HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved on 03.08.2015 Delivered on 21.09.2015 Court No. - 34 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 1 of 2015 Applicant :- In Re : Opposite Party :- Gulab Singh, Advocate Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party:- V.D. Ojha. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II,J.
( Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. )
1. This Contempt Application (Criminal) has been registered pursuant to a Reference made by Smt. Manju Kumari, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) First, Court No. 22, Jaunpur vide letter dated 14th April, 2014 forwarded by District Judge, Jaunpur vide letter dated 15th April, 2014.
2. Brief facts stated in Reference dated 14th April, 2014 are that on 07.04.2014, around lunch time Court Clerk produced record of Suit No. 19 of 1981 along with noting that at around 12.30 Shri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate came and sought record of aforesaid suit for perusal. Having seen record, after Court's order, dismissing suit in default, he wrote something in English and when record was sought to be taken from him, he uttered something and went. When concerned Presiding Officer Smt. Manju Kumari was perusing record of aforesaid suit during lunch time between 1.30 to 2.00 p.m., Shri Gulab Singh Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as "Contemnor") came in Courtroom, started crying and said "Kaise meri file kharij kar di, kaise kar sakti hai, jo man mein aata hai wo karati hai, naukari karne aayi hai ya kya". Besides, he also uttered several foul words against aforesaid Presiding Officer. In the record of aforesaid suit, the Contemnor entered following note under order of Presiding Officer:
"How and for what reason you dismissed the case of plaintiff. Have you red the pre-dts proceeding, pre which has been done already by pre P.O. You being unrecognised Judge and 'anubhav viheen' dismissed the case still cost on defendant position you may read pre and post if you are unable to explain."
3. Presiding Officer has said that under utterance Contemnor has made aforesaid note unauthorizedly which amounts to lowering down authority of Court and also amounts to obstruction in judicial functioning constituting "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971"). The photocopy of order-sheet was appended to the Reference along with report of Shri Anand Prakash Singh, Court Clerk.
4. The matter was examined by Committee of two Hon'ble Judges on Administrative Side and forming opinion that here is a case of "criminal contempt" on the part of Contemnor, directed matter to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and ultimately Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated 14th January, 2015 approved aforesaid opinion and directed this matter to be placed before a Bench having determination of Criminal Contempt. On 10th February, 2015, a Division Bench looked into aforesaid matter and being prima-facie satisfied that "criminal contempt" has been committed by Contemnor issued notice to him. Order dated 10th February, 2015 is quoted as under:
Heard learned A.G.A.
This reference has been made by Smt. Manju Kumari, Additional Civil Judge ( Jn.Div.),Court No. 22, Jaunpur vide letter dated 14.4.2014 duly forwarded by District Judge, Jaunpur for initiating the Criminal Contempt under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate. The reference shows that during lunch hour on 7.04.2014, Sri Anand Prakash Singh,Court Clerk produced the file of case no.19/81 with the contention that on 7.4.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate came and asked him the file of said case has to be seen thereafter Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate began to write something below the order passed, on seeing Sri Anand Prakash Singh, Court Clerk snatched the file from the hand of Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate, he went away by making slang words. The officer concerned has stated during the lunch hour when she was perusing the file Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate entered the court and began to make a noise and used indecent words with comment like this that " KAISE MERI FILE KHARIJ KAR DI, KAISE KAR SAKATI HAI, JO MAN MEIN AATA HAI WO KARATI HAT,NAUKARI KARNE AAYI HAI YA KYA ' and in addition to it he used other many slang words against the officer concerned. Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate has transcribed below the order of the court like this that " How and for what reason you dismissed the case of plaintiff have you read the pre-dates proceedings, pre which has been done already by pre-P.O. You being unrecognized judge and anubhav vihin dismissed the case still cost on defendant position you may read pre & post if you are unable to explain"
The conduct of Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate falls under the purview of Criminal Contempt of Courts because he has not only obstructed in the proceeding of the court but also lowered down the dignity and authority of the court.
Issue notice to contemner Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate through C.J.M.Jaunpur, returnable within a period of one month from today to explain as to why he may not be charged for committing the Contempt of Court.
List on 16.3.2015. On that date the contemner shall appear in person to file his reply. In the meanwhile, OSD (Litigation ) may authorise Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel for the High Court to assist the Court. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the contemner through C.J.M.Jaunpur forthwith."
5. Initially, when notice was sought to be served upon Contemnor through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, he submitted a report that Contemnor saw and perused the notice but thereafter refused to sign acknowledgement. Consequently, this Court passed following order on 31st March, 2015, issuing non-bailable warrant against Contemnor:
"1. Perused the report submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. He has submitted the report as under:
^^mijksDr fo"^k; esa lEcU/k esa lknu voxr djkuk gS fd Jh xqykc flag pkSgku ,MoksdsV nhokuh U;k;ky; tkSuiqj ds fo:+) tkjh uksfVl dk rkehyk tfj;s utkjr nhokuh U;k;ky;] tkSuiqj djk;k x;k rks okilh esa vk[;k izLrqr dh xbZ fd Jh xqykc flag pkSgku ls eqykdkr gqbZ vkSj uksfVl ns[kk o i<+k ijUrq uksfVl ysus o gLrk{kj cukus ls budkj fd;kA bl U;k;ky; }kjk iwoZ esa i= la[;k&141 fnukad 16-03-2015 dks Hkh uksfVl rkehyk ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks vk[;k izsf"kr dh tk pqdh gSA rn~uqlkj rkehydrkZ dh fjiksVZ ds lkFk vk[;k ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks lknu lwpukFkZ izsf"krA^^ " In context of aforesaid subject it is respectfully informed that a notice issued against Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate - Civil Court, Jaunpur was attempted to be served upon him through the Nazarat, Civil Court, Jaunpur; in respect thereof it was reported back that Sri Gulab Singh Chauhan came across, saw and read the notice but refused to receive or sign it. This court has earlier sent a report in respect of service of notice to the Hon'ble Court vide its letter no.141 dated 16.03.2015 Accordingly, a report alongwith the process-server's remarks is respectfully submitted to the Hon'ble Court for information."
(English Translation by the Court)
2. Let a non-bailable warrant be issued to the aforesaid contemner, Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Civil Court, Jaunpur. This warrant shall be executed through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur and he shall ensure that aforesaid contemner shall be produced in person before this Court on the next date fixed in custody.
3. List on 13.4.2015. Office is directed to take appropriate steps for execution of this order positively by tomorrow."
6. Pursuant thereto, Contemnor was produced before this Court on 13th April, 2015 on which date he was granted bail and also directed to file reply to the notice. On 27th April, 2015, Contemnor filed reply.
7. On next date, Contemnor again disappeared and ultimately this Court had to issue second time non-bailable warrant on 27th May, 2015. The warrant could not be executed and this Court on 8th July, 2015 restrained Contemnor from entering District Court premises during pendency of contempt proceedings. Ultimately, Contemnor was produced before this Court on 21st July, 2015 on which date he was charged as under:
"That you Gulab Singh Chauhan, Advocate, on 07.04.2014 when Court Clerk, Anand Prakash Singh, placed the file of Suit No. 19 of 1981 along with Office Report to the effect that after the order of dismissal you have mentioned certain words in the order-sheet of said suit, while the Court was perusing the file, you entered in the Court Room and started shouting by using indecent words and said, "dSls esjh QkbZy [kkfjt dj nh] dSls dj ldrh gS] tks eu esa vkrk gS djrh gS] ukSdjh djus vkbZ gS D;kA^^ You have also wrote following words in the order of Suit No. 19 of 1981, "How and for what reason you dismissed the case of plaintiff have you red the pre-Dts proceedings pre which has been done already by pre-P.O. You being unrecognized Judge and vuqHko foghu dismissed the case still cost on defendant position you may read pre and post if you are unable to explain."
By doing so, you have not only undermined the authority of Court, interfered in the administration of justice besides scandalized the Court by questioning its authority to pass an order and also called the judge vuqHko foghuA Thus have committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as (Act, 1971"), punishable under Section 12 of Act, 1971."
8. In first reply dated 27th April, 2015 defence taken by Contemnor is that 7th April, 2014 was not the date fixed in Suit No. 19 of 1981. Suit No. 19 of 1981 was filed on 9th August, 1981 regarding Plot No. 1067/1.23 dismal, situate in Village Hauz, Pargana Zafrabad, Tehsil and District Jaunpur for permanent injunction. It was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), City Jaunpur and transferred to Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 22, Jaunpur. The suit was filed by plaintiff's father who died and thereafter plaintiff was substituted. Plaintiff is also now a senior citizen and due to delay in justice he was suffering. Written statement was yet to be filed though 35 years have already undergone. 3rd April, 2014 was fixed for written statement, but none was filed. Presiding Officer was not on dais and Contemnor attended Court at 12.00 noon. When he enquired, Reader told that Presiding Officer is in Chamber. When the case was called, no one was present for plaintiff. File was taken by Presiding Officer in chamber for orders though no written statement was filed. Contemnor went away from Court with hope that Presiding Officer will direct defendant to pay previous costs of Rs.650/- and case will proceed ex-parte as no written statement was filed. On 4th, 5th and 6th April, 2014 Contemnor visited Court again and again several times and enquired about order in file, but Reader always replied in negative and Contemnor had no option but to return silently. On 7th April, 2014, when Contemnor entered courtroom at 12.30 p.m., Presiding Officer was not on dais as her routine habit. Contemnor enquired about order for which file was taken by Presiding Officer in chamber on 3rd April, 2014. Reader placed order-sheet before Contemnor. He read order passed ante-dated i.e. 3rd April, 2014 and came to know that suit of plaintiff has been dismissed in default though there was no default as the date was fixed for written statement and no written statement was filed. Contemnor intended to place the facts before Presiding Officer, who was in chamber, and expressed his desire to Reader, but he refused permission to meet Presiding Officer in chamber. Contemnor tried to place his feelings before Presiding Officer by putting note on order-sheet, but Reader snatched file. Contemnor came out of courtroom silently without uttering any word against Presiding Officer or the Court. Contemnor never tried to obstruct working of Court, particularly, when Court was not working at that time. All the allegations and report of Reader are false and baseless. It is further submitted that Gulab Singh Chauhan is not the correct name since Contemnor is only Gulab Singh. Contemnor has prayed that notice issued to him may be dropped.
9. We accordingly correct cause title of this criminal contempt as Contemnor has himself mentioned his name only as "Gulab Singh, Advocate" and direct Registry to delete word "Chauhan" from cause title.
10. Reply to charge has been filed vide reply dated 03.08.2015. Whatever he has stated is nothing but repetition of his earlier reply and for convenience sake we reproduce his own averements made in paragraphs-3 to 12 as under:
"3- That the brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff has filed suit no. 19/81 on 09-08-1981 regarding his plot no. 1067/1-23 dismal situated in Village Hauz, Pargana Zafrabad, Tehsil and District Jaunpur for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) City Jaunpur and same was transferred to the court presided over by the applicant of these proceedings.
4- That the suit was filed by the plaintiffs father who died and plaintiff has been substituted and now the substituted plaintiff is also at the age of Senior Citizen.
5- That now the plaintiffs second generation is litigating before the court and they are being delayed justice somehow or other by the defendants and w.s. is still lacking and proceeding of the case in held up and 35 years have already under gone and god know show much generations of plaintiff will go hoping for justice in the judicial proceedings.
6- That on 03-04-2014 was fixed for w.s. The defendants in suit no. 19/81 but no w.e. filed till date and conditional cost also not paid till date the opposite party attended the court on the date fixed at 12 in the noon. The P.O. was not on dias of the court, the O.P. inquired about the proceeding of the said case. The reader replied that the P.O. was in the chamber and case was called and no one was for plaintiff the file had been taken by the P.O. in the chamber for orders but no w.s. has been filed. That the O.P. went away from the court without saying anything with the hope that the P.O. will direct the defendant to pay the previous cost of Rs.650 and case will again proceed exparte as no w.s. was filed.
7- That on 04-04-2014, 05-04-2014, 06-04-2014 the O.P. came in the court again and again several times to inquire about order in the file but reader always replied negative and O.P. had no option but to return back silently.
8- That on 07-04-2014 the opposite party entered in the court room at 12:30 P.M. the P.O. was not on dias as per her routine habit the O.P. inquired about the order for which the case file was taken by the P.O. in the chamber on 03-04-2014, The reader placed the order sheet before the O.P. He read the order passed anti dated i.e. in date of 03-04-2014 and came to know that the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed in default of plaintiff whereas there was no default of plaintiff as the date was fixed for w.s. and no w.s. was filed. Case should have been proceeded as no w.s. was filed nor time was sought for filing w.s.
9- That the O.P. wanted to place the fact before P.O. who was in chamber and expressed his desire to the reader who refused to permit me to see the P.O. in chamber.
10- That the opposite party tried to place his fillings before P.O. through order sheet putting my note but the reader snatched the file paper. I came out of court room silently I never uttered any word in the court against P.O. or court. I never tried to obstruct the working of the court however court was not working at that time. All the allegations and report of the reader is false and baseless.
11- That it is wrong to mention the name of the O.P. as Gulab Singh Chauhan Advocate as his name is only Gulab Singh, Advocate.
12- That the reply was submitted through fax to Hon'ble court dt. 30-04-2015 and the same is agains hearing Submitted before the Hon'ble court."
(emphasis added)
11. We have heard Shri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. as Special Counsel nominated by Court to assist us in this criminal contempt application and Shri V. D. Ojha, Advocate, who has argued the matter on behalf of Contemnor.
12. As per reply submitted by Contemnor it is evident that he has admitted to have made a note on order-sheet of Original Suit No. 19 of 1981 on 7th April, 2014 when, admittedly, neither suit was listed for any purpose nor there was any occasion to do so. We have seen copy of order-sheet of 14th March, 2014 and 3rd April, 2014, which read as under:
"14/3/14 पेश हुआ | पुकार पर वादी अनुपस्थिति | प्रतिवादी उपस्थिति | दि०3/4/14 as ws/issues हेतु Sd/- illegible 03.04.14 पत्रावली पेश हुई | पुकार पर वादी अनुपस्थित, प्रतिवादी जरिये विद्वान अधिवक्ता उपस्थित | पत्रावली तनक़ीह हेतु नियत है | बार - बार पुकार कराये जाने के बावजूद वादी की ओर से कोई न्यायालय में उपस्थित नही आ रहा है न ही कोई स्थगन प्रार्थनापत्र दिया गया है | अतः वादी की अनुपस्थित में आदेश 9 नियम 8 दीवानी प्रक्रिया सहिंता के अन्तर्गत वाद ख़ारिज किया जाता है | पत्रावली नियमानुसार दाखिल दफ्तर की जाय | अपर सिविल जज (जू० डि०) प्रथम जौनपुर |"
"14/03/14 Presented. On call plaintiff absent. Defendant present. 3.4.14 is fixed for ws/issues.
03.04.14 File was put up. On call plaintiff absent, defendant present through counsel. Case is fixed for issues. Despite case called out repeatedly none is putting in appearance on behalf of plaintiff nor any adjournment application has been filed. Therefore, in absence of plaintiff, suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. File be consigned under rules.
Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) First Jaunpur"
(English translation by Court)
13. It is evident that neither on 14th March, 2014 nor on 3rd April, 2014 plaintiff or his counsel was present though defendant was present. The Court, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the suit under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. Contemnor in his note has addressed Presiding Officer as "unrecognised Judge" and "experienceless". He has also levelled allegation that she has passed order without perusing record i.e. "mindlessly". The word 'mindlessly' in fact has not been mentioned in note, but whatever Contemnor has stated, if read in entirety, would justify a conclusion that what he intended actually to say was that Presiding Officer acted mindlessly. When enquired from Shri Ojha as to whether it was within authority of Contemnor to make such a note in a judicial record on 7th April, 2014, when suit was not listed before Court, he could not give any reply. We are clearly of the view that aforesaid note made by Contemnor was unauthorized and showed his audacity and daredevil attitude of making aforesaid note illegally and unauthorizedly and he has undermined Court's authority.
14. In view of the aforesaid admission, we also do not find any reason to disbelieve what has been said by Judicial Officer in Reference Letter, particularly, when no evidence otherwise has been produced by Contemnor to dispute the charge. The endorsement made by the Contemnor on the record of the Court below is admitted and, therefore, further facts stated in the Reference Order also, we find no reason to disbelieve. We, therefore, hold him guilty and we are clearly of the view that conduct, act and attitude of Contemnor shown in Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ist, Jaunpur on 7th April, 2014 amounts to "criminal contempt".
15. Contemnor being an Advocate was supposed to act in a very self-restrained manner with an attitude to help majesty of justice and not to show a complete disregard to Court as well as Presiding Officer. Contemnor in present case went to extent of making serious aspersion on efficiency and conduct of Presiding Officer of Court below.
16. An Advocate's duty is as important as that of a Judge. He has a large responsibility towards society. He is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an Advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent. He should conform to the requirements of law. He plays a vital role in preservation of society and justice system. He is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law. He must ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. He, who practices law, is not merely a lawyer, but acts as moral agent. This character, he cannot shake off, by any other character on any professional character. He derives from the belief that he shares sentiment of all mankind. This influence of his morality is one of his possession, which, like all his possession, he is bound to use for moral ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court. Advocacy is a respectable noble profession on the principles. An Advocate owes duty not only to his client, but to the Court, to the society and, not the least, to his profession.
17. We do not intend to lay down any code of conduct for the class of the peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly have no hesitation in observing that no Advocate has any business to condemn a Judge for an order passed by him but not to his liking. If there is something lacking on the part of a Judicial Officer touching his integrity, Advocates, being Officers of the Court, may not remain a silent spectator, but should come forward, raising their voice in appropriate manner before the proper authority, but there cannot be a licence to any member of Bar to raise his finger over the competency and integrity etc. of a Judicial Officer, casually or negligently, or on other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be maligned commenting upon her integrity and honesty. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest words. No one can justify it in any manner. Thinking of intrusion of such thought itself sounds alert. It is a siren of something which is not only very serious, but imminent. It is a concept or an idea which should not have cropped up in anybody's mind, connected with the system of justice, and if has cropped up, deserves to be nipped at earliest, else, it may spreads its tentacles to cover others and that would be a dooms day for the very institution.
18. Wild imaginary allegations against conduct of Judicial Officer without having any material to substantiate the same cannot be tolerated, inasmuch as, it not only brings into disrepute the entire justice system but is likely to cause serious erosion in the confidence of public in case such tendency is not snubbed at the earliest. The Judicial Officer/Judges had no platform to stand and clarify the circumstances in which the order has been passed by them. They had no platform to defend themselves. The strength of judiciary comes from the strong public opinion which it has in the system. If unsubstantiated flimsy imaginary fanciful allegations are allowed to be made by a party, who did not find order in its favour, it will demolish the very foundation of the system of justice. Every order passed by the Court will be in favour of one of the party and against another. The losing party cannot be allowed to challenge very integrity of Judicial Officer in passing the order and that too without any material to support such a allegation. If we allow such a trend to remain unnoticed, or condone the same without any appropriate action, it will not only encourage such tendency amongst others but also the resultant situation may cause a serious blow to the system of administration of justice, which is one of the founding pillars of constitutional scheme and has to be protected by all legal and reasonable means.
19. We hold the Contemnor guilty. The charge stands proved.
20. We are satisfied that the Contemnor has failed to maintain also conduct and behaviour which can be said to be orderly, good and disciplined, therefore, he deserves an appropriate punishment.
21. Now coming to question of punishment. We find that conduct of Contemnor is quite serious, showing complete disregard not only to Court, but a kind of personal revenge against Presiding Officer of Court below. Such a conduct cannot be appreciated and tolerated. It is true that suit was quite old but two dates' order sheet which have been placed before this Court show that plaintiff or his counsel himself was not appearing before Court, delaying proceedings. It shows that plaintiff himself was not vigilant, hence, it was not possible to decide the suit expeditiously. The explanation of Contemnor that on account of much delay in disposal of suit he felt annoyed and it was annoyance shown by him, is a defence, appears to be an after-thought and not founded on any material evidence.
22. We, therefore, find it appropriate to award punishment of three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,500/-. In default of payment of fine, Contemnor shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
23. Besides above, we are also of the view that the Contemnor is indisciplined. He should be restrained from entering premises of Court below for certain period. This regulatory power has been recognized by this Court as well as apex Court in reference to Chapter XXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 read with Section 34 of Advocates Act, 1961. Such an order does not amount to suspending or revoking licence of practice of an Advocate or debar him to practice as an Advocate, but only restrain his entry in a particular Court for certain period, otherwise he may practice Law elsewhere. This aspect has been considered in Civil Misc. Review/Recall Application No.243043 of 2015 filed in Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 16 of 2011, decided on 14th August, 2015 and this Court has observed as under:
"23. Now we come to the second question. It is contended that there is no punishment authorizing the Court to suspend licence of practice of an advocate and therefore, direction of this Court, contained in para 27 of judgement, is without jurisdiction.
24. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. So far as punishment is concerned, we have specifically provided punishment in para 26 of the judgment which is well within the four corners of the statutes i.e. Act, 1971. The directions contained in para 27 clearly do not constitute a punishment, under Act, 1971.
25. A five Judges Bench of this Court in Suo motu action taken by the Court Vs. Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya, Adocate, District Allahabad, 2009 (2) ACR 1797, after referring to the Apex Court's decision in Supreme Court Bar Association (supra) and some other subsequent judgments, said as under :
"We need not delve into this any further as we also endorse the view of retention of such powers in the High Court particularly in situations of the present category. "
26. Again in State Vs. M.P. Rana, reported in (2006) 1 UPLBEC 465, this Court has acknowledged the existence of such powers with the Court by referring to Chapter 35-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 read with Section 34 of Advocates Act.
27. The order passed by this Court would not have the effect of suspending license of the Contemnor but he has been restrained from entering the premises of Court below for a limited period. It is always open to the Contemnor to practice his law license anywhere across the country wherever he likes to do so, render opinion to the litigants and do all other such functions which as an advocate he can perform. The limited restriction is only with respect to the entry to the premises of the concerned district judgeship. It cannot be said, if a person has been restrained by this Court, from entering the premises of a subordinate Court, it amounts to suspension of his licence to practice as an advocate. The two things are different. This aspect has been considered and explained by Apex Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and Another, 2003 (2) SCC 45.
28. Even in Supreme Court Bar Association (supra) the decision relied by Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for contemnor, in para 80, the Court has said :
"In a given case it may be possible, for this Court or the High Court, to prevent the contemner advocate to appear before it till he purges himself of the contempt but that is much different from suspending or revoking his licence or debarring him to practice as an advocate. In a case of contemptuous, contumacious, unbecoming or blameworthy conduct of an Advocate-on-Record, this court possesses jurisdiction, under the Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his privilege to practice as an Advocate-on-Record because that privilege is conferred by this Court and the power to grant the privilege includes the power to revoke or suspend it. The withdrawal of that privilege, however, does not amount to suspending or revoking his licence to practice as an advocate in other courts or tribunals."
29. Then in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. (supra), the Court, in para 34, said :
"One last thing which must be mentioned is that the right of appearance in Courts is still within the control and jurisdiction of Courts. ....... The right of the advocate to practise envelopes a lot of acts to be performed by him in discharge of his professional duties. Apart from appearing in the courts he can be consulted by his clients, he can give his legal opinion whenever sought for, he can draft instruments, pleadings, affidavits or any other documents, he can participate in any conference involving legal discussions, he can work in any office or firm as a legal officer, he can appear for clients before an arbitrator or arbitrators etc. Such a rule would have nothing to do with all the acts done by an advocate during his practice. He may even file Vakalat on behalf of client even though his appearance inside the court is not permitted. Conduct in Court is a matter concerning the court and hence the Bar Council cannot claim that what should happen inside the Court could also be regulated by them in exercise of their disciplinary powers. The right to practice, no doubt, is the genus of which the right to appear and conduct cases in the Court may be a specie. But the right to appear and conduct cases in the Court is a matter on which the Court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power. Hence Courts cannot be and are not divested of control or supervision of conduct in Court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate."
(emphasis added)
30. The counsel for the applicant in order to read the provisions of Act, 1971 has miserably failed to consider exposition of law already settled by Apex Court as well as this Court and also provisions of Advocates' Act, 1961 as also the rules of the Court. To suggest that this Court has suspended licence and right to practice as an advocate or has revoked it altogether is totally misconceived and it amounts to nothing but clear misconstruction of the order of this Court. He is free to practice anywhere except of entering the premises of concerned subordinate Court and that too, for a limited period of three months, as directed in judgment under review."
24. Thus we are satisfied that Contemnor should not be allowed entry in District Judgeship for some time.
25. In view of above discussions, we allow the Reference and pass following order:
I). Contemnor is held guilty of committing contempt of Court below and charge levelled against him is held proved;
II). Contemnor is awarded punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred). In default of payment of fine, Contemnor shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month;
III). Contemnor is prohibited from entering premises of District Judgeship, Jaunpur, for a period of three months, unless he has to appear in a case he is a party as litigant. This restraint shall be operative with effect from 28th September, 2015.
26. A copy of this order shall be communicated to District Judge, Jaunpur, and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur for communication and compliance.
Order Date :- 21st September, 2015 MVS Chauhan/-
Court No. - 34Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 1 of 2015 Applicant :- In Re :
Opposite Party :- Gulab Singh Advocate Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party:- V.D. Ojha.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II,J.
1. On 3rd August, 2015, this criminal contempt was directed to be listed today for delivery of judgment in presence of counsel for Contemnor Shri V.D. Ojha as also Contemnor himself. However, Contemnor is absent today.
2. We forthwith issue non-bailable warrant against Contemnor which shall be executed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. Contemnor shall be arrested for serving out the sentence pursuant to judgment of date passed in this criminal contempt.
3. Registry shall take immediate steps for compliance of this order.
4. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, shall send compliance report within a fortnight positively.
Order Date :- 21.9.2015 MVS Chauhan/-