THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021
IN
CONTEMPT CASE NO.1380 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.17525 OF 2020
ORDER:-
1. This Contempt Case is initiated against the respondents
for their willful disobedience in complying the order of this Court dated 18.12.2020 and for obstructing the Constitutional functions of the Court.
2. In C.C.No.1380 of 2020, at the stage of admission, on 18.12.2020 this Court ordered notices to the respondents therein and directed to post the contempt case on 07.01.2021. The C.C.No.1380 of 2020 is posted on 07.01.2021. On verification of the case record, it was found that, the notices were dispatched by the Registry only on 31.12.2020. Considering the same, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the Registry did not dispatch the notices to the respondents/contemnors in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 18.12.2020 in true spirit, as such, caused DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 2 delay and obstructed the Constitutional functions of this Court and accordingly, directed the Registrar General to initiate contempt proceedings against the officers of the Registry who are responsible for not implementing the orders dated 18.12.2020 of this Court and submit "Action Taken Report", on the next date of hearing i.e. on 22.01.2021.
3. The Registrar General placed "Action Taken Report" before this Court on 21.01.2021 wherein, it is stated that, C.C.No.99 of 2021 was registered against the respondents for causing delay in complying with the order dated 18.12.2022 of this Court.
4. All the respondents filed counter affidavits and additional counter affidavits.
5. Heard learned Advocate General and Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5. Respondent Nos.3,4,6,7 & 8 personally present before the Court and submitted their contentions.
DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 3
6. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, it is averred that, he has been discharging his duties as Registrar (Judicial) of this Court since 30.04.2020. Till then, he has been discharging his duties with utmost diligence and commitment in accordance with the established practices, High Court Rules, Standing Orders, Roster Directions and instructions/directions issued by the Hon'ble Judges from time to time. He always strived to uphold the majesty of the Court in the eye of the public and Advocates by discharging his duties and functions in accordance with law. It is averred that, he strongly believed that any Orders of the Court should be complied with scrupulously.
7. It is further averred that, the Registrar General by letter dated 18.01.2021 has directed to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents in the present contempt case for causing delay in complying with the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by this Court, including Respondent No.1. He contends that, he has no personal knowledge about the contempt case in C.C.No.1380 of 2020 until the Court passed DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 4 the order to initiate Contempt proceedings. It is also contended that, the report of the Registrar General placed before this Court identifying the officers responsible for non- compliance of the order dated 07.01.2021 of this Court is not furnished to him. Therefore, he averred that, he had no information, muchless, any knowledge about C.C.No.1380 of 2020 and the order passed by the Court in the said case and there is no possibility of any disobedience on his part in the matter where he has no knowledge.
8. He further averred that, he believed that, this Court is concerned about the functioning of the Registry and has initiated steps for enhancing its functioning, for which he would be greatly obliged, although he is not responsible for the present contempt in any manner. In the said counter affidavit, he also recorded the relevant provisions of the High Court Standing Orders which are applicable to the judicial section and the procedure to be followed by them. He also contends that, the Standing Orders do not mandate the Registrar (Judicial) to either secure knowledge or perform any administrative functions in cases which are handled in the DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 5 routine course by the concerned sections day-to-day. Finally, it is submitted that, he is deeply anguished for the inconvenience that has been caused to this Court and he tendered his unconditional apology.
9. Respondent No.2 filed his counter affidavit, wherein, he contends that, he has been discharging his duties as Registrar (Protocol) by office order in ROC No.306/2020-Estt., dated 20.07.2020, whereunder, he has been directed to attend the work in the judicial wing of the Registry and he shall function in coordination under the guidance of the Registrar (Judicial). He has been attending to the works in the Judicial Wing. He has not been assigned any specific section or specific function in the Judicial Wing of the Registry and he does not have independent control or supervision over any section in the Judicial Wing. He tendered apology and sought pardon of the Court for the inconvenience caused to the Court in not properly complying with the order dated 18.12.2020 in C.C.No.1380 of 2020 and prayed the Court to exonerate him and discharge him from the charges of contempt.
DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 6
10. It is the contention of Respondent No.3 that, in the Special Cell Section, for dispatching more than 2,000 order copies daily by post, the addresses of the respondents have to be written on the covers and acknowledgments. Presently, only one Assistant Section Officer and one Record Assistant are working. To dispatch the order copies daily, atleast ten staff members are required. He made repeated requests to the Registrar (Judicial) to depute atleast two or three office subordinates to avoid the delay in dispatch of the order copies to the respondents in time, but in vain.
11. Respondent No.4 contends that the contempt case bundle was received in the Special Cell on 19.12.2020 and allotted for drafting to him and he has drafted on the same day. The same was approved by the Approval Officer and returned to the Special Cell Section on 23.12.2021. Immediately, he has carried out the corrections and sent the case bundle for making further process. Hence, he contends that, there is no delay on his part in complying with the order of this Court.
DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 7
12. Respondent No.5 contends that, contempt case bundle was received in the Special Cell on 19.12.2020 and it was entrusted for drafting/typing on the same day. As 20.12.2020 happened to be Sunday, the same was allotted to him on 21.12.2020 for approval. On 21.12.2020 and 22.12.2020 he was on leave. After joining on 23.12.2020, he noticed the case bundle and immediately approved and sent them to the Special Cell and he never obstructed the functioning of the Court.
13. Respondent No.6 contends that, he has been attending to the work of Office Subordinate in the Special Cell Section and he is attending to the work whichever is entrusted to him by the Section Officer. He is not aware of the case bundle in C.C.No.1380 of 2020 and he never obstructed the functions of the Court.
14. Respondent No.7 contends that, he is working as Office Subordinate and he is not aware of the case bundle in C.C.No.1380 of 2020. He is not aware of the dispatching the notices and he never obstructed the functioning of the Court.
DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 8
15. Respondent No.8 contends that, her duty is to prepare the registered postal covers received by the Special Cell Section. The preparation includes scribing addresses to the parties and pasting the covers and stamping. After preparing the covers with acknowledgment, she has to note down the case numbers in the book and after that, she has to dispatch the same to the Current Section. She submits that, she has been doing the work without any assistance. She further contends that, no delay was caused on her part in sending the covers to the Current Section.
16. The respondents have filed affidavits asserting that they have not committed any act in disobedience of the order of the Court and the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Advocate General and learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the averments made in the affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 8.
DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 9
18. It is settled law that, any order or direction issued by the Court has to be complied within true spirit in the interest of justice. In the opinion of this Court, directing the Registry to issue notices to the respondents and giving direction to list the case on a particular date is an order passed by this Court. The concerned officers of the High Court Registry have to strictly implement the same.
19. In the High Court Standing Orders (Revised), 2004, the functions to be discharged by the various officers i.e. Registrar (Judicial) to Office Assistant are prescribed. As per S.O.1-4, the Registrar (Judicial) has over all control and supervision over the sections under his control. He shall monitor the day-to-day Sittings of Hon'ble Judges, Pendencies of Decree-drafting & Translations, Despatch of Lower Court- Records, etc., and Stayed Matters, in particular, compliance of copy applications (C.D's) and prompt dispatch of urgent orders. The Registrar (Judicial) shall watch piling up of files in any of the Sections under his control and immediate steps are to be taken for their disposal. The Registrar (Judicial) shall DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 10 also make frequent visits to the Sections under his control, since it is mostly his performance that has a direct impact on the image of the Institution. He must readily respond to the complaints of the Advocates and cause the defects rectified promptly. He must take every step to facilitate the smooth functioning of Courts.
20. On careful examination of the duties to be discharged by the Registrar (Judicial), it is very important to note that the performance of the Registrar (Judicial) has a direct impact on the image of the institution. In view of the functions to be discharged by the Registrar (Judicial), as mentioned at Standing Order No.1-4, the Respondent No.1 can't contend that he is not responsible for the non- implementation of the Court directions by the subordinate officers working under his control and supervision in the Judicial Wing.
21. Though it is contended by the remaining respondents that, due to lack of sufficient staff or there is no any fault on their part in implementing the orders of the Court within the DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 11 time stipulated and on consideration of overall facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents failed to implement the directions of this Court in true spirit.
22. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
23. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors1 the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for holding a person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt.
24. In The District and Sessions Judge vs. The Executive Engineer, R & B2, the Division Bench of the 1 AIR 1999 SC 3215 2 1996 (2) ALD Cri 844 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 12 Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder:
"8. One of the well settled principles of law is that it is not only disobedience of the judicial order of the Court or interference with the judicial proceedings, which constitutes Contempt of Court, interference in exercise of administrative power by the Court also is a Contempt of Court."
25. The prefatory remarks of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar3, as extracted hereunder would well project the importance of the issue under consideration in this suo motu contempt case:
"1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done 3 AIR 1995 SC 1795 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 13 with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
At Para Nos. 7 & 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder:
"7. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates court's order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James Evening Post case, 1742-2 Atk 469) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples"
The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers 1974 A.C. 273 at page 302:
"In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 14 maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperiled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted and their authority wanes and is supplanted."
8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, pre-variation and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.
DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 15
26. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India 4, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held as extracted hereunder:
"Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government departments are no exception to it."
27. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot 5, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder:
"It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs."4
(2012) 1 SCC 273 5 (2006) 5 SCC 1 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 16
28. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors6, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence.
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and others vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others 7 held that, punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the 6 2002 CriLJ 1814 7 AIR 2008 SC 3016 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 17 duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt.
30. In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao8, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder:
"9. Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised by the Courts because it is an extraordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is invoked usually not with the object of punishing a contemnor, but for protecting the dignity and authority of the Court.
10. Obedience of the orders of the Courts is foremost and sacred for maintenance of rule of law. Disobedience of the orders strikes at the very roots of rule of law and shakes the foundation on which the judicial system rests. Tolerance to disobedience is not in the interest of the judicial system because it will 8 MANU/AP/0136/2012 DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 18 lose the confidence of those who have succeeded in the Courts.
23. An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be refused under any pretext, so long as it remains in force and is not eclipsed or set aside in the hierarchy of remedies. Even if there is some difficulty in implementing the order, parties should approach the Court for appropriate clarifications. Otherwise, it would amount to disobedience to the Court."
31. In the present case, this Court in C.C.No.1380 of 2020 ordered notices to the respondents therein and directed to post the contempt case on 07.01.2021. Admittedly, the notices were dispatched by the Registry only on 31.12.2020 and contempt case is listed on 07.01.2021, as such, there is an inordinate delay in dispatching the notices, and it has to be construed as "wilful disobedience" of the directions of this Court. Even it is "negligence and carelessness", it may amount to contempt, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors (1st supra).
DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 19
32. It is well settled law that, the Rule of Law is the foundation of a democratic society and Judiciary is the guardian of Rule of Law. The officers/employees working in the Judiciary shall discharge their duties properly and effectively. They shall comply/obey the orders/directions issued by the Courts in true spirit. All are equal before law. The officers and employees who/we working in the Courts, may be subordinates to the Court on the administrative side. But, on Judicial side, they are equal to all others and they have to comply orders of the Court with more cautious, vigilant and alert. It is their primary duty to uphold the dignity of Courts and Majesty of Law. They have to ensure strict compliance of the orders/directions for proper functioning of the Court and to dispense with the Justice to the litigant public and for effective administration of justice. In our view, as and when this Court is taking stringent action against the persons, whoever they may be and however high they may be for non-implementation of Court orders or violation of Court orders, to uphold the Majesty of the Court and to render Justice to the people; it is the first and foremost DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 20 duty of the officers and employees of the Courts to obey and comply the orders of the Court, or otherwise, there is no exception to them.
33. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as there is truth in the contentions of the respondents that, sufficient staff are not there in the Registry to discharge their functions properly and considering the unconditional apologies tendered by the respondents in their affidavit, this Court, taking a lenient view, intends to close this contempt case with a direction to the respondents to be more careful in implementing the directions of this Court in future in true spirit.
34. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed.
35. It is made it clear that the observations of this Court, as stated supra, would not have any negative bearing against any respondent.
36. Before parting with this order, this Court intends to place on record its observations noticed while dealing this DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 21 case, with regard to the difficulties of the employees working in the High Court Registry and to express its opinion to set- right the misdeeds which are causing inconvenience to the Court, to the Advocate fraternity and to the public at large.
37. This Court is very conscious that the Hon'ble The Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary with powers of administration of the High Court and administration of justice throughout the State.
38. It is an admitted fact that the High Court Registry is working with less than 50% of the sanctioned strength. Every employee is over-burdened for the lack of sufficient staff. Due to bifurcation of the common High Court and establishment of separate High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati with a short notice and no minimum facilities are available to the employees for transportation and lack of other basic amenities required to discharge their duties properly and peacefully and most of the employee's families are staying at Hyderabad and they have to go every weekend to Hyderabad, it appears, there is serious disturbance in their performance DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 22 in discharging their duties. This Court can't lost its sight with regard to the filing of writ petition by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Employees Association seeking direction against the State Government Officers to provide basic amenities.
39. Besides this, this Court noticed monopoly of employees working in the Judicial Wing/Sections. Though there are different sections/different wings in the High Court Registry viz., Estt. Sec. (Officers), Recruitment Cell, J.Spl. (Admn. & Med.), Special Officer's Section, D Sec. (Budget & ExP.), Computer Section, Protocol Section, J.Spl. (Telephones), etc., Most of the Sections are no way directly concerned with the day-to-day Court functioning and issues concerned to the Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public.
40. Those sections working under the control and supervision of the Registrar (Judicial) are only having direct connection with the Court functioning, issues of the Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public. Due to this reason only, in the Standing Orders, it is noted that, the Registrar (Judicial) performance has a direct impact on the DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 23 institution. In My considered opinion, not only the performance of the Registrar (Judicial), but also, the performance of entire staff working in the Judicial Wing/Sections has a direct impact on the institution. The Court, Advocates, Advocate Clerks and Litigant Public are facing problems/inconvenience in day-to-day affairs, due to the monopoly of some of the employees working in the Judicial Section/Judicial Wing.
41. Under these circumstances, i. If, appropriate steps are taken to fill the vacancies of sanctioned strength of employees in the Registry, within time frame;
ii. If, required amenities are provided to the employees of the Registry;
iii. If, 30% of the staff working in the Judicial Sections are transferred to other Sections (other Wings of the High Court Registry) every year, and the staff working in the other Sections are posted in the Judicial Sections, whereby, all employees of the High Court will get DEV,J CONTEMPT CASE NO.99 OF 2021 24 experience to work in the judicial sections and monopoly of some of the employees working in the Judicial Sections will be vanished, and iv. It will be useful to facilitate the smooth functioning of the Court and to protect the public interest.
42. Registry is directed to place copy of this order before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for their Lordship's perusal.
_____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date : 12.12.2022 BSS/SP