In-Re vs Sri Sompal Singh Advocate And ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1738 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved on 06.07.2015
 
Delivered on 10.08.2015
 
Court No. 34
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 21 of 2010
 
Applicant :- In-Re
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Sompal Singh Advocate And Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Mehrotra, A.G.A.
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kr.Singh
 

 
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 Shri Saeed Uz Zaman Siddiqi, the then District Judge, J.P. Nagar at Amroha vide his letter dated 5th May 2010, informing this Court about certain activities of contemnors Sompal Singh, Hem Singh Arya and C.S. Gole, which took place on 6th March 2010.

2. On 6th March 2010, while record of the Courts was being shifted from old building, in the heart of city, to the newly constructed buildings, certain Advocates created ruckus impeding shifting work. In the meantime, C.S. Gole, Advocate, who was also Secretary, Bar Association, J.P. Nagar, with the avowed object of occupying chambers constructed for Advocates without any formal allotment in this regard, invited certain political personage, including contemnors, namely, Sompal Singh and Hem Singh Arya to hold inaugural function, who on that date delivered most bellicose speech which incensed lawyers further to intensify their ongoing agitation. The District Judge also stated that Shri Radha Krishna, Additional District Magistrate, J.P. Nagar and Kumar Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, J.P. Nagar had cooperated with the aforesaid political personages by escorting them to the Court premises and facilitated them in delivering bellicose speech supporting agitation of lawyers, hence, they are also liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act.

3. The matter was placed before Administrative Judge, J.P. Nagar. On 05.10.2010, he recommended the matter to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for forwarding it to appropriate Court for initiating contempt proceedings against Sompal Singh, Hem Singh Arya and C.S. Gole, but did not approve proposal in respect to Shri Radha Krishna and Shri Anil Kumar Singh, district officials. After approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 26.10.2010, this matter was registered as Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 21 of 2010 and on 10.11.2010, was placed before a Division Bench which opined that the three contemnors have prima-facie committed criminal contempt by satisfying ingredients of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) and consequently issued notices to them to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated by framing charge against them. The actual information conveyed by District Judge with respect to the action of contemnors and others, it would be useful to reproduce hereto:

"That the new Civil Court Complex was constructed in a workable condition. The Hon'ble High Court sanctioned Budget for shifting of the newly constructed Civil Court Complex. It was a herculean task to shift the Civil Court consisting of 12 functioning court and offices, without interrupting the working. It was decided to shift in the evening of Saturday March 06, 2010 so that the staff may settle down the offices and Courts on Sunday March 07, 2010 so as to ensure uninterrupted and smooth functioning of the Courts on March 08, 2010."

"That the Lawyers led by Sri Kripal Singh and Sri Chain Sukh Gole, the President and Secretary, District Bar Association, resisted the shifting process by burgling into the old court complex in the night of March 06,2010. But their obstruction was foiled by the staff and officers of the Judgeship. That the staff members have reported this incident against 41 Advocates.

That the Courts running in the erstwhile court of Munsif, Amroha, were situated in a busy market in the heart of the city, that too, in narrow lanes and bye-lanes. The shifting process could not take place during the day time as heavy traffic, truck-loads cannot pass through during working hours. Secondly, that, as District Judge, I had to ensure that Court working should not be disturbed even for a moment."

"That after shifting of the courts some of the advocates including contemnor no. 3 burgled into the New Court Premises on march 07,2010 and abused the staff, broken open the locks and attempted to destroy the court records and could be controlled only by the dutiful staff of the Court. The CHOWKIDAR had to lodge an F.I.R. At P.S.Amroha Dehat against 9 advocates."

"In furtherance of the above referred acts of hooliganism and slanderous slogan shouting against the District Judge & Other judicial officers of the judgeship, the Secretary of Bar Association contemnor no. 3 invited two political persons i.e. Contemnor no. 1 & 2 to launch a formal inauguration of advocate chambers on the land which was not allotted to them. The said political persons added fuel to the fire and further incensed the atmosphere by pledging full fledged support to the advocate in their ongoing agitation (Relevant Paper cutting & photograph are being annexed, herewith, annexure no. 1 & 2."

(emphasis added)

4. After service of notice contemnors appeared and filed their affidavits.

5. Affidavit of contemnor-1 Sompal Singh, sworn on 3rd January 2011, stated his version that he is a practicing advocate in District Court Amroha (J.P. Nagar) and also Ex-Vice-Chairman, Irrigation Development and Flood Control Commission U.P. A new district, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, was created by Government in the month of April 1997. For construction of new building of District Judgeship land measuring 30 acres was earmarked. Map for construction of court-rooms, office and chambers of advocates recommended by District Judge was approved by High Court in 2003. In the aforesaid map/layout plan, a space for construction of advocate chambers was provided within the premises of new District Judgeship. Office of District Court was shifted in new building on 06.03.2010. Advocates of District Judgeship demanded that they may be allowed to sit at the place, earmarked in the map for construction of their chambers, in new Court premises. Shri Saeed Uz Zaman Siddiqi, the then District Judge, was not inclined to accept this demand and told advocates that they may sit at the place earmarked for parking, which was outside the premises of Court building. This attitude caused serious resentment among advocates of District Judgeship. On 8th March, 2010, the new building of District Judgeship, J.P. Nagar was inaugurated. A huge police force was deployed at every place of Court premises and doors of compound were locked and guarded by armed police. Even police force was deployed at roof of the building. In the inaugural function, no member of Bar was invited. Even advocates were not allowed to enter Court premises by police force. After function also, huge police force remain deployed in and around the Court premises, which aggravated resentment among the advocates. Later on, with the intervention of Administrative Judge, J.P. Nagar, the matter was settled and advocates were allowed to sit on place which was already earmarked for them, as per the layout plan approved by High Court. Being member of Bar, the contemnor-1 Sompal Singh was invited by office-bearers of Bar Association, District Court, J.P. Nagar for inauguration of chambers of advocate on the land, earmarked for them in the map approved by High Court. On request of office-bearers of Bar Association, Contemnor-1 visited Court premises and inaugurated advocates' chambers on that land. Contemnor-1 denied allegation with respect to fuel to fire speech or conduct causing incensed atmosphere. However, lastly he has said that he is a responsible advocate as well as political leader and has great regard for judiciary, therefore, tenders unconditional apology.

6. Affidavit of contemnor-2 Hem Singh Arya sworn on 3rd January 2011 stated that he is a practicing advocate in Tehsil Hasanpur, district J.P. Nagar and is also District President of Bahujan Samaj Party. Other facts stated in paras 4, 5 and 6 are similar to the facts stated in affidavit of contemnor-1, but with respect to his visit to the Court premises, Contemnor-2 has said that he, being a member of Bar and political leader, was invited by office-bearers of Bar Association for inauguration of chambers and accepting said request, he also participated in inauguration function of advocate chambers along with Shri Sompal Singh, Ex-Vice-Chairman, Irrigation Development and Flood Control U.P. i.e. Contemnor-1. Then in paras 8 and 9 of his affidavit, he has repeated the same averments as have been made by Contemnor-1 that he did not add fuel to fire and further incensed atmosphere by his conduct or speech. He is a responsible advocate as well as political leader and has great regard for judiciary and tenders unconditional apology.

7. Third affidavit of Contemnor-3 also narrates incident in identical words, but in paras-8 and 9 of the affidavit, has said as under:

That the deponent denies the incident as stated by the District Judge, J.P. Nagar in his reference but he offers unconditional apology and giving his undertaking that no such incident will occur in future.

That deponent is young lawyer his unconditional apology may be accepted considering his future career.

8. The Court did not find conduct of contemnors bonafide and genuine in tendering alleged unconditional apology, showing remorse on their part, and looking to the gravity of matter, decided to proceed further, and charged Contemnors vide order dated 15th April 2015. The charge framed against Contemnor-1 and Contemnor-2 was common while Contemnor-3 was charged separately. These charges read as under:

(a) Sri Som Pal Singh, Advocate and Sri Hem Singh Arya, District President, B.S.P. On 08.03.2010 launched a formal inauguration of Advovate Chambers on the land which was not allotted to them and tried to convert the place of justice into a political battle field and also provided full fledged support to the Advocates in their outgoing agitation which has added fuel to fire and further incensed atmosphere in the Judgeship at Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha) and thus both have created obstruction in judicial administration and have committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(C) of Contempt of Court Act, punishable under Section 12 of the Act.

(b) Sri C.S. Gole, Advocate, on 07.03.2010, burgled into new Court premises, abused the staff, broke upon the locks and attempted to destroy the court records, thus, undermined the authority of court and tried to interfere in administration of justice committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(C) read with Section 10 and 14 of Contempt of Court Act, punishable under Section 12 of the Act. Further, on 08.03.2010, contemnor invited Sri Sompal Singh and Sri Hem Singh Arya to launch a formal inauguration of Advocate Chambers on the land which was not allotted to them and tried to convert the place of justice into a political battle field and, thus, tried to obstruct in judicial administration and committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(C) of Contempt of Court Act, punishable under Section 12 of the Act.

9. The Contemnors were given opportunity to file reply to the aforesaid charge. All the contemnors have submitted their separate replies.

10. In the earlier part of his reply/affidavit sworn on 6th July, 2015, Sompal Singh-(Contemnor-1) has said that he tendered apology in 2010 and expected that the same would be accepted and proceedings would be dropped, but that has not happened. He further says that he has not done anything which may lower majesty of Court of law. Being an advocate he has esteemed regard towards judiciary and being integral part of judiciary, cannot even think anything which may undermine majesty of Courts of law and administration of justice. Then explaining to incident, which took place on 8th March 2019, he has said in paras-6 and 7 that being a leader of political party and an advocate, he was invited by his colleagues to inaugurate advocate chambers at the place where newly constructed District Court was shifted. Contemnor-1 visited Court premises as requested by office-bearers of Bar Association and inaugurated advocate chambers. At the time of inauguration of chambers, neither there was any kind of unrest nor anyone raised any kind of slogan against anybody. He also refers to other references made by the then District Judge, against certain advocates, causing ruckus in Court campus in the context of aforesaid incident which were registered separately as Criminal Contempt Applications No. 10, 12, 23 and 29 of 2010. He refers to the role played by Sri Radha Krishnan, Additional District Magistrate and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, J.P. Nagar, in escorting him and says that proceedings against them have been dropped though those officials were also present in inaugural ceremony for newly constructed Court premises hosted by District Judge himself. Having said so, the contemnor has further given elaborated explanation in paras-9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19 and relevant extract thereof is reproduced as under:

"9. ..............in fact there is nothing in the reference which can be said to be contemptuous to the Court of law or can be said to be interfered by deponent in the administration of justice. It seems that the learned District Judge who cause of his act and omissions has failed to maintain the Rule of Law and has borrowed the unwarranted disputes from every corner, may it be the disobeying sanctioned layout plan approved by the High Court, or the District Administration or be it dispute with Bar Association to anyhow implicate deponent in contempt proceedings has drawn this Reference by borrowing the facts from here and there.............."

"10. .......................just a day after the alleged incidence, lawyers had collected their articles only at the place which was given to them by the learned District Judge and in case they were inaugurating their chambers/seats in a new place performing "Hawan & Puja" etc at the place given to them, how it can be termed to be an attempt of criminal trespass or offending either to the learned District Judge or to the administration of justice."

"11. ..................the controversy, agitation, unrest whatever arose in Amroha in the month of March 2010 was the result of aristocratic behaviour of the learned District Judge. In fact the learned District Judge has even the least respect towards the noble profession from where whole of the legal fraternity...................... the learned District Judge has termed the Advocates as Urchins and Scoundrels. If a Judge of Subordinate Court can dare to use such a language for the lawyers in his Reference made to the High Court it can easily be imagined how he could have been treating the lawyers in his Court..............."

"13. In the aforesaid sanctioned and approved layout plan of the District Court there was a site marked for the construction of advocate chambers within the premises of the District Court. But as the then District Judge was not ready to allot the land to the advocates within the newly constructed Court premises for their chambers despite the same was earmarked in the layout plan, there arose a dispute between the District Judge and the Bar Association. Under the said circumstances learned District Judge ordered to shift the Court from the erstwhile building to the newly constructed building and the time he chosen for that purposes was the night of Saturday 6.3.2010 probably to avoid any possible protest by the advocates as there were not even basic amenities for advocates. When matter came into the notice of advocates on the next day they shifted their table, chair, boxes etc from the old premises to the newly constructed premises and put their belongings to the place given to them by the learned District Judge under a tin shed."

"14. ...............As all the advocates had shifted to a new place of practice from the old Court premises, they collectively decided to inaugurate their chambers/seats after performing Hawan & Puja on 8.3.2010 and in that process Bar unanimously decided to get the inauguration of chambers performed through deponent by cutting the ribbon. Deponent being a member of the Bar Association has inaugurated the chambers/seats of the lawyers which in no way can be said to be contemptuous to the Courts of law."

"15. ............as the learned District Judge was not ready to give the land to the advocates for their chambers inside the Court compound which was earmarked in the layout plant sanctioned by the High Court, advocates under the Bar Association later on started protesting against the high handedness of the learned District Judge."

"18. .......... Learned District Judge with a view to implicate deponent also in criminal contempt made the Reference in the present case on 5.5.2010 almost 2 months after the alleged incident with other four persons borrowing the facts from other Reference Petitions as there was nothing against the deponent with the learned District Judge as such he is attributed with the act that as a political person deponent pledged his support to the advocates and has added fuel to the fire as such deponent has committed the criminal contempt."

"19. .............Learned District Judge in his Reference has attributed to the deponent only that he has launched a formal inauguration of advocate chambers on the land which was not allotted to them. It is humbly submitted that the inauguration of chambers was performed only at the place which was earmarked in the layout plan sanctioned by the High Court..........."

11. Similarly Contemnor-2, Hem Singh Arya, has also filed affidavit sworn on 6th July 2015 and therein also basic facts, as stated in affidavit of Contemnor-1, have been repeated. However, he has also submitted that inauguration ceremony of chambers was performed by Sompal Singh, Advocate, Contemnor- 1 and he himself has not done anything in the matter, hence, no criminal contempt has been committed by him. With regard to allegations levelled against District Judge, his affidavit is almost verbatim copy of affidavit of Contemnor-1.

12. Contemnor-3, in his counter affidavit sworn on 6th July 2015 has also replied in similar terms and, therefore, we are not repeating the same.

13. From the facts stated by all Contemnors, certain aspects, which stand admitted, are as follows:

(a) The District Judge had not permitted, let-out, licensed or leased-out any part of District Court premises to the advocates to make their chambers.

(b) When record of Courts was sought to be shifted from old building to new one, the advocates on their own and without permission of District Judge shifted their chambers in open space, which according to them, was approved in sanctioned plan for chambers of the advocates, but was not actually allotted or permitted or leased-out or licensed by District Judge till 6th March, 2010.

(c) Contemnor-3 was an office-bearer and finding gesture of District Judge, highly objectionable, ignored his authority and instigated his colleagues for construction of chambers not only unauthorizedly but also participated in arranging visit of Contemnors 1 and 2, who came to that place and made formal inauguration by cutting a ribbon.

(d) Contemnors-1 and 2, who are advocates and former office bearers of Advocates' Association, also enjoyed political atmosphere. It is a matter of common knowledge that when incident in question took place, ruling party in State of U. P. was Bahujan Samaj Party to which Contemnors 1 and 2 claim to belong. They actually visited Court premises where advocates have raised their chambers for a formal inauguration and did not care that the District Judge has not permitted anything in this regard.

(e) Contemnors-1 and 2 did not take any permission or consent or authority from District Judge before entering Court premises to participate in a function, alleged to have been organized by advocates, with clear defiance of authority of District Judge. Not only on 8th March, 2010 the advocates and three Contemnors showed total disregard and disrespect to District Judge and other officers of Subordinate Judiciary but also created ruckus by slogan shouting etc in Court premises so as to obstruct functioning of Courts.

14. Regarding conduct of District Judge all contemnors frequently and with impunity have used language like "high-handedness", "ill-intention", "aristocratic behaviour" etc.

15. Serious arguments have been advanced that act of contemnors nowhere constitutes "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2 (c) of Act of 1971, since at the best there was a defiance of administrative authority of District Judge.

16. Entire campus of District Judge is within authority of District Judge. No one can do something therein which has not been permitted by District Judge as the same would amount to criminal trespass, encroachment etc. In the instant case, we are concerned with the facts to the extent that advocates sought to occupy premises in District Judgeship without any permission from him. We are not concerned herewith other acts of advocates in J.P. Nagar constituting offences like trespass etc. We are concerned only with question of defiance of authority of District Judge and entire Subordinate Judiciary by Contemnors for doing something in campus knowing it well that their action is in a place where ultimate authority to control and administer is District Judge, and without his permission, showing a defiance to him, no such thing could have been conducted. Such acts, in defiance of authority of a judicial officer, either in administrative side, while entering Court premises, or obstructing affairs of Courts on judicial side, both constitute "criminal contempt" under Section 2(c) of Act of 1971.

17. In this regard, we may have a close study of definition of 'criminal contempt' under Section 2(c) of Act of 1971, which reads as under:

"criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;"

(emphasis added)

18. Publication of any matter or doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court is one aspect within the ambit of term "criminal contempt" vide clause (i). In this clause whether this publication or act of Contemnor which has the effect of scandalizing or lowering the authority or tends to scandalize or tends to lower the authority, has been committed in judicial proceedings or otherwise is not a necessary condition as no such words have been used therein.

19. In clause (ii) something which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere the due course of any judicial proceedings amounts to criminal contempt.

20. Clause (iii) deals with another situation where publication or any other act of Contemnor interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner also amounts to criminal contempt.

21. At the first flush one may have an impression that all the three clauses in substance talk of similar situation or conditions but in fact they are different.

22. A similar argument as has been advanced in the present case by Contemnor, was also raised in Rachapudi Subba Rao vs. Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, 1981(2) SCC 577. In paras 13 and 16 the Court said:

"13. It is noteworthy, that in the categorisation of contempt in the three Sub-clauses (i) to (iii), only category (ii) refers to "judicial proceeding". Scandalizing of Court in its administrative capacity will also be covered by sub-clauses (i) and (iii). The phrase "administration of justice" in Sub-clause (iii) is far winder in scope than "course of any judicial proceeding", The last words "in any other manner" of Sub-clause (iii) further extend its ambit and give it a residuary character. Although Sub-clauses (i) to (iii) describe three distinct species of 'criminal contempt', they are not always mutually exclusive. Interference or tendency to interfere with any judicial proceeding or administration of justice is a common element of Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii). This element is not required to be established of a criminal contempt of the kind falling under Sub-clause (i)."

(emphasis added)

23. In Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. State of Madras, 1952 CriLJ 832 the Court has said that:

"When the act of defaming a Judge is calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law, it would certainly amount to contempt. The offence of contempt is really a wrong done to the public by weakening the authority and influence of Courts of law which exist for their good............"

"........attacks upon the judges excite in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations... and whenever man's allegiance to the laws is so fundamentally shaken it is the most fatal and dangerous obstruction of justice........"

24. 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 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 due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct 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. Protection is necessary for courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear.

25. The primary object of contempt proceedings is to safeguard and protect dignity of Court and administration of justice. An act or omission amounting to contempt need not necessarily be in connection with any pending case. It can be on judiciary as a whole, without any reference to any particular Judge. The question, which has to be considered, if the act or publication of contemnor does, in fact, or tends to lower the dignity of seat of justice. The contemnor's intention is of no relevance. Mens rea is not a necessary constituent of contempt. It is the act or publication by contemnor which has reflection on judiciary or Court which determines, whether there is a contempt of Court or not. A Judge's function may be divisible but his integrity and authority are not divisible in the context of administration of justice. An unwarranted attack on a Judge for his malfunctioning or corrupt administration is as potent in doing public harm as an attack on his adjudicatory function. Echoing similar sentiments Court in Baradakant Mishra Vs. Registrar of the Orissa High Court AIR 1974 (1) SCC Page 374 said:

"Judicial capacity is an ambivalent term which means 'capacity of or proper to a judge' and is capable of taking in all functional capacities of a Judge whether administrative, adjudicatory or any other, necessary for the administration of justice".

26. Every criticism on Court's administrative capacity, which deprives authority of Court or inputs improper motive to those taking part in administrative functions, would constitute gross contempt, if it affects the image of Court and endangers confidence of public in administration of justice. Any speech, writing, action having tendency, bringing into disrespect, the authority of Court, or the decision of judicial officers, which may impair the faith of public in the authority and majesty of justice, would constitute a criminal contempt. A fair, balanced and reasonable criticism on judicial or administrative act or decision of the Court cannot be brought within the realm of contempt, of course, if it does not impair or diminish the authority of the Court or creates a general impression in the public mind, destroying its faith in the administration of justice or lowering the authority of Court. The Judges do not feel and should not feel shy of criticism nor expect super sensitiveness, but where such criticism etc goes to the act of challenging the very authority, spreading in the mind of general public, undermining the majesty of Court, the situation would be different and will come within the ambit of definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of Act of 1971. The contemnors can not have freedom of stating that incident had not taken in courtroom and it is something to be seen on administrative side; or that it is not in respect to any Court's judgment or judicial function as such. As already said, in Baradakant Mishra Vs. Registrar of the Orissa High Court (supra), it has been held that for the purpose of definition of "criminal contempt" under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971, the capacity of Judge or Court cannot be divided on judicial and administrative side since it is entire body of the institution. The authority of the Court, in every respect it has its majesty, giving a faith to the public on the authority of Court. If any attack is made to diminish, tarnish or challenge it and if one crosses limit and enters the field of definition of "criminal contempt", makes himself liable for punishment under the Act.

27. In the present case Contemnors 1 and 2 admit that they are advocate members of Bar Association and, therefore, well aware of legal authority, power and jurisdiction of District Judge as well as other judicial officers. They also knew that entire premises of District Judgeship is within the administrative control of District Judge and without his permission, no activity like a function etc., which has the effect of usurping some part of land, in Court premises, is permissible. It is also admitted from their affidavits that there was no order communicated to any of the advocates or the Bar Association, allotting any particular land for construction of advocate chambers in the premises of District Judgeship. In fact there was no permission whatsoever given by District Judge or even this Court. They accepted invitation of office-bearers of Bar Association or a group of lawyers to make inauguration of advocate chambers on the land within the premises of District Judgeship though there was no valid allotment made by District Judge or this Court to them or any of them. It is also evident that those advocates, who made their chambers on the land, were not allotted said land to them, took a belligerent attitude vis-a-vis District Judge. It was supported and cooperated by Contemnors 1 and 2, both by participating along with them in the activities of inauguration of advocates chambers on the said land. The Contemnors have termed it as high handedness of District Judge. It is a clear act whereby Contemnors 1 and 2 obviously challenged authority of District Judge in respect of the premises of District Judgeship and with impunity proceeded to do whatever they intended to do, without caring that they had no authority to do so on the land, belong to District Judgeship, which is within the administrative control of the District Judge. These activities and defiance of authority of District Judge clearly caused obstruction in administration of District Judge.

28. Contemnor-1 has tried to highlight his status that he was a political person having enjoyed a gracious office conferred by the then Government which is evident from mentioning of his earlier status as Ex-Chairman, Irrigation, Development and Flood Control U.P. His status was of no consequence. Like other advocates, he also bound to observe all the rules, regulations and procedure as also the decorum. He had no business to indulge himself in the act of inauguration of advocates' chambers when it was not permitted by the District Judge. This fact that District Judge's permission has not been obtained was well known to Contemnor-1. The so-called apology mentioned in both the affidavits is nothing but the same has been made just to wriggle out of punishment from this Court. His behaviour against District Judge is also evident from the language he has used in his affidavit filed before this Court. In para-9 of the affidavit sworn on 6th July, 2015, he has blamed District Judge that he failed to maintain rule of law and has borrowed unwarranted dispute from every corner. In para-11 of affidavit he has termed District Judge's behaviour as 'aristocratic behaviour'. He has also admitted that he forcefully entered newly constructed premises and still has gone to justify his act of visiting Court premises and inauguration of advocates' chambers. All this clearly show hostile attitude on his part to the District Judge, tarnishing and diminishing his authority in the eyes of public at large since the entire inauguration was taken as a celebration, in the presence of public at large and demonstrating against District Judge, lowering down the authority.

29. The averments made in paras-14 and 15 of affidavit clearly demonstrate that a resolution was passed by Members of the Bar Association, which was treated by Contemnors sufficient to do whatever they had decided and, as if the District Judge has no authority at all to interfere in their work. If this attitude and activity of Contemnor-1 did not have the effect of undermining and lowering down majesty of the Subordinate Court, what else could be.

30. Contemnor-2 has also followed the same course, knowing all these pros and cons and also lack of authority on the part of advocates and Members of Bar Association, still he proceeded to participate in inauguration function and cooperated and coordinated with the advocates in their indifference shown to District Judge on the question of making available advocates' chambers in the premises of Judgeship. If it was not a pitched battle, where verbal weapon were used. There was an open show of might. Obviously there was a show-off, defiance, disobedience and contrary activities on the part of advocates to reflect that District Judge means nothing to them and they can do whatever they like, to do in the Court premises. In fact, whatever has been done by Contemnors-1 and 2, admittedly, has made the authority of District Judge undermined in the eyes of general public. Since all these facts are clear admission in affidavits, we have no hesitation in holding the charge proved against Contemnors-1 and 2 and further holding them guilty of committing "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971.

31. So far as Contemnor-3 is concerned, he was an office-bearer of Bar Association. He participated in the activities of members of advocates. He was one of the invitees of Contemnors-1 and 2 and had participated in all the activities as are discussed above. Therefore, we find that the charge against him also stands proved and he is guilty of committing "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1971.

32. Whenever we find that the advocates, office-bearers of Court have indulged themselves in contempt or criminal contempt, as the case may be, it really pains us since the advocates are expected to show a model conduct to others so that no one may indulge in activity of contempt of Court. The interests of an efficient judiciary calls for a strong and efficient Bar, independent in outlook and not afraid of respectful and bold in presenting a controversy in question in Court. Weak counsel to an overpowering Judge is neither an asset to the profession nor to the interests of justice. A robust advocate is the best benefactor to a Judge who is ambitious of a bright career. The Judge is gradually drawn to develop his intellectual poise and acumen, egged on as it were by combating counsel. The Bench and Bar i.e. Judge and counsel are complementary to each other. Both these arms of justice should develop pari passu, respecting each other's independence and enabling each to learn from the other. It was said by Oswald that an advocate should be secure in the enjoyment of considerable independence in performance of his duties. An over-subservient Bar would be one of the great misfortunes that could happen to the administration of justice. A lawyer is as much an officer of Court as the Judge. It is not good for the Judge to feel unduly superior or for the lawyers to exhibit any 'bravado spirit'. The very nature of the calling of lawyer and the Judge, may, sometimes lead to wordy duels, sometimes humorous, sometimes harsh and sometimes heated. The tradition and decorum of their calling should advise the lawyer and the Judge to take it all calmly and look ahead as to their duty in the administration of justice. A lawyer should always endeavour to circumspect in what he does. He should avoid scandalous allegation against Court. But then, there has to be a time of caution and limit.

33. We have no manner of doubt that an advocate deserves wide amplitude, both in speech and in conducting his client's case. Simultaneously he is not supposed to indulge himself in belligerent acts with the Court or the Judges of Court and in this case, particularly, the highest District Judicial Officer in the district, by lowering down his authority. It is true that the Judgeship, in the case in hand, sought to be shifted from old building to new building. Advocates might have felt worried of their chambers in the new building where-from they were to discharge their duties as lawyers and, hence, to find out appropriate place for raising their chambers, they were having concern. The District Judge has not denied, but in absence of any authority having been received from this Court, did not find it proper to immediately allow any space in the premises of Judgeship to the advocates for raising their chambers. The matter could have been resolved by dialogue between Bar Association and District Judge, particularly when Hon'ble Administrative Judge was also coming for inauguration of new Judgeship. In fact, ultimately matter was solved and settled with the order of Hon'ble Administrative Judge. Therefore, there was no occasion of such hurried unauthorized act on the part of advocates and no justification for contemnors to go on for a show to demonstrate that District Judge cannot have any guts of restraining advocates in general, and contemnors in particular, from doing something for which the District Judge has neither allowed nor granted permission.

34. Contemnor-3, in the case in hand, unauthorizedly entered Court premises, broke open locks in the new premises and in that process abused staff etc and therein contemnors-1 and 2 subsequently added fuel by participating in the alleged inaugural function, cutting ribbon, as if everything was free, fair, uncontrollable and unrestricted for them and District Judge's authority is nothing but a miscue. These are serious action amounting to constituting "criminal contempt" on the part of contemnors. It cannot be looked into with leniency, else may give a wrong message to others in all Judgeships. Protecting authority and majesty of Subordinate Judgeship is the constitutional and legal obligation of this Court. Looking to the above conduct of the Contemnors, we are of the view that they deserve appropriate severe punishment.

35. Contemnors-1 and 2 in our view deserve a punishment of simple imprisonment of three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Contenor-3 deserves a punishment of simple imprisonment of four months and a fine of Rs.1,500/-. We order accordingly.

36. We further direct that in case of non-payment of fine, Contemnors-1 and 2 shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, while Contemnor-3 shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks.

37. We also restrain contemnors from entering premises of District Judgeship, J.P. Nagar, for a period of three months, which shall commence with effect from 17th August, 2015.

38. Besides, the conduct of aforesaid contemnors, after expiry of period of punishment as also restrain order of entering Court premises, shall remain under constant watch of District Judge, J.P. Nagar for a period of two years. If any of them shows any otherwise objectionable conduct, causing interference in peaceful and smooth functioning of Court etc, the District Judge shall immediately report matter to this Court suo-motu.

39. The contempt application is allowed and disposed of in the manner as above.

Order Date: 10th August, 2015

MVS Chauhan/

Court No.-34

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 21 of 2010

Applicant :- In-Re

Opposite Party :- Sri Sompal Singh Advocate And Others

Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kr.Singh

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II,J.

1. After delivery of judgment in this case, the contemnors pray that sentence imposed by this Court vide judgment of date be suspended to enable them to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the superior Court.

2. In the circumstances, we suspend the sentence for a period of two months. In case, the appeal is not filed or if filed but no otherwise order is passed in the appeal, the contemnors shall surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, J. P. Nagar, after two months i.e. 11.10.2015, who shall take steps to get the sentence served out by contemnors.

Order Date: 10th August, 2015

MVS Chauhan/