFkr fM~fLV~d ckj ,'kks0 lksuHknz ds inkf/kdkjh Jh

txthou flag o muds vU; lg;ksxhx.k vf/koDrk }kjk vk;s fnu ,'kks0 ds uke

ij vf/koDrk vkpj.k ds foijhr d`R; fd;k tkrk jgk gS] rFkk mDr

vf/koDrkvksa }kjk dfFkr ,'kks0 ds ek/;e ls dfri; U;kf;d vf/kdkjhx.k dks Hkh

izHkkfor dj U;kf;d izfdz;k dks lEiUu djkus dk iz;kl fd;k tkrk jgk gS]

ftlls U;kf;d ifjlj dk okrkoj.k [kjkc gksrk gS] Jh flag ds d`R;ksa dks ns[krs

gq;s gh mUgsa iwoZ dk;Zdkfj.kh }kjk ckj dh izkFkfed lnL;rk ls fuLdkf'kr dj

ckj dkmafly vkQ m0iz0 dks Hkst pqdk gSA loZlEer ls muds o lEcfU/kr

U;kf;d vf/kdkjh ds dk;Z O;ogkj dh fuank dh tkrh gS] rFkk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k

tkrk gS fd ,0lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz Jh vfer iztkifr ds LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dh

tkudkjh ds mijkUr Jh txthou flag ,M0 }kjk 12-04-2013 dks ckj ds izLrko

ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa xkyh xykSt ,oa /kedh ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds le{k fn;k

tkuk vf/koDrk vkpj.k ds foijhr Fkk] ftls ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkh ekSu

Lohd`r iznku fd;k tkuk lansgkLin gSA

2- mijksDr dk;Zokgh dh ?kksj fuank dh tkrh gS rFkk lkFk gh ;g fu.kZ; fy;k

tkrk gS fd mijksDr lEcU/k esa tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks mDr fdz;k dykiksa ls

ckrdj voxr djkrs gq;s lEcfU/kr yksxska ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh dh ekaxh dh

tk;A**

(Emphasisadded)

Inthemeetingheldonthis16.04.2013,theundignifiedconductof ShriJagjivanSinghAdvocate,socalledofficebeareroftheDistrict Bar Association, Sonbhadra, as also the ways of discharge of judicial work by Shri Amat Prajapati, ACJM, Sonbhadra was discussedfollowingwhichresolutionswerepassedbymajorityas under:

1.Inthecourtpremises,actsnotbefittingtheconductofadvocates havecontinuedtobedoneeverynowandthenbyShriJagjivanSingh, so called office bearer of the District Bar Association, Sonbhadraandhisfellowadvocatesinthenameoftheassociation; andefforts have continuouslybeendoneby thesaidadvocatesthroughthesocalledassociationtomanagethejudicialprocessbyinfluencing some judicial officers as well, which vitiates the atmosphere of the court premises. Only in viewof Shri Singh's doings,hehasbeenexpelledfromtheprimarymembershipofthe

14

Barby thepreviousworkingcommitteeandthesamehasbeenconveyedtotheBarCouncilofUttarPradesh.Withoneaccord,his workandconductandalsothatoftheconcernedjudicialofficeris condemnedanditisdecidedthattheactofShriJagjivanSingh, who after getting the information regarding transfer of ACJMSonbhadra Amat Prajapati, used abusive language and issuedthreats in the court premises before the presiding officer on12.04.2013againsttheresolutionpassedbytheBar,didnotbefit the conduct of an advocate and the acquiescence of even the presidingofficerinthematterraisesdoubts.

2.Theaforesaidactisvehementlycondemnedanditisdecidedas well that talks intheaforesaidcontextbeheldwiththeDistrict Judge,thusapprisinghimaboutthesaidactivitiesandrequesting forproperactionagainsttheconcernedpersons.

(EnglishtranslationbyCourt)

32. He(contemnor1)hasfurthersaidthatthereferencehasbeenmade

directly to this Court addressed to Registrar General, High Court on

15.4.2013.IthasbeenmadebyShriAmitKumarPrajapati,thethenACJM

afterhistransferfromSonbhadratoanotherdistrict. Whenhegranted

interimbail,hewasawareofhistransfertoanotherdistrict.Thereference

has been made against law and process since it ought to have been

forwarded by District Judge andnot directly. With regard to incident,

whichtookplaceinthecourtofCJM,aresolutionwaspassedbyBar

Association,Sonbhadraon20.2.2013againsttheconductofChiefJudicial

Magistrate,Sonbhadra.CopyofsaidresolutionisannexuedasAnnexure

No.10totheAffidavit,whichisreproducedasunder:

^^vkt fnukad 20-02-13 dks iwoZ fu/kkZfjr lwpuk ds vuqlkj cSBd vke lnu dh

lEiUu gqbZ ftlesa fu/kkZFjr fcUnqvksa ij ppkZ ds mijkUr cgqer ds vk/kkj ij

fuEufyf[kr izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;kA

1- lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknZ ds vkns'k fnukad 16-01-13 ftls tuin U;k;k/kh'k lksuHknz }

kjk fnukad 18-01-13 dks vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] tks iw.kZ vO;ogkfjd gS] mls rRdky

izHkko ls okil fy;k tk;A

2- lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz ds lsok dky dh tuin esa vof/k iw.kZ gks jgh gS] rFkk mudk

LFkkukUrj.k bl o"kZ gksuk gS] ftls :dokus dk vkosnu muds }kjk fd;k x;k gS]

15

ftldk fojks/k fd;k x;k] fd lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz ds dk;Z iz.kkyh ls lnL;x.k

dkQh vlarq"V gSa] ftlds vk/kkj ij cgqer ls mudh lsok dky esa lsokfoLrkj u

fd;s tkus lEcaf/kr dk;Z ds izLrko dk Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k] rFkk nl lnL;h;

Msyhxslu dk xBu fd;k x;k] tks tuin U;k;k/kh'k ls mijksDr fcUnqvksa ij lkFkZd

okrkZ djds muds fopkjks o d`R; dk;Zokgh ls lnu esa voxr djk;sxs] ftl vk/kkj

ij fnukad 23-02-2013 dks cSBd djds ikjhr izLrko ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh

tk;sxhA

mijksDr dk;ksZ ds fdz;kUou ds fy;s fojks/k Lo:i vf/koDrkx.k fnukad 21-02-13 o

22-02-13 dks fojks/k Lo:i U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr jgsaxsA iqu% 23-03-13 dks vke lnu

dh izLrkfor cSBd dh tk;sxhA ftldh otg ls mDr frfFk ij Hkh U;kf;d dk;Z

fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gksxkA

mijksDr cgqre ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr izLrkoksa ds lEca/k esa ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd

lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mfpr i=kpkj Hkh fd;k tk;A**

(Emphasisadded)Onthis20.02.2013,asperpriornotice,meetingofthegeneral housewasheldatwhichpointsontheagendawerediscussed followingwhichresolutionswerepassedbymajorityasunder:

1. Theorderof theCJM,Sonbhadradated16.01.2013,which hasbeenapprovedbytheDistrictJudgeon18.01.2013andis utterlyimpractical,berecalledwithimmediateeffect.

2.ThetenureofCJM,Sonbhadrainthedistrictiscomingtoanendandhistransferisduethisyear,staywhereofhasbeen appliedforbyhim,whichwasopposedonthegroundthatthe members are very dissatisfied with the working of CJM,Sonbhadra;onthebasisofwhichresolutionforhistenurenotto beextendedwasalsopassedbymajority;anda10memberdelegationwasformedwho,afterameaningfulparleywiththeDistrictJudgeontheaforesaidpoints,shallapprisethehouseaboutthelatter'sopinionandtheactiontaken,onthebasisof which proceedings shall be held as per the resolution to be passedbyconveningameetingon23.02.2013.

Forimplementationoftheaforesaidwork,theadvocateswill,as amarkofprotest,desistfromthejudicialworkon21.02.2013 and22.02.2013.On23.03.2013,theproposedmeetingof thegeneralhousewill beheldagain, duetowhichjudicial workshallnotbepossibleonthesaiddateaswell.

16

In connection with the aforesaid resolutions passed bymajority,itwasalsoresolvedthatduecorrespondencebealso madewiththeconcernedofficers.

(EnglishtranslationbyCourt)33. AnotherresolutionwaspassedbyBarAssociation,Sonbhadraon

5.3.2013againstShriKrishnaKumar,thethenCJM,alsoproposingto

abstain from judicial work from6.3.2013. The contemnor 1 has also

referredtoasimilarresolutionpassedon15.3.2013againstthethenCJM,

besidesthecomplaintdated14.2.2013,submittedbyadvocatesofdistrict

court, Sonbhadra to District Judge, Sonbhadra. Shri Amit Kumar

Prajapati,presidingofficerofcourtoughttohavemadeacomplainttothe

DistrictJudge,Sonbhadraandnottosentreferencedirectlytothiscourt.

Withrespecttoroleofcontemnor1,theDistrictJudge,Sonbhadrahasnot

conductedanyinquiry. Thereferencehasbeenmadesincecontemnor1

wasopposinginterimbail,grantedbycourtbelow,illegallyinleagueand

collusionwithJagjeevanSingh,Advocate.ShriAmitKumarPrajaptihad

anapprehensionofthecomplaintmadeattheinstanceofmembersof

District Bar Association, Sonbhadra, therefore, with false allegation,

referencehasbeenmade.TheDistrictJudgehasnotexaminedclerkof

courtofJudicialMagistrate,whowaspresentingthematterbeforeShri

Amit Kumar Prajapati, the then ACJM, though he was an important

witnessoftheincident.TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadrahasnotrecorded

statementofManojKumarPandey,Secretary,BarAssociation,Sonbhadra,

thoughhehadalsocomeinthecourtandhisnameisalsomentionedby

oneTituPrasadGupta,Advocateinhisstatement,deposedbeforeDistrict

Judge, Sonbhadra, during inquiry. The eye witnesses i.e. the court

employeeshavenotdisclosedthenameofanyofthecontemnors.

34. Thereply givenbycontemnor3Shri OmPrakasPathak is also

almost the same as is of contemnor 1. He has also made allegations

againstcourtbelowthathepassedillegalorderofinterimbailinleague

andcollusionwithoneJagjeevanSingh,Advocateandanotheraccusedin

17

thesamematter.ThoughhehasstatedthatShriMahendraPrasadShukla

(contemnor no1). was counsel for complainant in the said case but

regarding his ownrole andpresence, he has not said, anything, very

specifically.However,inpara57,contemnor3hassaidthatcontemnor1is

practisingandjuniortohim,therefore,onlywithamalafideintentionand

toharass,contemnor3hasfalselybeenmentionedinreferencebycourt

below.

35. Shri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate representing

Contemnors,atthetimeofargument,didnotadvanceanyargumenton

meritsandstatedthatcontemnors,whomheisrepresenting,surrender

beforethecourtandseekmercy.

36. Fromthefactsdisclosedabove,wehavenodoubtthattherewasa

resolutionpassedbyBarAssociationSonbhadraforabstaining judicial

workon12.4.2013. It is alsoevident that courtof ACJMwasactually

functioning on 12.4.2013. He was discharging judicial work. Some

advocatesandlitigantswerealsopresentasperownadmissionofeven

contemnor1,whowaspresentinCourtforopposingbailapplicationin

CaseCrimeNo.164of2013,havingfiledhisvakalatnamaonthesameday.

Contemnor1,inhisdefence,hassaidthatitiscomplainants,whomhe

wasrepresenting,whoarefarmers,raisedtheirvoicebutnoevidenceor

materialhasbeenplacedonrecordtofortifyit.Grudgeofcontemnor1is

cementedbyhisownassertioninreplyaffidavitswornon6.5.2015that

judicialorderpassedbyACJMgrantinginterimbailwasinleagueand

collusionwithoneofaccusedJagjeevanSingh,Advocate.However,inthis

regardhehasnotplacedanymaterialtoshowthatsaidPresidingOfficer

wasincollusionwithoneormoreaccusedpersons.Themerefactthat

on12.4.2013,thisCourtpermittedpetitionerJagjeevanSingh,Advocateto

surrender in court, does not mean that court below acted illegally,

particularlywhen,hewasgranted30daystimetosurrenderintheCourt.

Moreovernothinghasbeenplacedonrecordtoshowthatorderofthis

18

Courtdated10.4.2013,wasactuallycommunicatedbyanyoftheparties

ortobecourtbelow.

37. Thesubsequentresolutionsof BarAssociationSonbhadra,which

hasbeenreliedbycontemnors1and3alsomakeitclearthatadvocates

wereannoyedofthefactthatoverlookingtheirresolution,theCourthad

actually functioned and discharged judicial work. It appears that

Advocatesandparticularlycontemnors1and3,wereunderimpression

thatwhateverresolutiontheypass,sittinginBarAssociation,thecourts

are bound to obey the same, ignoring the fact that a resolution of

abstentionofjudicialworkisperseillegalandamountstoanintentional

actofcriminalcontemptonthepartoftheBody,orperson(s)whopass

suchresolution, and liable for punishmentunderAct, 1971. Timeand

again,isthelastmorethantwodecades,Courtshaverepeatedlyheldthat

strikeof lawyers,abstainingfromjudicialworkisnotperseillegalbut

amountstoobstructioninfunctioningofcourtsoflawandobstructionin

judicialfunction,fallingwithintheambitofcriminalcontemptdefined

underSection2(c)ofAct,1971.

38. Thesuggestionthatadvocateswereonstrikedoesnotprovideany

justificationformakingsuchallegations,inasmuchas,repeatedly,Apex

CourtaswellasthisCourthaveheldthatacallofstrikebyadvocates

exceptofarareoccasion,isperseillegal.Acall,whichhastheeffectof

paralysing judicial functionex facie, in our view, amounts to a direct

interferenceintheadministrationofjusticeandisa'criminalcontempt'

underSection2(c)oftheAct,1971.ThestrikebyAdvocatesdisturbingthe

CourtproceedingshasbeenheldillegalbytheCourtinCommonCause

(ARegisteredSociety)vs.UnionofIndiaandOthers(1995)5SCC

511, IndianCouncil of Legal Aid andAdvice vs. Bar Council of

India(1995)1SCC732,K.JohnKoshyvs.Dr.TarkeshwarPrasad

Shaw(1998)8SCC624,MahavirPrasadSinghvs.JacksAviation

19

PrivateLtd.(1999)1SCC37andExCaptainHarishUppalvs.Union

ofIndia(2003)2SCC45.TheauthoritiesofApexCourtinabovethese

cases,supportandlaydowntheaboveexpositionoflaw.

39. Before this Court, contemnors 1 and 3 have not hesitated in

condemning the conduct of Presiding Officer is derogatory language

throughinrespectofdischargeofjudicialfunctionon12.4.2013,despite

resolution passed by Bar Association. As per own impression of

contemnors1to3andBarAssociationSonbhadra,audacityofPresiding

Officerofcourtbelowincontinuingtodischargejudicialfunctiondespite

resolutionofabstentionfromjudicialworkpassedbyAdvocateswasan

uncondonableactjustifyingactofobstructionanddisturbanceinCourt

functioningbesidescondemnationbyraisingslogans. Thisassumptionis

alsoreflectedinsubsequentresolutionofBarAssociation,whichhasbeen

reliedbycontemnors1to3intheirreplyaffidavits.Theyappearstohave

assumedthatthoughcourtbelowisanindependentjudicialauthoritybut

inoneorotherway,subordinatetothem,boundtoobeytheirresolution,

howsoeverillegalitis.ThisattitudeandassumptiononthepartofBar

Associationingeneralandcontemnors1to3inparticular,ispersenot

only illegal but amounts to a gross criminal contempt on their part.

Nothing more than this canhave the effect of lowering authority and

majestyofCourtoflaw.Ononehand,Advocatescoulddaretopreventa

courtoflawfromfunctioningandfurthertheycoulddaretothreatand

obstruct the court as well as Presiding Officer when it continued to

functionignoringsuchresolutionofBodyofAdvocates.Aseriouscharge

has been levelled against Presiding Officer in respect of judicial order

passedbyhimingrantinginterimbailthatitwasinleagueandcollusion

withaccusedpersonsbutnotsubstantiated.

40. In E.M.SankaranNamboodiripadvs.T.NarayananNambiar,

AIR1970SC2015,ithasbeenheldthatimputationofmalafides,biasor

prejudice, ridiculing the efficiencyof Judges, are alwaysconsidered to

20

meanscandalizingthecourts.Officialcapacityinthisregardcannotbe

differentiated into judicial and administrative capacities. Both are

interlinked.VilificatorycriticismofaJudgefunctioningasaJudge,evenin

purelyadministrativeornonadjudicatorymatters,amountstocontempt

of court if sucha criticismsubstantially affects the 'administrationof

justice' and lowers the authority or dignity of the court, or creates a

distrustinthepublicmindastothecapacityoftheJudgestometeout

evenhandedjustice.

41. ContemnorNo.1wasadmittedlypresentinCourt.Hewasshouting

anddisturbingincourt'sfunctionasisevidentfromreplygivenbyhim.

HehasreferredtotheresolutionofBarAssociationthatdespitedecision

ofabstinencefromjudicialwork,courtofACJMwasactuallyfunctioning

and he passed judicial orders also in some cases. The affidavit of

contemnor1filedbeforethisCourt,clearlyshowsthatcontemnorno.1

representingapartyinbailapplicationandopposingbail,wasinterested

inpostponementofmatterwithoutanyorderbuthecouldnotsucceed.He

hasnotbeenabletorestrainhimtohurlscurrilouslanguageonPresiding

Officerinrespectofjudicialorderpassedbyhim,grantinginterimbail,

statingthatsaidorderwaspassedinleagueandcollusionwithaccused

persons.Contemnorno.3hasalsousedsamelanguage,sworninitsreply

affidavit.Contemnorno.3hasnotswornthathewasnotpresentincourt

butpresentelsewhere.Contemnor2hasnotsubmittedanyreplytothe

chargelevelledagainsthim.Evenotherwisenoneofthecontemnors1to3

haveactuallycontestedatthetimeofhearing.BeforethisCourttoshow

thatsuchactshavenotbeencommittedbythemorwereactuallynot

committedbythem.

42. We have no hesitation in holding the charge levelled against

contemnors1,2and3,proved.

43. Nowweproposestocometothecaseofcontemnors4to11.The

namesofthesecontemnorshavenotbeendisclosedinReferenceLetter

21

dated15.4.2013sentbyShriAmitKumarPrajapat.Theirnameshavebeen

disclosed through report submitted by District Judge, Sonbhadra

pursuanttoinquiryconducted,videCourt'sorderdated30.9.2013.

44. Shri V.C. Mishra, learnedSenior Advocatecontended that under

Section15 (2) of Act, 1971,theCourtcantakecognizanceof onlythe

'reference' made by subordinate court and not to any subsequent

proceedings. There is no provision, which permits this court to direct

subordinatecourttomakesomeinquirytofindoutnamesofpersons,who

havecommittedanactof'criminalcontempt'andthentoproceedagainst

them. According to learned Senior Counsel this procedure adoptedby

courtiswithoutanyauthorityoflawhavingnosanction,andtherefore,is

anullity.

45. Whatwe find fromentireargumentof Shri V.C. Mishra, learned

SeniorCounsel,thatpowertopunishforcriminalcontemptofsubordinate

courtvestsonlyunderSection15(2)ofAct,1971andbeyondthatthis

courtpossessesnootherwisepowertoproceedevenifthereisanactor

omissiononthepartofoneortheotherAdvocate(s),constituting'criminal

contempt' and this information has been received by court, not on a

referencemadebysubordinatecourtoronamotionmadebyAdvocate

General,butotherwise.

46. Thisaspecthasbeenconsideredin S.K.Sarkar,Member,Board

ofRevenue,Lucknowvs.VinayChandraMishra,AIR1980(1)SC

436,Courtsaid,ifSection15(2)isinterpretedasconfiningmotiontobe

takenbyHighCourtonlyonthebasisofareportofsubordinatecourtor

motionbyAdvocateGeneraloranypersonwithhisconsent,itwillhave

theeffectofnullifyingtheconstitutionalguarantee,andinherentpowerof

acourt.Section10ofAct,1971specificallyshowsthateveryHighCourt

shall haveandexercisethesamejurisdiction,powersandauthority in

accordancewiththesameprocedureandpracticeinrespectofcontempts

22

ofcourtssubordinatetoitasithasandexercisesinrespectofcontempts,

itself. AmbitofprocedureforthecourtregardingSection15(2)actually

specifiesoneofthemodeofproceduresothatfrivolouscasesofcriminal

maynotfloodacourtofrecord.Twomodesareprescribedinsubsection2

ofSection15whereaninformationwillcometocourtfromauthenticated

bodyorifoninitialscrutiny,whichwillhavetheleastchancesonbringing

afrivolousmatterbeforethecourt.Inthecaseof S.K.Sarkar(supra),

the Supreme Court clearly opined that if High Court is prima facie

satisfiedthattheinformationreceivedby it regarding commissionof

contemptof asubordinate court is not frivolous, andthecontempt

allegedisnotmerelytechnicalortrivial,itmay,initsdiscretion,actsuo

motuandcommenceproceedingsagainst thecontemner. However, this

modeoftakingsuomotucognizanceofcontemptofasubordinatecourt

should beresortedto sparinglywhere thecontemptconcernedisofa

graveandseriousnature.

47. Inthepresentcase,Courthasnotproceededonitsownbutbasic

factswerealreadyplacedbefore it inReferenceLetterdated15.4.2013.

Learned subordinate court clearly stated that besides three names

mentionedtherein,therewere1520moreadvocates,whowereindulgedin

activities causing obstruction in judicial function, which ultimately

disturbedcourtswork.Therefore,itwasopentothecourttotakestepsfor

identificationof these 1520advocates. TheDistrict Judge, Sonbhadra

thuswasrightlyrequiredtomakeaninquiryandfindoutnamesofsuch

advocates.TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadramadeaninquiryandsubmitted

reportinwhichhenamedeightadvocatesi.e.contemnors4to11.Ininitial

affidavitsfiledbyaforesaidcontemnors4to11,SheshNarayanDixit,Atma

Prakash Tripathi, Chandra Prakash Chaubey, Praphakar RamPathak,

SatyadeoPandey,deniedtheirverypresenceinCourtwhenincidenttook

place.Restcontemnorshavedeniedtohavecausedanydisturbancein

courtorthattheywerepresentincourtbutnotatthetimewhenincident

23

tookplace.However,afterframingofcharge,defencetakenbydifferent

contemnorsintheirreply,isasunder:

Contemnor5(AtmaPrakashTripathi):

48. ItissaidthatheisasenioradvocateinDistrictBarAssociation,

Sonbhadraandhasneverbeenchargedforcommittingcontempt.Hehad

beenPresidentofDistrictBarAssociation,Sonbhadraforsixyears.His

namehasbeendisclosedbyanadvocatehaving rivalry i.e. JagJeevan

Singh,Advocate,andTarkeshwarTiwari,Clerk(Criminal)ofCourt.With

regardtoanimositywithJagJeevanSingh,hesaidthathewasPresident

whenJagJeevanSingh,AdvocatewasexpelledfrommembershipofBar

Association.

49. WithregardtoTarkeshwarTiwri,Clerk(Criminal)ofCourt,itissaid

thatheisresidinginsamevillagewherecontemnor5isresidingandsome

complainthasbeenmadebycontemnorAtmaPrakashTripathiagainst

Tarkeshawr Tiwari before District Magistrate as well as Nagar Palika

Parishad,Sonbhadracausinganimosityagainsthim.

50. Intheentireaffidavitofcontemnor5,swornon26.4.2015,wedonot

findthathehasdeniedthechargestatingthathewasnotpresentincourt

roomanddidnotparticipateinactivitiesdisturbingcourtfunctionetc.In

para15,headmitstohavesubmittedunconditionalapologybeforecourt

below. Moreover, in order to substantiate his defence that hewasnot

presentincourtorhasnotdoneanything,nothinghasbeenbroughton

recordexceptthatininitialletter/reference,hisnamewasnotdisclosed.

51. SofarascomplaintmadeagainstTarkeshwarTiwari,Clerk(Criminal)

ofCourtisconcerned,thisCourtfindsaletterdated12.8.2013,submitted

byDistrict Magistrate signedby fivepersons i.e. SheshNarayanDixit,

AtmaPrakashTripathi,KamleshPandey,VinodKumarShukla,Satyadeo

Pandeyetc.Fromthatletter,byitself,itcannotbesaidthatanemployeeof

courtcanmakeafalsestatementagainstcontemnor5.Itisnotindispute

24

thatTarkeshwarTiwari,wasanAssistantClerk(Criminal)postedincourt

ofACJM,SonbhadraonrelevantdateandwaspresentinCourt,hehad

theoccasiontowitnessincidentandrecognizethepersons,whocaused

theincidentinsubordinatecourt.

Contemnor11SatyadeoPandey:

52. Anotheraffidavitinreplytochargehasbeenfiledbycontemnor11

SatyadeoPandey.Hisreplyisalmostsimilartothatofcontemnors1to3.

Hehasalsosaidinpara15thatACJMpassedanorderofinterimbailin

league and collusion with one Jag Jeevan Singh, Advocate, who was

pursuingbailofSayaPalaliasBablu.Itisnothiscasethathewasnotin

court when incident took place but elsewhere. A bare denial that no

incidenttookplace,wouldnothelpcontemnor11inanymanner.Thereis

nothingtosubstantiateit.Itisatleastevidentfromaffidavitsubmittedby

contemnor11, that aseriousdisturbance wascaused in theCourt of

ACJMsincehewasdischargingjudicialfunctionignoringresolutionofBar

Association of abstention of advocates from judicial work. Conduct of

contemnor11inscandalizingthecourtalsoandfurtherstandsreaffirmed

bywhathehassaidinpara15ofaffidavitsubmittedinreplytocharge.

53. Rest of contemnors having refrained to file reply to the charge,

clearlyjustifyinferencetobedrawnbyCourt,againstthem.

54. We,therefore,rejectsubmissionoflearnedSeniorCounsel,ShriV.C.

MishraregardinghisobjectiontoprocedurefollowedbyCourtbyobtaining

report from District Judge in respect of other advocates, who have

obstructed court's functioning on 12.4.2013, and hold charge levelled

againstcontemnors4to11proved.

55. Oflate,wefindadeepincreasingtendencyofadvocatesinmaking

scurrilous allegations against presiding officers of subordinate Courts.

TheydonothesitateingoingtotheextentofdishonouringofPresiding

Officer as well as the Court by abusing and misbehaving, openly, in

25

presenceofpublicatlarge,whichincludeslitigants,clerksandothers,in

CourtsorinsidetheCourtcampus.Ifanorderhasnotbeenpassedbya

JudicialOfficertothelikingofanadvocate,remedylieselsewherebutno

onecanhavelibertytocreateasituation/anuglyscene,byraisingabusive

slogansagainstofficer(s)aswellastheCourt.Ifthiswouldnothavethe

effectofloweringauthorityandmajestyoftheCourt,whatelsecanbe.

56. WhenthereisadeliberateattempttoscandalizeajudicialOfficerof

subordinateCourt,itisboundtoshakeconfidenceoflitigatingpublicin

thesystemandhastobetackledstrictly.Thedamageiscausednotonlyto

thereputationofconcernedJudge,but,alsotothefairnameofjudiciary.

Veiledthreats,abrasivebehaviour,useofdisrespectfullanguage,and,at

times, blatant condemnatory attacks, like the present one, are often

designedly employed with a view to tamea Judge into submission to

secureadesiredorder. The foundationof our system is basedon the

independenceandimpartialityofthemenhavingresponsibilitytoimpart

justicei.e.JudicialOfficers.Iftheirconfidence,impartialityandreputation

isshaken,itisboundtoaffecttheveryindependenceofjudiciary.Any

person,ifallowedtomakedisparagingandderogatoryremarksagainsta

JudicialOfficer,withimpunity,isboundtoresultinbreakingdownthe

majestyofjustice.

57. We cannot ignore the fact that much cherished judicial

independenceneedsprotectionnot only fromover zealousexecutive or

powerhungry legislaturebutalso fromthosewhoconstitute, and, are

integralpartofthesystem.Hereisacasewherethecontemnorshave

shown behaviour like member of an unruly mob of hooligans. An

Advocatesforgettingthehigherstatusconferreduponthem,makingthem

Officers of the Court, have chosen to malign Judicial Officer of the

SubordinateCourt.

58. AnAdvocate'sdutyisasimportantasthatofaJudge.Hehasa

large responsibility towards society. He is expected to act withutmost

26

sincerityandrespect.Inallprofessionalfunctions,anAdvocateshouldbe

diligentandhisconductshouldalsobediligent.Heshouldconformtothe

requirementsoflaw.Heplaysavitalroleinpreservationofsocietyand

justicesystem.Heisunderanobligationtoupholdtheruleoflaw.He

mustensurethatthepublicjusticesystemisenabledtofunctionatitsfull

potential. He, whopractices law, isnotmerelya lawyer, butactsasa

moralagent.Thischaracter,hecannotshakeoff,byanyothercharacter

on professional character. He derives from the belief that he shares

sentiment of all mankind. This influenceof his morality is oneof his

possession,which,likeallhispossession,heisboundtouseformoral

ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court.

Advocacyisarespectablenobleprofessionontheprinciples.AnAdvocate

owesdutynotonlytohisclient,buttotheCourt,tothesocietyand,not

theleast,tohisprofession.

59. Wedonotintendtolaydownanycodeofconductfortheclassofthe

peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly have no hesitation in

observing that noAdvocatehasanybusiness tocondemnaJudgeby

abusingetc. for a judicial orderhasnot passed. If there is something

lackingonthepartofaJudicialOfficertouchinghisintegrity,Advocates,

beingOfficersoftheCourt,maynotremainasilentspectator,butshould

comeforward,raisingtheirvoiceinappropriatemannerbeforetheproper

authority.ButtherecannotbealicencetoanymemberofBartoraisehis

fingerovercompetencyandintegrityetc.ofaJudicialOfficer,casuallyor

negligently, or on other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and

capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be

malignedcommentinguponhisintegrityandhonesty.Itdeservestobe

condemnedinthestrongestwords.Noonecanjustifyitinanymanner.

Thinkingofintrusionofsuchthoughtitselfsoundsalert.Itisasirenof

somethingwhichisnotonlyveryserious,butimminent.Itisaconceptor

anideawhichshouldnothavecroppedupinanybody'smind,connected

27

withthesystemofjustice,andifhascroppedup,deservestobenippedat

earliest,else,itmayspreadsitstentaclestocoverothersandthatwould

beadoomsdayfortheveryinstitution.

60. This Court hasaconstitutional obligationto protect subordinate

judges.InSmt.MunniDeviandothersVs.StateofU.P.andothers,

2013(2)AWC1546thisCourtinpara10,hassaid:

"10.Bethatasitmay,sofarasthepresentcaseisconcerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers haveimposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercisecontroloversubordinatejudiciary.Thiscontrolisbothways.NoaberrationshallbeallowedtoentertheSubordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously SubordinateJudiciarycannot beallowedtobeattackedor threatenedtoworkunderoutsidepressureofanyone,whetherindividualoragroup,soastoformathreattoobjectiveandindependentfunctioningofSubordinateJudiciary."

61. Criticismof anorderof aCourtcannotbeequatedwithmaking

scurrilous attack on the conduct and integrity of the Judicial

Officer/PresidingOfficeroftheCourt.Inthepresentcase,anopenattack

bymisbehaviourandabusehasbeenshownagainstconcernedJudicial

Officer. Wild imaginary allegations against conduct of Judicial Officer

withouthavinganymaterialtosubstantiatethesamecannotbetolerated,

inasmuchas,itnotonlybringsintodisreputetheentirejusticesystembut

islikelytocauseseriouserosionintheconfidenceofpublicincasesuch

tendencyisnotsnuffedattheearliest.

62. TheJudicialOfficer/Judgeshadnoplatformtostandandclarifythe

circumstancesinwhichtheorderhasbeenpassedbythem.Theyhaveno

platformtodefendthemselves.Thestrengthofjudiciarycomesfromthe

strong public opinion which it has in the system. If unsubstantiated

flimsy,imaginary,fancifulallegationsbeallowedtobemadebyaparty,

whodidnotfindanorderinitsfavour,itwilldemolishtheveryfoundation

ofthesystemofjustice.EveryorderpassedbytheCourtwillbeinfavour

of one of the party andagainst another. The loosing party cannot be

28

allowed to challenge the very conduct/integrity of Judicial Officer in

passingtheorderandthattoowithoutanymaterialtosupportsuchan

allegation.Ifweallowsuchatrendtoremainunnoticed,orcondonethe

samewithout any appropriate action, it will not only encourage such

tendencyamongstotherbuttheresultantsituationmaycameaserious

blow to the system of administration of justice, which is one of the

foundingpillarof constitutionalschemeandhastobeprotectedbyall

legalandreasonablemeans.

63. Intheabovebackgroundandconsideringthefactsthatthecharge

isprovedagainst thecontemnors, now,wehave toconsiderabout the

sentenceonwhichcounselforcontemnorsaswellasthecontemnorshave

statedintheCourtthattheyarethrowingthemselvestothemercyofthe

courtandshowingmagnanimity,benevolenceandalenientview.

64. Nowcomingtoquestionofpunishment,abusingandshoutingin

court,causingobstructioninjudicialfunctionandattempttopreventthe

Courtfromdischargingitsjudicialfunction,isaseriousactofcriminal

contempt.Oflate,thecourtonadministrativeside,isinformedthatvery

frequently advocates are abstaining from judicial function, by taking

recoursetoalllegalandillegalmeansandmeasurestopreventjudicial

officersfromdischargingtheirjudicialfunctions.Inmostofthecases,for

oneorotherreasons,subordinatecourtsrefrainfrommakingReferenceto

this Court, in hope of maintaining cordial administrative relation &

atmospherebutthat isnothappening.Theadvocateshavetaken,asa

matterofgrant,thattheycanpreventcourtfromfunctioning,onmere

asking, and nothing will happen against them. The audacity of Bar

Association in passing resolutions condemning Presiding Officer (s) of

Court,whofunctiondespiteresolutionofBarAssociationisWritLarge.

Regardingobstructioninjudicialwork,theincidentshowstheextentto

whichBodyofadvocatescangotointimidatejudicialofficer, if he/she

works ignoring resolution of advocate's Body. In fact this act of Bar

29

Associationisalsonothingbutaserious'criminalcontempt'butsincethat

matterisnotbeforeus,therefore,wearenottakingactionagainstit.

65. Intheabovebackgroundandconsideringthefactthatthechargeis

proved against all the contemnors, now, we have to consider about

quantumofsentenceonwhich,counsel forcontemnorsaswell asthe

contemnorshavestatedintheCourtthattheyarethrowingthemselvesto

themercyof Courtandshowingmagnanimity, benevolence, thisCourt

shouldtakealenientview.

66. We impose punishment of simple imprisonment of three months

uponallcontemnorsandafineofRs.2000/.Incaseofnonpaymentof

fine,theyshallundergosimpleimprisonmentforafurtherperiodoftwo

months.

67. Besidesabove,inordertomaintaindisciplineandavoidnuisancein

theDistrictSonbhadra,wealsodirectthatcontemnorsshallnotenterthe

premisesofDistrictJudgeship,Sonbhadraforaperiodofsixmonths.The

aforesaidperiodofrestrictionshallcommencewitheffectfrom10thJuly,

2015.

68. Besides,theconductofallcontemnorsshallremainunderconstant

watchofDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraforaperiodoftwoyears.Ifanyof

themshowsanyotherwiseobjectionableconduct,causinginterferencein

peaceful andsmoothfunctioningof Court etc. theDistrict Judgeshall

immediatelyreportthemattertotheCourtsuomotu.

69. Sofarasamountoffineisconcerned,contemnorsmaydepositthe

sameeitherinthisCourtorwiththeDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraorwith

theChiefJudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadraby18.7.2015..

70. Contemptapplicationisdisposedofinthemannerasabove.

OrderDate:2.7.2015Ajeet

30

CourtNo.34Case:CONTEMPTAPPLICATION(CRIMINAL)No.12of2013Applicant:InReOppositeParty:SriMahendraPrasadShuklaAdvocate&OthersCounselforApplicant:A.G.A.,SudhirMehrotraCounselforOppositeParty:AjaiShankarPathak,Dr.V.K.Rai,M.K.Singh,PrashantPandey,RudraKantMishra,S.P.Srivastava,VivekMishra

Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.Hon'bleDineshGupta,J.

1. After delivery of judgement, the contemners pray that sentence

imposedbythisCourtvidejudgementofdatebesuspendedtoenablethem

toavailstatutoryremedyofappealunderSection19ofContemptofCourts

Act,1971(hereinafterreferredtoas"Act,1971")beforethesuperiorcourt.

2. Inthecircumstances,wesuspendthesentenceforaperiodof60days

toenablethemtoavailremedyofappeal.Incase,theappealisnotfiledorif

filedbutnootherwiseorderispassedintheappeal,thecontemnersshall

surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, who would

immediatelytakeappropriatestepsforservingoutsentencebycontemnors

asdirectedinthejudgementofdatepassedinthiscontemptapplication.

OrderDate:2.7.2015Ajeet