Smt. Munni Devi And Others vs State Of U.P.And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 5814 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57760 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Munni Devi And Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Prabha Shankar Pandey
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Pursuant to charge framed against petitioners and their counsel, Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, vide this Court's order dated 5.11.2012, Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate, has appeared and has filed two applications and affidavits.

2. One application is by Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, Advocate, who is representing petitioners, supported with an affidavit dated 18.11.2012 tendering his apology for the averments made in para 6 of writ petition and requesting to drop the criminal contempt proceedings.

3. The second application supported with an affidavit is on behalf of petitioners with the same statement i.e. tendering apology.

4. Proceedings were initiated in view of averments made by petitioners, through their counsel Prabha Shankar Pandey, in para 6 of writ petition, which reads as under:

"6. That the Presiding Officer Shambhu Nath Saroj is X-cadre Judge is also belongs to Scheduled Caste Reserved Category, hence the said presiding officer is not competent to appreciate the arguments in regard to declaring the jurisdiction of maintainability of the suit under Section 59 of U.P. Tenancy Act. The petitioners/appellants moved an application under Section 24 Cr.P.C. on the ground of incompetency of the presiding officer and another ground was also taken by the petitioners/appellants in their transfer application that the presiding officer belongs to Scheduled Caste by Caste Saroj and that the respondent No. 2 is also by caste Saroj that's why the intimacy has been developed in between Smt. Shushila Devi Saroj. It has been shouted by the respondent no. 2 in her Mohalla that she will win the case without any doubt. A true and photostat copy of the transfer application is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition."

5. Though there are other paragraphs in the writ petition also, not made part of the charge as such, but, have been drafted making scurrilous allegations against the Presiding Judicial Officer of the subordinate Court. In para 9, the noticees have stated:

"...petitioners have taken a ground of incompetency of the presiding officer x-Cadre ..."

6. Similarly in para 10 of writ petition, it has been said:

"..the x-cadre Additional District Judge is not able to consider the averment"

7. What has pained this Court is that an Officer of subordinate Court has been sought to be castigated and condemned for the reason of caste to which he belong and also that he is an Addl. District Judge (X-cadre). When I asked the learned counsel, who has drafted writ petition, as to whether caste of a person can guarantee about his competence and merit etc., he did not reply straightway but said that the averments have been made in the writ petition based on his own individual assessment of the Officer concerned since he himself appeared before the concerned Presiding Officer in the Court below and, therefore, these averments are based on his personal knowledge. This is why and looking to the above conduct of petitioners and their counsel, I passed the order dated 5.11.2012 and proceedings commenced, pursuant whereto Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate appeared and stated at the bar that there is no defence in the case in hand. The error is glaring and serious. On behalf of petitioners as well as the Advocate concerned, affidavits tendering apology have been filed and he (Anil Tiwari) is also praying for mercy to them.

8. The justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, colour etc. It is a system following principle of black and white. Whatever is unfair, that is identified and given its due treatment and whatever is good is retained. Whoever suffers injustice is attempted to be given justice and that is called dispensation of justice. The prevailing system of dispensation of justice in Country, presently, has different tiers. At the ground level, the Courts are commonly known as "Subordinate Judiciary" and they form basis of administration of justice. Sometimes it is said that subordinate judiciary forms very backbone of administration of justice. Though there are various other kinds of adjudicatory forums, like, Nyaya Panchayats, Village Courts etc. but firstly they are not considered to be the regular Courts for adjudication of disputes, and, secondly the kind and degree of faith, people have, in regular established Courts, is yet to be developed in other forums. In common parlance, the regular Courts, known for appropriate adjudication of disputes basically constitute subordinate judiciary, namely, the District Court; the High Courts and the Apex Court.

9. The hierarchy gives appellate and supervisory powers in various ways. The administrative control of subordinate judiciary has been conferred upon High Court, which is the highest Court at provincial level and is under constitutional obligation to see effective functioning of subordinate Courts by virtue of power conferred by Article 235 of the Constitution. No such similar power in respect to High Court is exercisable by Apex Court, though it is the highest Court of land. Its judgments are binding on all. Every order and judgment of any Court or Tribunal etc., in the Country, is subject to judicial review by Apex Court. This is the power on judicial side.

10. Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercise control over subordinate judiciary. This control is both ways. No aberration shall be allowed to enter the Subordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to be attacked or threatened to work under outside pressure of anyone, whether individual or a group, so as to form a threat to objective and independent functioning of Subordinate Judiciary.

11. In Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re:, (1998) 7 SCC 248, the Court said that superior Courts, i.e. High Court as also the Apex Court is bound to protect the Judges of subordinate Courts from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear.

12. If there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial Officer of subordinate Court, it is bound to shake confidence of the litigating public in the system and has to be tackled strictly. The damage is caused not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge, but, also to the fair name of judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language, and, at times, blatant condemnatory attacks, like the present one, are often designedly employed with a view to tame a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice.

13. I cannot ignore the fact that much cherished judicial independence needs protection not only from over zealous executive or power hungry legislature but also from those who constitute, and, are integral part of the system. Here is a case where an Advocate has drafted a petition since the litigants, namely petitioners, hereat does not appear to understand the legal complexity much. The Advocate forgetting the higher status conferred upon him, making him an Officer of the Court, has chosen to malign Judicial Officer of the Subordinate Court, based on caste consideration as also the nature of his appointment over which he himself has no control. In any case, that, by itself, has no connection with his performance and function as Presiding Officer of the Court.

14. 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.

15. I do not intend to lay down any code of conduct for the class of the peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly I have no hesitation in observing that no Advocate has nay business to condemn a Judge merely on the basis of his caste, creed or religion or for any other similar trait or attribute. 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 etc. of a Judicial Officer solely based on his caste or similar other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be maligned commenting upon his caste. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest words. No one can justify it in any manner. Thinking of intrusion of castism etc. itself sounds alert. It is a siren of something which is not only very serious, but imminent. A concept or an idea which should not have cropped up in anybody's mind, connected with the system of justice, 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.

16. Though here is a case of proven criminal contempt deserving appropriate punishment, but since petitioners and counsel, both, have refrain from advancing any defence, except of tendering unqualified apology, and also looking to the fact that Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate, after receiving instructions, made statement that such kind of conduct shall not be shown in future by petitioners as also Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, their Advocate, I am dropping further proceedings but make it clear that this order shall not prevent concerned Judicial Officer to take appropriate action, if any, permissible in law.

17. In view of above, I drop further proceedings in relation to the contempt initiated pursuant to my order dated 5.11.2012.

18. Now coming to the merits of the writ petition, Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate, at the outset stated that petitioners do not intend to pursue this writ petition and it may be dismissed accordingly.

19. However, looking to the conduct of petitioners, I find it just and in the fitness of the things that this writ petition should be dismissed with cost.

20. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with cost which I quantify to Rs. 10,000/- which shall be deposited by petitioners in the State Treasury within a fortnight failing which the concerned District Magistrate shall be at liberty to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue and thereafter to get it deposited in State Treasury.

Dt. 3.12.2012

PS