In Re : vs Ajai Kumar Bhardwaj (Advocate)
2015 Latest Caselaw 2620 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

(AFR)					RESERVED ON  20.07.2015
 
						DELIVERED ON  24.09.2015
 

 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 12 of 2015
 

 
Applicant :- In Re :
 
Opposite Party :- Ajai Kumar Bhardwaj (Advocate)
 
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.B.L. Gaur,Hari Om Khare,P.K. Singh,Vishal Agarwal
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.

(Delivered by Hon. Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This criminal contempt application has been registered pursuant to a reference dated 26.09.2014 made by Shri Manraj Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras (hereinafterto referred as CJM) which has been forwarded by District Judge, Hathras vide endorsement dated 29.09.2014.

2. The CJM, in reference dt.26.09.2014 has given background facts, that a Criminal Case No. 414 of 2002 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Hathras was pending in the Court of CJM, Hathras. Another Criminal Case No. 160 of 2005 under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, PS Kotwali, District Hathras was also pending in his Court against Ajai Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate (hereinafterto referred as the 'Contemner') and his brother. The contemner and other advocates were pressurizing the CJM to dispose of both the matters. Besides, on 27th of August, 2014 an application No. 503/12/14 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, Hathras was filed on behalf of one Saba Anees D/o Anees Ahmad against five persons through Shri Ajai Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, the contemner. The Magistrate when commenced hearing, the contemner shouted in open Court that either application should be disposed of directing registration of First Information Report or rejected. The Court should not register it as a complaint. On the order sheet dt. 27.08.2014, the Magistrate reported the aforesaid incident as under:-

^^i=koyh is'k gqbZA iqdkj ij izkFkhZ e; fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh vt; dqekj Hkkj}kt mifLFkr vk;sA nkSjku lquokbZ fo}ku vf/koDrk us [kqys U;k;ky; esa dgk fd mldk ;g izk0 i= 156 ¼3½ Cr.P.C. ;k rks ntZ fd;k tk;s eqdnek fy[kk tkos ;k fQj [kkfjt dj fn;k tkos ifjokn ds :i esa ntZ u fd;k tkosA izk0 i= ij iwoZ lquokbZ u djrs gq, vkSj u U;k;ky; dk lEeku djrs gq, mijksDr dFku fd;k tks U;k;laxr ugha izrhr gksrkA i=koyh lquokbZ fnukad 13&9&14 dks is'k gksA**

"The file was put up. On being called the applicant alongwith learned counsel Sri Ajay Kumar Bharadwaj appeared. In course of hearing, the learned counsel submitted that his application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. may either be allowed with a direction to register a case or be rejected not entertaining it as a complaint. Prior to hearing over the application, the aforesaid statement was made without paying respect to the court which appears not to be justifiable. File be put up on 13.09.2014 for hearing." (English translation by Court)

3. Several other instances have been given by CJM showing that contemner was in the habit of making false complaints against the conduct and character of Judicial Officers as also Court Staff, in one or the other way. He (the contemner) submitted a letter dated 18th of September, 2014 on the letterhead of District Bar Association, Civil Court, Hathras stating;

^^1- mDr lh0ts0,e0 }kjk vk;s fnu izkFkhZ dks FkzsfVax o rjg rjg ls Mjk;k /kedk;k tk jgk gS vkSj dgk tk jgk gS fd rwus viuh f'kdk;rsa okfil ugha yh rks fdlh u fdlh Fkkus ls rq>s >wBk QWlok nwWaxk ;k vius ckWMhxkMksZ ls ;k vius Fkkus ds ljfQjs iqfyl okyksa ls ,udkmUVj djok nwWaxkA

2- mijksDr lh0ts0,e0 ls izkFkhZ dks tku eky dk iwjk [krjk cuk gqvk gS vkSj mDr lh0ts0,e0 Jh eujkt flag vius v/khuLFk Jh vkseohj flag ,0lh0ts0,e0 o flfoy tt o0iz0 Jherh fp=k 'kekZ ds ek/;e ls vekuoh; d`R; djkrs gq;s izkFkhZ dh gR;k Hkh djk ldrs gS ;fn izkFkhZ dh gR;k gks tkrh gS rks bu rhuksa dks gh ftEesnkj le>k tkosA

3- vr% Jheku~ th ls izkFkZuk gS fd esjs }kjk dh x;h f'kdk;rksa ij ;fn 'kh?kz vfr'kh?kz dk;Zokgh vey esa ugha yk;h x;h rks izkFkhZ etcwju dzfed vu'ku] vu'ku o vkej.k vu'ku djus dks etcwj gksxkA**

" 1. The applicant is being threatened and intimidated every now and then in several ways by the aforesaid C.J.M. by way of holding out a warning that if he did not withdraw his complaints, he would be falsely implicated by any police station or be killed by orchestrating an encounter through his bodyguards or demented policemen.

2. The applicant is under persistent life threats and the said learned C.J.M. Sri Manraj Singh may orchestrate even his murder by occasioning the commission of inhuman activities through his subordinates Sri Omvir Singh, ACJM and Smt Chitra Sharma, Civil Judge ( Senior Division). If he is murdered, the threesome of them may be held responsible.

3. Sir, it is, therefore, requested that if earliest action is not taken over the complaints, the applicant will be forced to undertake successive fasts and fast unto death." (English translation by Court)

4. It is said that the aforesaid scurrilous statements and allegations made against Judicial Officers of the Court amount to criminal contempt.

5. The matter was examined by a Committee consisting of two Hon'ble Judges and taking the view that the contents of Reference and other documents annexed therewith contain allegations which prima facie constitute 'criminal contempt', made recommendation for placing the matter before the Court having determination of Criminal Contempt. The aforesaid recommendation dated 23rd February, 2015 made by Committee was approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 17th of March, 2015. The matter came up before Division Bench and on 8th of April, 2015, after being satisfied that there is a prima facie case of 'Criminal Contempt' on the part of contemner, the Court issued notice to show cause, why the contemner be not tried for committing criminal contempt for framing charge.

6. The contemner appeared and filed affidavit sworn on 11th May, 2015 stating that the letters etc. which he has sent, were in his capacity as 'Secretary of Bar Association' and he was simply conveying the resolution passed by Association, therefore, is not himself guilty of committing any contempt. In brief, the contents of his affidavit are that he is a practising Advocate, elected Secretary of Bar Association and held the said office up to 6th of April, 2015. There were general complainants by the members of Bar Association that CJM, Hathras was favouring certain lawyers of a particular community and passing different orders in similar cases. In the meeting dated 20th June, 2014, Bar Association passed a resolution making serious aspersions against CJM and other Judicial Officers. A copy of the said resolution is Annexure - 1 to the affidavit and three proposals which are said to have been passed in the said resolution read as under:-

^^izLrko%&

1- fMlfVd ckj ,'kksf'k,'ku gkFkjl dh ,d ehfVax fnukad 20-06-2014 vke lHkk dh tujy ehfVax ckj gky esa lh0ts0,e0 Jh eujkt flag o ,0lh0ts0,e0 Jh vkseohj flag o flfoy tt ¼o0iz0½ Jherh fp=k 'kekZ }kjk fd, tk jgs euekus ,oa xSj dkuwuh dk;Z rFkk fcjknjh okn rFkk xyr igukos ij fopkj gsrq gqbZ ftlesa lh0ts0,e0 Jh eujkt flag }kjk fcjknjh okn QSykus rFkk viuh tkfr ds 70 odhyksa dk ?ke.M fn[kkus rFkk mUgha ds T;knkrj dke djus o vU; odhyksa ds lkFk HksnHkko djus ds lEcU/k esa fopkj&foe'kZ fd;k x;kA

2- ,0lh0ts0,e0 Jh vkseohj flag }kjk eqdneksa dk dksVk QthZ :i ls izkIr djus rFkk vfHk;qDrksa ds U;k;ky; esa vk;s fcuk eqdnesa 1050 tqekZuk vius ikl ls tek djds rFkk voS/k d`R; dj lHkh fu;eksa o dkuwu dks ckyk,rkd ij j[kus ds lEcU/k esa fopkj gqvkA

3- flfoy tt ¼o0iz0½ Jherh fp=k 'kekZ }kjk cn fetkth o ?ke.Mh rFkk cky fo[ksj dj HkM+dkÅ Msªl igudj Mk;l ij cSB tkus rFkk vk/kqfud QS'kusfcy efgyk gksus dk :rck xkfyc djus rFkk ftlesa fgr gks mlesa LVs okyk gh ckyk ikfjr djus vkSj ftlesa LVs gksuk pkfg, mlesa Qkby yVdk, j[kus rFkk vf/koDrkvksa dh cgqr lh Qkbyksa esa cgl u lqudj rkjh[k yxk nsus rFkk ,d i{kh; i=kofy;ksa esa Hkh vkns'k ikfjr u djs rFkk vf/koDrkvksa ls lEokn u djus o ijgst djus ij fopkj gqvk (Emphasis Added)

1. "A general body meeting of the District Bar Association, Hathras was held at the Bar Hall on 20.06.2014 to discuss on the arbitrary and unlawful activities, casteist approach and inappropriate clothing of CJM Shri Manraj Singh, ACJM Shri Omvir Singh and Civil Judge Smt. Chitra Sharma. In the said meeting, deliberations were also held about the promotion of casteism by CJM Shri Manraj Singh, his boating of there being 70 advocates of his community, his over indulgence in activities favouring them and extending discriminatory treatment to other counsels.

2. Discussion was also held about the attempts of ACJM Shri Omvir Singh to achieve the quota of case disposal in a bogus manner, about his hearing the cases without the appearance of the accused persons in the court and about depositing Rs. 1050 as fine from his pocket, thus indulging in illegal activities by grossly violating all rules and regulations.

3. Discussions were also held about the arrogance and bad temper of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Smt. Chitra Sharma, about her sitting at the dais with untied hair and gaudy clothing, about her flaunting to be a modern fashionable lady, about her passing stay orders in the matters she is interested in, about keeping the files pending where there should be stay orders, about her posting several cases without hearing the counsels, about her not passing orders in ex-parte cases and about her not having or refraining from having any communication with advocates."

(English translation by Court)

7. The aforesaid resolution further says that Shri Ajai Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, Secretary is authorized to get the aforesaid resolution typed out and send to higher authorities and in case, the said resolution is not conveyed to higher authorities, the Secretary Ajai Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, shall be debarred from Association. As Secretary of the Association, contemner sent a letter dated 21st of August, 2014 addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court making complaint against the conduct of Shri Manraj Singh, CJM, Hathras which in substance reads as under:-

^^lh0ts0,e0 gkFkjl Jh eujkt flag }kjk tuin U;k;ky; gkFkjl esa fcjknjh okn QSykus rFkk oseuLerk iSnkdj mEikr epokus rFkk Li"V viuh fcjknjh ds vf/koDrkvksa dh la[;k cy 70 crkdj ckj inkf/kdkfj;ksa ij jkSc xkfyc fd;s tkus rFkk vius fcjknjh ds tkVo leqnk; ds vf/koDrkvksa esa pkgs 156 ¼3½ izkFkZuk i= gks ;k dEiySUVdsl gks ;k okjUV vkfn leL;kvksa ls lEcfU/kr i=kofy;kWa gks muesa mudk rqjUr dke djrk gSA rFkk mudh gj lEHko Fkkus ;k lik[kkusa ds tfj;s Qksu o O;fDrxr pijklh Hkstdj vf/kdkfj;ksa dks cqykdj enn djrk gS eqdnnek ntZ djus esa vkns'k 156 ¼3½ esa ogha vkns'k lSfVYM Niokdj vkns'k dj nsrk gS rFkk vU; fcjknjh ds vf/koDrkvksa ds dEiySUMdsl esa 200 o 202 ds C;ku vkfn izfdz;k iwjh gks tkus ij 202 ¼1½ lh-vkj-ih-lh- ds rgr iqfyl tkap dks Hkstdj eqdnnek yVdk nsrk gS pkgsa ekeyk fdruk Hkh xEHkhj izd`fr dk gksA mDr lh0ts0,e0 gkFkjl dks eSa Lo;a tc mDr d`R;ksa dk fojks/k djus pSECj esa fnukad 20-08-14 dks nksigj 3 cts x;k rks mDr lh0ts0,e0 viuh pSEcj dh dqlhZ ij cSBk jgk rFkk vius pSEcj dh lHkh dqflZ;ka rqjUr mBok nh vkSj cksyk feLVj eSa clik ikVhZ dk vkneh gwWa vkSj I;ksj tkVo gwWaA tSls ek;korh viuh ,d dqlhZ j[krh gS ckdh lHkh tehu ij cSBrs gSa oSls gh eSa pSEcj esa ,d dqlhZ j[krk gwWa ckdh ds yksxksa dks [kMk j[krk gwWa vkSj vkt ds ckn dksbZ f'kdk;r ysdj er vkuk vU;Fkk eSa rqEgsa ;g vkjksi yxkdj fd eq>ls Hkwjk pekj rqeus dgk gfjtu ,DV esa rFkk laxhu eqdnneksa esa rFkk Mk;r ij cnerhth djus rFkk vnkyr dh rkSghu djus ds vkjksi esa cUn djk nwWaxkA ;k viuh lh0ts0,e0 dh ikoj bLrseky dj rqEgs fdlh Fkkus ds bUlisDVj ls dgdj >wBs dslksa esa Qlok nwWaxk dksbZ Hkh ;gka ls ysdj gkbZdksVZ o lqizhe dksVZ enn ugha djsxk vkSj rqEgkjh odkyr tCr djk nwWaxk eSaus dgk vki ;g dSls dj nsaxsa rks cksyk fd esjs ifjokj esa lHkh U;kf;d vf/kdkjh gSa esjs HkkbZ vkfn lHkh U;kf;d vf/kdkjh gS rw esjh rkdr ugha tkurk vkSj lqu ftyk tt vkfn dh bruh lsok djrk gWw fd og eSa tks dgwWaxk ogha djsaxs rqEgkjh dksbZ lquus okyk ugha gksxk vkSj viuh fcjknjh ds vf/koDrkvksa dks bruk HkM+dk nwWaxk fd og ckj esa gh cxkor dj nsaxsA rw esjh rkdr dks ugha tkurk gS vkSj rw>s ckj ds lSdsVjh in ls fMckj djk nwWaxk vkSj lHkh v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa ls dgdj rsjk dke [kjkc djkrk jgwWaxkA

bl izdkj ikLdksa vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd fjekUM vfHk;qDrksa dk Mk;jsDV ,-Mh-ts- 1 ds ;gka gksuk pkfg;s vkSj pktZ'khV Hkh ,-Mh-ts- 1 ds ;gka nkf[ky gksuh pkfg, Fkh ysfdu ikLdks vf/kfu;e ftl fnu ls ykxw gqvk gS mlh fnu ls mijksDr lh0ts0,e0 gkFkjl }kjk vius vf/kdkjh in dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq;s mijksDr ikLdks vf/kfu;e ds fxjQ~rkj vfHk;qDrksa dks iqfyl v/kh{kd ls dgdj Fkkus okbt dusDV eftLVªsVksa o vius ;gkWa fjekUM tcju djok;k rFkk pktZ'khV Hkh lh/ks vius ;gkWa ntZ dj ls'ku dfeV djkbZ xbZ rks ikLdks vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk iw.kZr;k% ?kksj mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS mDr ikLdks vf/kfu;e dfeV pktZ'khV gksus dk dksbZ izkfotu ugha gS bl izdkj mijksDr lHkh i=koyh tks dfeV gqbZ gS og vius vki esa iw.kZr;% fof/k fo:) nks"kiw.kZ gS vkSj vfHk;qDrksa dks blesa lEiw.kZ ykHk feyus dk rFkk mUgsa iw.kZr;% nks"k eqDr gksus dk ekSdk mDr lh0ts0,e0 gkFkjl Jh eujkt flag dh gB/kfeZrk o rkuk'kkgh rFkk fcjknjh okn fo}s"k iw.kZrk% dk ?kkrd gSA ,sls vf/kdkjh dks dkuwu dk nq:i;ksx djus rFkk mldk bEiyhVs'ku xyr djus dh ltk o nf.Mr fd;k tkuk vR;Ur t:jh gSA

vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd mDr izdj.k esa O;fDrxr :fp ysdj ,sls fcjknjh okn QSykdj tuin U;k;ky; esa mUekn QSykus okys lh0ts0,e0 gkFkjl eujkt flag dk 'kh?kz vfr'kh?kz gkFkjl ls LFkkukUrj.k djk;s tkus rFkk blds }kjk fd;s x;s xyr d`R;ksa dk fdlh mPp Lrjh; ,tsalh ls tkWap djkdj buds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vey esa yk;s tkus rFkk izkFkhZ dh tku eky dh j{kk o Hkfo"; ds "kM;U=ksa ls lqj{kk dj >wBs o laxhu dslksa esa Qlkus rFkk odkyr tCr djkus dh /kedh nsus okys mijksDr dFkkdfFkr Hkz"Vkpkjh ls esjh j{kk fd;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA**

"Shri Manraj Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, by resorting to casteism and showing seeds of hostility in the premises of the District Court, Hathras, causes strife; and by overtly claiming 70 advocates to be of his community, seeks to unduly influence the office-bearers of the Bar; and by favouring the advocates belonging to his community, takes immediate action on their grievances relating to applications under 156(3) or complaints or warrant cases. By making a phone call to police station or by calling the officers concerned to his chamber through peon, he provides all kinds of assistance to them. For registering the cases u/s 156(3), he issues printed orders; and in the complaint-cases of advocates belonging to other communities, he, first seeks the process u/s 200 and 202 CrPC to be over and then sends the matter for investigation to police u/s 202 (1) CrPC, thereby causes more delay being regardless of the seriousness of the cases. With a view to register protest against the acts of the aforesaid CJM Hathras, I personally went into his chamber at 3:00 PM on 20.08.2014, then the CJM remained seated in his chair and kept me standing by removing all chairs from there and said, 'Mister, I am connected with BSP and I am Jatav by caste. As Mayawati keeps the only seat for herself and others have to sit on the ground, I keep only one chair in the chamber and let others be standing. Never come here again with a complaint. Otherwise I will implicate you falsely under the Harijan Act alleging that you have used foul words such as 'Bhoora Chamar' against me and also under other cases of serious nature for misconduct towards the dais and for showing contempt towards the court, or by using my power as CJM I will force the police into implicating you in false cases. None right from here up to the High Court or the Supreme Court will help you and I shall ensure your license for advocacy to be cancelled'. I said, 'How will you cause all these things to happen?'. He said, 'Everyone in my family is judicial officer. My brother is also a judicial officer. You are not aware of my clout. Listen, I render so much service to District Judge that he will do what I will say to him. There will be none to hear you. I will provoke the advocates of my community so much that they shall stage revolt at the Bar itself. You don't know my clout. I shall get you removed from the post of the secretary of the bar and by asking all the subordinate officers I will continue to get your work obstructed.'

In the same way, as per the POSCO Act, the remand of accused person shall be granted directly by ADJ and charge-sheet shall also be submitted before the ADJ, but from the day the POSCO Act came into effect, the afore-said CJM by misusing his office, influenced the Superintendent of Police to bring the remand matters of arrested accused persons under POSCO Act before the magistrates connected with police stations or in his court and caused the charge-sheets to be submitted directly to his court and committed such cases for Sessions trial. In this way, he has grossly violated the provisions of the POSCO Act. In the POSCO Act, there is no provision to commit charge-sheets. In this way, committal of all such records is utterly illegal and flawed and by so doing Shri Manraj Singh, CJM, Hathras, sought to give all benefits to the accused persons as also an opportunity for them to be discharged from all charges. All this is reflective of his obstinacy, dictatorial attitude and casteism; which is utterly harmful. It is essentially required that such an officer is punished for misusing law and implementing it in a wrong way.

Hence, you sir, are requested to take personal interest in the matter to ensure the earliest transfer of Shri Manraj Singh, CJM, Hathras, who is spreading discord in the premises of the district court by promoting such casteism; and to initiate departmental inquiry preceded by investigation of all his misdeeds by any high level investigative agency; and to safeguard my life and property and to provide insulation against future conspiracies; and to provide protection to me from the aforesaid corrupt person, who is seeking to implicate me in fake and serious cases and threatening to ensure cancellation of my license of advocacy."

(English translation by Court)

8. Another letter dated 18th of September, 2014 was addressed to the Chief Justice of India, in which reference was made to the complaint letters dated 21.08.2014 made against Shri Manraj Singh, CJM, Hathras, 06.09.2014 made against Shri Om Veer Singh, Additional CJM and 11.09.2014 made against Smt. Chitra Sharma, Civil Judge (Senior Division) stating that no action has been taken on the said complaints and on the contrary, CJM, Hathras has got three Security Guards misusing his powers. It further says that CJM was so much annoyed that he has managed, through his subordinate judges, harassment to the contemner and has allotted resourceful police stations to his favourite Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Om Veer Singh who enjoyed police station Hathras Gate. CJM is continuously threatening the contemner asking to withdraw complaints else he would be implicated in a false case or would be encountered through his body-guards or police personnels. The contemner expressed his apprehension of murder by the CJM, ACJM and Civil Judge (Senior Division) namely Shri Manraj Singh, Om Veer Singh and Smt. Chitra Sharma and said that in case, he is murdered, the three officers should be held responsible. He lastly said that, in case, no further action is taken contemner would be compelled to proceed on hunger strike.

9. One more similar complaint letter dated 22.10.2014 addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court is also placed on record as Annexure - 4 to the affidavit dt. 11.05.2015. It is said that these complaints were made by contemner on being asked by the members of Bar Association.

10. When these facts came to the notice of CJM, he has referred it making a case 'criminal contempt' against contemner.

11. Relying on Section 6 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafterto referred as "Act, 1971"), it was pleaded that complaint made against the officers of Subordinate Court would not amount to 'criminal contempt'. Taking notice of complaints made by contemner, this Court through Registrar (Confidential) sent a letter dated 19th of December, 2014 to contemner asking him to submit a duly sworn affidavit along his photograph and material in support of allegations made in the complaints. Pursuant thereto the contemner sent an affidavit dated 16.01.2015 to this Court. Since complaints have been made by contemner before the notice was issued completing all the formalities, it is urged, that, law is that contempt proceedings should not be continued against him and in this regard he also relied on Section 13 of Act, 1971. It is also contended that the contemner was pressurized not to file or lodge any complaint against CJM but he did not yield to pressure as he felt duty bound being Secretary of District Bar Association. Allegation that on account of pending cases contemner was pressurizing CJM is denied. It is also said that on 27th of August, 2014 he did not act in the manner as is complained of by CJM. The reference made by CJM is malafide and instituted with ulterior motive. In the past also, the contemner made a complaint against Sri Mridanshu Kumar, Additional Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Hathras but when complaint was pending the said officer was transferred from Hathras, hence contemner did not pursue the matter further. Lastly, it is said that the contemner has highest regard and respect to the authority of Court and tenders unconditional apology.

12. This Court did not find itself satisfied with the explanation and finding a prima facie case of 'criminal contempt' on the part of contemner, proceeded further, and charged the contemner as under, vide order dated 18.05.2015:-

"That you Ajay Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, in our complaint dated 18.09.2014 leveled false allegations against Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. The words used in letter dated 18.09.2014 are quoted herein below:

^^1- mDr lh0ts0,e0 }kjk vk;s fnu izkFkhZ dks FkzsfVax o rjg rjg ls Mjk;k /kedk;k tk jgk gS vkSj dgk tk jgk gS fd rwus viuh f'kdk;rs okfil ugha yh rks fdlh u fdlh Fkkus ls rw>s >wBk Qlok nwaxk ;k vius ckMhxkMksZa ls ;k vius Fkkus ls ljfQjs iqfyl okyksa ls ,udkmUVj djok nwxkA

2- mijksDr lh0ts0,e0 ls izkFkhZ dks tku eky dk iwjk [krjk cuk gqvk gS vkSj mDr lh0ts0,e0 Jh eujkt flag vius v/khuLFk Jh vkseohj flag ,0lh0ts0,e0 o flfoy tt o0iz0 Jherh fp=k 'kekZ ds ek/;e ls vekuoh; d`R; djkrs gq, izkFkhZ dh gR;k Hkh djk ldrs gSaA ;fn izkFkhZ dh gR;k gks tkrh gS rks bu rhuksa dks gh ftEesnkj le>k tkosA**

In doing so you have utilized letter head of District Bar Association, Hathras without there being any authorization of the Bar. Thus by words written you have threatened the Court as also scandalized the Court. Thus you have committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the Act."

13. The contemner was given opportunity to submit reply to the aforesaid charge. Reply has been submitted vide counter affidavit sworn on 19.06.2015 and the basic contents in reply are the same as the contemner has stated in his earlier affidavit. We find it appropriate to reproduce the defence taken by contemner in his own words as contained in paragraphs - 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9-A to 9-P of counter affidavit:-

"5. That the deponent/opp.party is practising advocate of District Court, Hathras and he is selected Secretary of District Bar Association and held that said office up to the 6th April, 2015 and thereafter a fresh election of Bar Association of District Hathras has been taken place.

6. That being the Secretary of District Bar Association, Hathras, it is the duty of the deponent to do his best efforts to protect the dignity of Bar and Bench as well as it is the pious duty to do the best efforts to protect the dignity and reputation of judiciary in the area as well as it is the pious duty of the deponent being secretary of the Bar Association to protect the constitutional right regarding the judicial system in India so that Hon'our of Judicial authorities as well as the courts be protected and the deponent has always tried to his best efforts.

7. That Sri Manraj Singh C.J.M. Hathras, Sri Om Veer Singh A.C.J.M. Hathras as well as Chitra Sharma Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hathras were doing irregular conduct as they are doing such activities as they are not sitting in proper dress which are required and mandatory for performing the duties of Presiding Officer regarding which there was complaint by the litigant as well as by the counsels of the District Court and on account of such activities of aforesaid Judicial Officers are degrading the dignity of judiciary; subsequently a Meeting of Common House of District Bar Association was held on 20.6.2014 in which a resolution was passed by the Bar Association and the same was sent to the higher authorities of Central as well as State Govt with regard to giving information in respect of the conduct of the aforesaid Judicial Officers by the deponent being the Secretary and from bare perusal of the aforesaid resolution no criminal contempt is made out against the deponent and it is also submitted that the deponent has not done any act in the Court or before the Judicial Authorities and the deponent has only sent the copy of the said resolution to the concerned judicial authorities as pious duty so that the dignity of judiciary should be maintained.

8. That after passing the resolution and after waiting for response, to change their activities, but they have not paid any heed; subsequently being pious duty, the deponent thereafter has sent an application by redressing his grievance as well as the redressal of advocates/members of the Bar Association of District Bar Association Hathras to the concerned higher judicial authorities on 21.08.2014. On account of dispatching the application dated 21.8.2014, the aforesaid Judicial Officer i.e. C.J.M., A.C.J.M and Civil Judge (SD.) respectively, became annoyed to the deponent; subsequently they after thought malafidely by making false and bogus allegation against the deponent, started threatening and harassing the deponent by several means; subsequently the deponent has called the general meeting of District Bar Association on 15.9.2014 and stated his grievance before the General House of Bar Association subsequently unanimously by the Member of Bar Association Hathras passed another resolution dated 15.9.2014 and sent the information regarding the grievance to the concerned higher authorities for which the deponent was authorized by the member of the Bar to refer the same; subsequently being Secretary of Bar Association the deponent has sent the copy of the aforesaid resolution dated 18.9.2014 along with other relevant paper to the concerned higher authorities as such no case for any criminal contempt is made out against the applicant/deponent which also clear from perusal of section 2C, 6 and 13 of Contempt of Court Act 1971 and as such the aforesaid criminal contempt application being beyond the scope and ambit of said section, legally liable to be dismissed being not maintainable and is liable to be treated infructuous. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, the copy of resolution dated 15.9.2014 is attached to the reply as ANNEXURE NO - 1.

9B. That the application in question the deponent has stated his grievance as well as grievance of member of Bar with purpose to protect the right and dignity of the members of Bar Association.

9C. That the deponent has been falsely involved in the aforesaid Criminal Contempt proceedings while no criminal contempt is made out against the deponent/applicant which is clear from section 2C, 6 and 13 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971.

9D. That the deponent has not stated any averments before the court or any judicial authorities while they are performing their duties as such no case of any criminal contempt is made out against the applicant/deponent.

9E. That the action of C.J.M., A.C.J.M and Civil Judge (S.D.) are against their pious duties as no law protect to them to threat the Advocate or the deponent or any other Advocates under this unauthorized power exceeding jurisdiction and the concerned judicial authorities has acted beyond and scope of judicial system against the provision of law and as such no case is made out against the deponent under the Criminal Contempt Court Act.

9F. That the concerned judicial authorities are performing irregular conduct as they are not presenting in proper dress in the court which is mandatory for performing the duties as Presiding Officer; subsequently the dignity of Judicial system has been disturbed by the aforesaid judicial officer and as such the action of Judicial Officer are highly illegal, arbitrary and violative to their pious duty and same is against the dignity of judicial system and as such regarding the aforesaid conduct it is pious duty of the deponent to informed the higher authorities to sent the information regarding the aforesaid activities of the aforesaid judicial authorities so that dignity of judicial system be protected.

9G. That it is also pertinent to mention here that if the aforesaid contempt application will not be dismissed by considering the facts and circumstances of the case then there will be adverse effect on the judicial system in future, as in future most of the Judicial Officer will not be seated in proper dress in the court, no one will be there to made objection regarding the same; Subsequently a great problem will created to protect the dignity of judicial system and as such the aforesaid contempt application is legally liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.

9H. That by perusing the contents of the resolution and the application referred to the concerned authorities no criminal contempt is made out against the deponent as the deponent has only sent their grievance to the higher authorities of judicial system as the said application and resolution does not come with in the purview of criminal contempt at all.

9I. That the deponent has not scandalized the court and the deponent has not done any act which lower down its authorities and the deponent has not done any scurrilous or serious activities and the deponent/applicant has only sent the information regarding their grievance to the concerned higher authorities and copies thereof has already been filed by way of counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit and by perusing the same no criminal contempt is made out against the deponent.

9J. That the deponent has not obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language against the aforesaid judicial authorities and as such no criminal complaint is made out against the deponent.

9K. That the deponent has not done any offence as the charge levelled against the deponent and subsequently on the basis of alleged charges the deponent has been debarred as per charge no. 7, 8 and 9 while no case is made out against the deponent as such by perusing the contents of preceding para of the instant reply the deponent may kindly be discharge from the charges made against him by this Hon'ble Court.

9L. That the deponent has never stated any ill averments against the aforesaid judicial authorities nor he has given any sort of threat to any judicial authorities nor the deponent has distributed any pump late regarding such complaint in court premises or any Advocate or any clients and there is no material evidence is against the deponent, thus no criminal contempt is made out against the applicant/deponent.

9M. That by perusing the contents of instant reply it is necessary in the interest of justice that the deponent may kindly be discharge from the charges levelled against him and dismissed the impugned proceedings of criminal contempt to protect the right of the deponent with intention to maintain the dignity of judicial system.

9N. That despite all above facts at any stage if this Hon'ble Court feels that if the deponent made any disobedience, or disregard of this Hon'ble Court, intentionally or deliberately the deponent begs unconditional apology for the same.

9(O). That it is relevant to mention here that against the said charges, the S.L.P. is filed and pending for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court.

9P. That from bare perusal of the instant reply it is crystal clear that neither the deponent made any taunting to the court nor used any unconstitutional word to the judicial authorities nor insulted the court in any manner nor reumerised or scandalized any thing in court premises but it is judicial authorities who proceeded in the matter to demoralized the BAR by hook and crook with out any material present on record while in all episode the deponent has done any such activities as alleged against him but being representative of BAR he represented his grievance being authorized representative of bar to put the matter regarding the conduct of aforesaid judicial authorities before the Higher Judicial authorities of the State as well as Centre, thus from any corner no case of any criminal proceedings is made out against the applicant/deponent."

14. We have heard Shri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel nominated by this Court to assist in this matter and Shri Hari Om Khare, Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the contemner.

15. Shri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel nominated by the Court for assistance stated that contemner wrote various letters though using letterhead of Bar Association but the contents thereof were not to communicate any decision of Bar Association but those were the statements/allegations made by contemner in his individual capacity as an Advocate and it is altogether different that he was simultaneously an office-bearer of Advocates Association. The fact remains that an Advocate has a prime responsibility, being an officer of the Court, to maintain authority, dignity and esteem of the Court and even if he is holding an office in Bar Association, such individual responsibility of Advocate is not diluted. An Advocate cannot make scurrilous allegation, contemptuous and maligning statement casting aspersion on the integrity, honesty and conduct of Presiding Officer of a Court of law as that would not only bring down the authority of Court but would cause serious detriment to the institution since it is bound to influence the public at large in their confidence with system of justice. It is said that the conduct of contemner is very serious, highly derogatory to the institution and he deserves severe punishment.

16. Per contra, Shri Hariom Khare, learned counsel appearing for contemner submitted that the contemner has made a statement of fact and communicated only the decision taken collectively by Advocates Body i.e. Bar Association, therefore, is not guilty, individually, of committing contempt of Court. He cannot be individually penalized for discharging his duty as an office-bearer of Advocates Association by communicating the collective body decision to higher Judicial Authorities. He further submitted that on the complaint made by contemner, a vigilance inquiry has been initiated against the CJM, which is pending. No criminal contempt is made out and the ingredients of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) are not satisfied. He also placed reliance on Sections 4, 5, 6 and 13 of the Act, 1971. He reiterated that contemner only discharged his duties as an office-bearer of Bar Association and conveyed decision of members of Association, hence he alone cannot be held responsible and he was only a medium to communicate sentiments, decisions and resolutions taken in the collective meeting of Bare Association.

17. Sri Khare further submitted that contemner Ajai Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, cannot be punished for committing contempt of Court as he has not committed any contempt of Court concerned and also in view of the fact that he is tendering unconditional/unqualified apology before this Court, if Court finds that he has committed any contempt. In support of his contention Sri Khare, learned counsel for contemner has placed reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Afzal v. State of Haryana: AIR 1996 SC 2326 and a Constitution Bench judgment in Bharad Kant Mishra  Vs.  Registrar of Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 710.

18. We have considered the entire arguments and also perused the record.

19. The contemner has admitted that he sent letter dated 21st of August, 2014 as is evident from para - 8 of the counter affidavit.  Now, his explanation is that the said letter sent by him was in the capacity of Secretary of Association, for redressal of his grievance as well as the grievance of advocates/members of the Bar Association.  We have already quoted the extract of letter dated 21st of August, 1984 and we do not find that it can be said to have been sent by contemner in his capacity as Secretary of the Association except that the letter was written on the letterhead of Association. The contemner, on one hand, has placed reliance on the Association's resolution dated 20th June, 2014 wherein some matter relating to Sri Manraj Singh CJM was considered but the resolution passed by House only says that complaint should be made to higher Authorities and the contemner was directed to get the complaint prepared on letterhead of Bar Association and send to higher Authorities under his own signatures. However, the letter dated 21st of August, 2014 is totally differently worded and shows that contemner made his own individual complaint. There was no reference whatsoever to the alleged resolution of Bar. We have no manner of doubt that the letter dated 21st of August, 2014 is an individual letter, sent by contemner, though disclosing his position as Secretary of Bar Association but the entire contents of letter constitute individual allegations and complaint made by contemner.

20. Then, we come to the letter dated 18th September, 2014 which is foundation of this contempt proceeding. Along with reference letter, the Presiding Officer, while making reference, has appended a copy of the said letter, which reads as under:-

^^izkFkhZ ds }kjk tuin U;k;ky; gkFkjl ds lh0ts0,e0 Jh eujkt flag dh f'kdk;r 21-08-14 dks rFkk ,0lh0ts0,e0 Jh vkseohj falg dh f'kdk;r 06-09-14 esa rFkk flfoy tt ofj"B izHkkx Jherh fp=k 'kekZ dh f'kdk;r 11-09-14 esa dh x;h mDr f'kdk;rksa dh Nk;kizfr;kW Hkh mDr i= ds lkFk layXu gSA ysfdu vkt rd mDr f'kdk;rksa ij dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh mDr vf/kdkfj;ksa ds f[kykQ ugha dh x;h vkSj mlh otg ls lh0ts0,e0 gkFkjl Jh eujkt flag }kjk viuh igqWp ds cy rhu lqj{kk xkMZ vius fy, ys j[ks gSaA

mDr f'kdk;rksa ls lh0ts0,e0 Jh eujkt flag bruk fpM+ x;k gS fd mlus vius v/khuLFk ttksa dks Hkh cjxyk dj ;su dsu izdjs.k rax djuk ijs'kku djuk fgjsleSUV djuk 'kq: dj fn;k gS vkSj eykbZnkj Fkkus Hkh vius pgsrs Jh vkseohj falg ,0lh0ts0,e0 dks ns j[ks gSA ftlesa Fkkuk gkFkjl xsV lcls fo'ks"k Fkkuk gSA

mDr lh0ts0,e0 }kjk vk;s fnu izkFkhZ dks FzksfVax o rjg rjg ls Mjk;k /kedk;k tk jgk gS vkSj dgk tk jgk gS fd rwus viuh f'kdk;r okfil ugh yh rks fdlh u fdlh Fkkus ls rq>s >wBk QWlok nwWxk ;k vius ckWMhxkMksZa ls ;k vius Fkkus ds ljfQjs iqfyl okyksa ls ,udkmUVj djok nwWxkA

mijksDr lh0ts0,e0 ls izkFkhZ dks tku eky dk iwjk [krjk cuk gqvk gS vkSj mDr lh0ts0,e0 Jh eujkt flag vius v/khuLFk Jh vkseohj flag ,0lh0ts0,e0 o flfoy tt o0iz0 Jherh fp=k 'kekZ ds ek/;e ls vekuoh; d`R; djkrs gq, izkFkhZ dh gR;k Hkh djk ldrs gSa ;fn izkFkhZ dh gR;k gks tkrh gS rks bu rhuksa dks gh ftEesnkj le>k tkosA

vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd esjs }kjk dh x;h f'kdk;rksa ij ;fn 'kh?kz vfr'kh?kz dk;Zokgh vey esa ugh yk;h x;h rks izkFkhZ etcwju dzfed vu'ku] vu'ku o vkej.k vu'ku djus dks etcwj gksxkA**

"Complaint has been made by the applicant against Shri Manraj Singh, CJM, Hathras, on 21.08.2014; against Shri Omvir Singh, ACJM, on 06.09.2014; and against Smt. Chitra Sharma, Civil Judge (Senior Division), on 11.09.2014. Photocopies of the said complaints are also attached with the said letter. However, despite the said complaints, no action till date has been taken against the aforesaid officers. For that very reason, Shri Manraj Singh, CJM, Hathras, using his clout, has got three security guards deputed for his protection.

Shri Manraj Singh, CJM, has got so much irked over the aforesaid complaints that he, by misguiding his subordinate judges, has started harassing somehow or the other. And he has allotted the jurisdiction of lucrative police stations to his favourite Shri Omvir Singh, ACJM. Of such police stiatons, the Hathras Gate Police Station is the most important one.

The applicant is being threatened and intimidated every now and then in several ways by the aforesaid C.J.M. by way of holding out a warning that if he did not withdraw his complaints, he would be falsely implicated by any police station or be killed by orchestrating an encounter through his bodyguards or demented policemen.

The applicant is under persistent life threats and the said learned C.J.M. Sri Manraj Singh may orchestrate even his murder by occasioning the commission of inhuman activities through his subordinates Sri Omvir Singh, ACJM and Smt Chitra Sharma, Civil Judge ( Senior Division). If he is murdered, the threesome of them may be held responsible.

Sir, it is, therefore, requested that if earliest action is not taken over the complaints, the applicant will be forced to undertake successive fasts and fast unto death."

(English translation by Court)

21. This letter is admitted to have been sent by the contemner, but again his defence is that it was a communication of resolution of the Bar Association in his capacity as Secretary and not his individual act.

22. His defence is clearly belied from a bare reading of the letter dated 18th September, 2014 wherein in last paragraph it is said that the complaint being made by contemner should be taken note of and action should be taken immediately, otherwise he will be compelled to observe hunger strike till death. The language of letter dated 18th September, 2014 shows that the complainant made serious allegations against the conduct and integrity of Shri Manraj Singh CJM. He branded him as if the Judicial Officer was a habitual criminal and can commit offence of even murder, by himself or through his agents. If these allegations are not to be said as causing serious aspersion on the conduct of a Judicial Officer bringing down his authority in the eyes of public in general and simultaneous lowering the authority of Court, what else can be. Contemner has levelled allegation of threat and that too of something which constitutes heinous crime but it is not his case that any first information report has been lodged by him. Moreover, no date, time etc. has been given as to when the alleged threat was given. Allegations are extremely vague and unjust and had been made apparently to malign authority of the Presiding Officer of Court. We have also inquired on administrative side from the Vigilance Cell of this Court and have been informed by Special Officer (Vigilance), Sri V.K. Tyagi that no vigilance inquiry is pending against Sri Manraj Singh, Judicial Officer, as has been alleged by Sri Khare, learned counsel for contemner during the course of argument.

23. Shri Khare sought to defend the conduct of contemner in making aforesaid allegations by referring to Sections 4, 5, 6 and 13 of Act, 1971. We proceed to examine the defence taken by the counsel for contemner referring to the aforesaid provisions. Section 4 reads as under:-

4. Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt.― "Subject to the provisions contained in Section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof."

24. A perusal of the above provision shows that it only reiterates well settled exposition in law that a fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding is not contempt. We can quote with respect to it the observations of Lord Campbell CJ in Dairson Vs. Duncan (1857) 26 L.J.Q.B. 104 where His Lordship said, "A fair statement of what takes place in a Court of Justice is privileged and it is a most beneficial law that it should be so, as the public have a great interest in knowing what occurs there and the inconveniences which can arise from such a publication are infinitesimally small in comparison with the benefits which result from it."

25. Again, Lord Atkin in Ambard Vs. Attorney General of Trinidad, 1936 AC 322, said,

"No wrong is done by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising in good faith, in public or private, the public act done in a seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed or permitted to err therein;

Provided that the members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice............ .One has also to take care that he is genuinely exercising a right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though out-spoken comments of ordinary men."

26. Section 4 of Act, 1971 only protects a fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding or any stage thereof and not the allegations and aspersions caused against Presiding Officer of the Court. The term 'judicial proceedings' also came up for consideration in Subhash Chand Vs. S.M. Aggrawal, 1984 Cr.LJ 481 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it was held that the "judicial proceedings" mean day to day proceedings of the Court including the proceedings in appeal. The judicial proceedings would not include within its ambit the Presiding Officer and the Court itself. What actually in our view is contemplated in Section 4 is that in respect to the judicial proceedings in a Court, any person is free to make a fair and accurate report and publish it. It should be the report in respect to the proceedings and not to the conduct of Presiding Officer. When a judgment is given or some interim order is passed or transcribed in the Court during the course of hearing can be a part of such publication provided it is fair and accurate report.

27. In a Rajasthan matter in Meghraj Taword Vs. Karpoor Chandra Kulish, 1987 (1) Raj LR 204 the Court said that a news item regarding any decision or proceeding of the Court when published it should be kept in mind that contentions of both the parties should be fairly described to give balanced view points of each of the parties as placed before the Court by them in their petitions and the replies; arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for both the parties should also be properly described so that reader is in a position to understand the view points placed before the Court by both the counsels; and the facts and material on which the Court basis its decision in the matter should also be described in the news item so that the readers are in a position to understand why the Court took a particular view while deciding the matter. Section 4, therefore, has no application in the case in hand and reliance placed thereon is totally misplaced and misconceived.

28. No person gets a licence to criticise, condemn and make allegations and aspersions upon the conduct, character and function of Presiding Officer of Court as such an attempt made is not protected under Section 4 of Act, 1971 and reliance placed thereon by learned counsel for contemner is apparently unsustainable, hence rejected.

29. Then, we come to Section 5 of the Act, 1971. It reads as under:-

5. Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt.― "A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided."

30. In respect to a case which has been heard and finally decided by the Court if any person makes any fair comment on the merits of such case it shall not amount to contempt. This is the precise intent of Section 5. A judgment once delivered becomes a public document. If on the merits of such judgment a reader thereof makes his comments fairly and in a bonafide manner that would not constitute contempt but such a comment would have to be confined to the merit of such case and not to the conduct of an authority of the Court. It is also to be seen that fair comments on the merits of the case must be based on facts and honest. In Perspective Publications Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 221 and C.K. Daphtary Vs. O.P. Gupta, 1971 (1) SCC 626 the Court held that attributed impropriety or lack of integrity to the Presiding Officer of the Court would exceed the bounds of fair criticism and shall not be protected by Section 5 of Act,1971. This Court in Manik Chand Gupta Vs. Virendra Kumar, 1979 Cr.LJ 412 held that the allegations of partiality levelled on the Presiding Officer of the Court would not be protected by Section 5 of Act, 1971. In Ashwani Kumar Ghose Vs. Arvinda Bose, AIR 1953 SC 75 it was held that the allegations of extraneous consideration levelled upon the Presiding Officer of the Court in rendering a judgment would be beyond the permissible limit of Section 5 of the Act, 1971 and shall not be protected by the said provision.

31. In the present case, we do not find as to how Section 5 is attracted and reliance thereon on the part of contemner shows a total misconception and misunderstanding of legal provision on his part.

32. Section 6 has been very heavily relied by Shri Khare to protect the contemner from the aforesaid charge. It reads as under:-

6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate Courts when not contempt.― "A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to―

(a) any other subordinate court, or

(b) the High Court, to which it is subordinate."

Explanation.― In this section subordinate court means any court subordinate to a High Court.

33. It is contended that the Judicial Officer was not honest and working in a very indiscreet manner. A true complaint was made against his conduct by the contemner, hence, it would not amount to contempt and contemner is protected by Section 6 of Act, 1971. He also urged that on the complaint made by contemner, this Court on administrative side has initiated vigilance inquiry which is pending. These aspects require serious consideration. However, the factum of alleged vigilance inquiry has not been confirmed by the Registry of this Court.

34. In State Vs. Brahma Prakash, AIR 1950 Alld. 556 this Court said that no Judge is immune from criticism but the criticism must take form of reasonable argument or ex- postulation. It must be made in good faith. It must be free from imputation of improper motives. Criticism of a judicial act which cannot reasonably be said to be within the limits will be contempt. In Rex Vs. B.S. Nayyar, AIR 1950 Alld. 549 this Court said that the complaints must be genuine, made in a proper manner with the object of obtaining redress and not made malafide, with a view to exert pressure upon the Court in exercise of its judicial function or to diminish authority of the Court by vilifying it. It should not be in furtherance of justice to stifle them by means of summary action for contempt.

35. The essential requisite for invoking Section 6 is good faith. We have no manner of doubt, if a judge of subordinate Court is taking bribe (s), or is otherwise influencing judicial proceedings in an improper way, information may be given to the superior authorities on administrative side. However, if the allegations are made in respect to the judicial duty, that the same are dishonest and corrupt, one will have to face contempt unless it can be shown that the allegations are correct and made bonafide. Anybody who makes a reflection on the dealing of Court in judicial matters, it is bound to shake confidence of general public in the seat of justice. No Judge or Magistrate is immune if he takes recourse to corrupt practice and sells justice for his own benefit. But, then, such a complaint must come bonafide and not in a reckless casual manner showing individual motive of the complainant. As we have said, bonafide of the complainant is the foundation. A tangible test to apply is whether the complainant has acted with due care and attention. It is not open to a person to take precipitous action only on vague information in an irresponsible manner.

36. We, now, propose to examine whether section 6 of the Act, 1971 can help the contemner in the case in hand. The letter dated 18th September, 2014 which is the foundation for making reference by the Court below and the part of charge starts by referring to the contemner's earlier complaint dated 21st of August, 2014 made against Shri Manraj Singh CJM. Thus, we first take it to examine the contents of letter dated 21st of August, 2014. Contemner alleges that Shri Manraj Singh CJM is resorting to casteism. He is sowing seeds of hostility in judgeship causing strife. Claiming support of seventy advocates of his community, the CJM seeks to influence office-bearers of Bar. The CJM is favouring the advocates belonging to his community. He takes immediate action on grievance of such advocates on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or complainants or warrant cases. The CJM provides all kinds of assistance to such advocates by calling police officers in his chambers by phone or through peon. For registering cases under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the CJM has issued printed orders. In complaint cases of advocates belonging to other communities the CJM first records statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and then sends the matter for investigation to police causing more delay regardless of seriousness of the cases. To register protest the contemner personally went to the chamber of the CJM on 20th of August, 2014 at 3:00 PM. The CJM remained seated in his chair and kept the contemner standing. He had got removed all chairs from his chamber. The CJM said that he is connected with BSP and is Jatav by caste. As Mayawati keeps only one seat for herself and others have to sit on the ground, he would keep only one chair in the chamber and let others be standing. He asked the Contemner not to come with a complaint otherwise he would implicate the contemner falsely under Harijan Act on the allegation that he has used foul words against the CJM as 'Bhoora Chamar'. The CJM threatened the contemner that he shall force the police to implicate him in false cases. No one from High Court to Supreme Court can help the contemner. The CJM shall ensure to have licence of advocacy cancelled. He (CJM) said that every one in his family is judicial officer. His brother is also judicial officer. He has clout and has rendered so much service to District Judge that he will do whatever the CJM would ask him to do. The CJM would provoke the advocates of his community so as to stage revolt at the Bar. It is said that CJM was also misusing POCSO Act by influencing the Superintendent of Police.

37. The aforesaid allegations are personal, against the conduct, integrity and character of CJM Manraj Singh. They are very serious in nature. The allegations, however, are extremely vague and general. The mere fact that the Judicial Officer belongs to a particular caste does not give a licence to the contemner who belongs to a higher caste to cast serious casteist aspersions against the judicial officer. It is very easy to make such allegation but in the entire counter affidavit, we do not find that the contemner has, in any manner, given instance to elaborate and materialise his allegations. It is also evident that the contemner on his own, individually, visited the chamber of Presiding Officer and none accompanied him. If there was any such general complaint more advocates would have gone and the contemner ought to have given a specific instance to support the allegations. But he has cleverly chosen to keep the allegations generalized, vague and uncertain. He has also implicated even the District Judge and Superintendent of Police without placing any material on record as to how they could have been influenced by CJM so as to accord to his dictates. The concerned Judicial Officer has given the reason for such conduct of contemner in as much as it has pointed out that contemner and his real brother are accused in Criminal Case No. 414 of 2002 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC, PS Kotwali Hathras, which was pending in the Court of CJM. The entire pressure tactics was adopted by contemner so that the aforesaid criminal case may not be disposed of by the Judicial Officer. There is another criminal case No. 160 of 2005 registered under Sections 323, 506 IPC in which also the contemner and his real brother are accused and the entire attempt was made by him to prolong disposal of that case also. In both the criminal cases charge sheet has been filed and matter was pending before CJM. Regarding the pendency of aforesaid two criminal cases there is no denial. But in para 24 of counter affidavit it is said that the Criminal Case No. 414 of 2002 is against the brother of contemner. Criminal Case No. 160 of 2005 is pending against both of them. But the contemner has said in para 24 (b) that there is no question of pressurizing CJM in the said case. Simultaneously, it is also pleaded that when the Magistrate concerned has made a reference of criminal contempt, it was not proper on his part to try the contemner in the said case. Moreover, in para 24 there is a vague denial and it has been sworn on the basis of record.

38. Further, as already said, that allegations made in letter dt. 18.09.2014 do not refer to any of the allegations contained in letter dt. 21.08.2014 though the reference has been made. In letter dated 18.09.2014 allegations are that CJM is threatening contemner and he apprehends his murder in hands of CJM as well as two other Judicial Officer i.e. one ACJM and another lady Judicial Officer. No date, time or any other detail has been given as to when the alleged threat was given by CJM and how contemner came to know that other two Judicial Officers are also involved in the matter. We have also already said and written here that as per the information given by Registry no, vigilance inquiry is pending till date against Sri Manraj Singh, CJM.

39. Having given our anxious consideration to the language of the letters dated 21.08.2014 and 18.09.2014, we are clearly of the view that the allegations made by the contemner against the concerned Presiding Officer ex-facie constitute criminal contempt being scurrilous and serious allegations tend to lower down the authority of the Court. These allegations cannot be said to have been made bonafide, but for the petty gains of contemner so as to prevent the concerned Judicial Officer in passing an order in Criminal Cases in which the cotnemner himself was an accused. The allegations, therefore, lack bonafide and protection of section 6 is not available to the contemner. We have also noticed here that there is no complaint of any corruption against the officer concerned and basically the allegations levelled are captious showing that attempt on the part of contemner is to malign the image of Judicial Officer by highlighting the fact that he belongs to reserve category.

40. We cannot restrain ourselves from condemning the such attempt on the part of contemner particularly when he has made such attempt in a pious institution of justice.

41. Now, we come to Section 13 of Act, 1971. It reads as under:-

13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases.― Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, ―

(a) no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice;

(b) the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide.

42. Section 13 as amended now permits truth as a defence. It could have been available provided the contemner has requested and offered to prove the allegations. No such attempt has been made. Now, the kind of allegations he has levelled against the Judicial Officer, it cannot be doubted that they are so serious in nature that in case, they are allowed to remain, bound to influence the public at large to loose confidence in the impartiality and objectivity in this institution of justice.

43. We do not find as to how this provision will help him. The Contemner has not requested to prove that the allegations made by him were 'truth'. In fact he has cast aspersions on the integrity, efficiency and conduct of Judicial Officers in a reckless manner since they did not pass orders to the likings of Contemner. These are the allegations made by a litigant against a Presiding Officer, who has failed to get an order in his own terms. The allegations levelled, therefore, are apparently motivated and biased. The allegations that action of Presiding Officer is corrupt, result of some conspiracy with the police constitutes criminal misconduct, the orders have been passed 'madly' and 'blindly' and also drunken orders, the Judicial Officers have coordinated and cooperated with other litigants to manipulate the record; all constitute serious aspersions and scurrilous allegations against Presiding Officers of the Court below. No litigant has any legal or otherwise right to obtain an order from Court of law in a particular manner which he desires. The only right of litigant is to place his case, facts and law, before the Court and thereafter what would be the result, is not his right. No litigant can claim, if an order favourable to him is not passed, then it would mean that the Judicial Officer has committed all kinds of misconduct and illegalities. This cannot give a licence to the litigant to castigate Presiding Officer in any manner. If the order is not correct, litigant has a remedy to approach higher Courts, but cannot castigate the conduct, character etc. of the Presiding Officer, who has passed the order.

44. There are cases where a person has made a fair criticism of the orders passed by Court below, but here the conduct, integrity, and efficiency of Judicial Officers has been abusively commented and indicted by using impertinent language. If an order is passed wrongly, in an appropriate manner, with civilized words and manner, it is always open to the litigant or his Advocate or even a common man to criticise such order. We do not initiate contempt proceedings on just fall of a hat as we are not no sensitive, but then it cannot be extended to the extent of permitting a litigant or an Advocate or any person to virtually abuse the Presiding Officers of the Court, which would include the Court itself. A fair criticism does not constitute to scandalize or lower the authority of Court or Judicial Institutions or an attempt to interfere with administration of justice, but ill-motive, intentional and deliberate castigation going to the extent virtual abuse is not protected and that has a different impact. It is criminal contempt.

45. In P.N. Duda Vs. P. Shiv Shankar and others 1988 3 SCC 167 the Court said that justice is not a cloistered virtue. she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men. Administration of justice and Judges are open to public criticism and public scrutiny. Judges have their accountability to the society and their accountability must be judged by their conscience and oath of their office, that is, to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear and favour, but Any criticism about the judicial system or the Judges which hampers the administration of justice or which erodes the faith in the objective approach of Judges and brings administration of justice into ridicule must be prevented. The Courts cannot ignore attempts made to decry or denigrate the judicial process, when it is done with quite seriousness.

46. The definition of Criminal Contempt under Section 2(c) reads as under:

"2(c). Criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, 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 proceeding; or

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

47. Publication whether by words spoken or written etc. on any matter or doing of any other act, which scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court constitutes 'criminal contempt'. Such act, as aforesaid, if prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with due course of any judicial proceeding also amounts to 'criminal contempt'. Thirdly, if such an act interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner, again it would constitute 'criminal contempt'. The word 'scandalize' has not been defined in Act, 1971. In Black's Law Dictionary word 'scandal' has been described as under:

"Scandal consists in the allegation of anything which is unbecoming the dignity of the court to hear, or is contrary to decency or good manners, or which charges some person with a crime not necessary to be shown in the cause, to which may be added that any unnecessary allegation, bearing cruelly upon the moral character of an individual, is also scandalous. The matter alleged, however, must be not only offensive, but also irrelevant to the cause, for however, offensive it be, if it is pertinent and material to the cause the party has a right to plead it. It may often be necessary to charge false representations, fraud and immorality, and the pleading will not be open to the objection of scandal, if the facts justified the charge. (emphasis added)

48. In Aiyer's Law Lexicon, second edition, Page 1727, reference has been made to Millington Vs. Loring (1880) 6 QBD 190, where the word 'scandalous' has been explained as under:

" A pleading is said to be 'scandalous' if it alleges anything unbecoming the dignity of the court to hear or is contrary to good manners or which charges a crime immaterial to the issue. But the statement of a scandalous fact that is material to the issue is not a scandalous pleading."

49. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 308, in para 7 of the judgment the Court said:

"7. We wish to emphasise that under the cover of freedom of speech and expression no party can be given a licence to misrepresent the proceedings and orders of the court and deliberately paint an absolutelty wrong and incomplete picture which has the tendency to scandalise the court and bring it into disrepute or ridicule.

50. Recently, the aforesaid definitions of the term 'scandalise' has been quoted with approval in Indirect Tax Practitioners' Association Vs. R.K. Jain 2010 8 SCC 281.

51. In Subramanian Swamy Vs. Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344, the court had occasion to examine Section 13(b) as came to be amended by Act 6 of 2006. The court observed that the amended provision enables the court to permit justification by truth as a valid defence in any contempt proceeding if it is satisfied that such defence is in public interest and the request for invoking the defence is bona fide, unless the court finds that it is only a camouflage to escape the consequences of deliberate or malicious attempt to scandalise the court or is an interference with the administration of justice.

52. In the present case, an attempt has been made by contemner to divide the justice system on caste basis. He has gone to the extent of making aspersions not only against the CJM but to other Judicial Officers including an woman alleging that all of them are conspiring to have him (contemner) murdered. Where is the basis for this statement, we are at loss to understand since none has been disclosed. Details and facts are not stated as to when, how and where any such threat was administered by any Judicial Officer and whether the contemner lodged any report in this regard with police or not. The attitude of the contemner for petty gains when criminal case is pending before the Court below, in our view, must be deprecated in the strongest words. His conduct also justifies a severe punishment. At this stage, Shri Khare, learned counsel for the contemner submitted that since the contemner was an office-bearer of the Bar Association, therefore, in the matter of punishment due consideration should be showed. In our view, the submission is thoroughly misconceived. The mere fact that the contemner was an office-bearer of Association cannot authorize him to go on making wild scurrilous allegations against the Judicial Officer including an woman Judicial Officer. He has not kept his conduct within the prescribed limits. What to say of limits of morality and ethics.

53. Even if an Advocate has held any other office, his responsibility as an officer of court being an Advocate does not cease. He is bound to maintain decorum of the court.

54. 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.

55. We do not intend to lay down any code of conduct for the class of the peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly we have no hesitation in observing that no Advocate has any business to condemn a Judge for an order passed by him but not to the liking of a party. 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 his 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.

56. 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 snuffed 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 made by a party, who did not find its 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 the very integrity of Judicial Officer in passing an 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.

57. We are, therefore, satisfied that the contemner has failed to maintain the good conduct and behaviour which can be said to be orderly, good and disciplined, therefore, he deserves an appropriate punishment.

58. In the entirety of circumstances and in the facts of this case, having given our anxious consideration, we are satisfied that charge of criminal contempt levelled against contemner is proved and he is guilty of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971 of subordinate Court.

59. Now, coming to sentence, we find that criminal contempt on the part of contemner is quite serious and grave. It has demoralizing effect on Presiding Officer of subordinate Court if contemner is not awarded appropriate punishment. It demands severe punishment.

60. We, therefore, impose punishment of simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- upon Contemner. In case of non deposit of fine, Contemner shall undergo further simple imprisonment of three months.

61. Further, in order to maintain discipline and smooth functioning of District Judgeship, we restrain the contemner from entering the premises to practice as an advocate for a period of one year. This period shall commence w.e.f. 05th of October, 2015.

62. We also direct the District Judge, Hathras to keep close watch over the conduct of contemner, whenever he commences his entry in Court premises of Judgeship at Hathras to practice law, for a period of two years, and if found any thing otherwise, shall report to the Court suo motu without any delay.

63. Registry is directed to certify copy of judgment to the District Judge and CJM, Hathras forthwith for communication and compliance.

64. Reference is allowed in the manner aforesaid.

(Hon. Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J) (Hon. Sudhir Agarwal, J)

Order Date :- 24.09.2015

LBY