Court On Its Own Motion vs H.L. Sehgal
1997 Latest Caselaw 112 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.

(1) One of the inherent powers of the Court necessary for proper and complete administration of justice, essential for its existence is sentencing for contempt but there is no gain saying that the power to punish as contempt, the conduct which interferes with the cause of justice is the most extreme means to prevent such interference and should be exercised with restraint, care and due circumspection. In Balogh v. Crown Court at St. Albans. (1975) Q.B. 73 at 91 Stephenson Lj said: "THE contempt power is both salutary and-dangerous: Salutary because it gives those who administer justice the protection necessary to secure justice for the public, dangerous because it deprives a citizen of the protection of safeguards considered generally necessary to secure justice for him".

(2) Fully conscious of the caution sounded in various judgments of the Supreme Court and other Courts against over use of contempt powers, in the discharge of an unpleasant duty which a Court is required to perform in such like proceedings, we take up these contempt petitions, except one, all directed against one contemner, namely, Mr. H.L.Sehgal (herein-after referred to as the respondent), who as would be apparent from the facts which we shall narrate hereinafter, has not only abused the indulgence shown by a Full Bench of this Court, when almost under similar circumstances contempt proceedings initialed against him earlier were dropped on his deleting the objectionable observations at the earliest opportunity (See: R.L-Gupta v. H.L.Sehgal. 1968 (4)DLT 630) Cut forgetting the warning given in that case to be careful in future. He appears to have been rather emboldened by it to cast unwarranted aspersions and make scurrilous attacks against the subordinate judiciary, this Court as also the Supreme Court. With a view to appreciate as to why contempt proceedings (some by way of suo motu action by this Court and some on references by the subordinate courts) have been initiated against him and to adjudge whether the respondent has committed contempt of Court, it would be necessary to briefly state the material facts and extract objectionable portions of the pleadings in some of the matters.

(3) From the record .placed before us it appears that all petitions emanate from a number of suits and applications Filed by the respondent against the Dda and others, inter alia, challenging the DDA's action in carrying out demolition of some structure at his premises No. T-1698-99. Malka Ganj Road, Delhi:

(4) CR. C.R. Nos. 2/90,3/90 and 4/90 These three references under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) have been made by Shri J.P.Singh. Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi, vide his three references, all dated 13 July 1990. The first reference is accompanied by an application moved by counsel for the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for initiating contempt proceedings against him as he was abusing the Judges and him during the course of arguments. The learned Judge has observed that the way in which the respondent had addressed the opposite counsel was highly insulting and if the dignity of the counsel, being 'the officer of the Court, is lowered then in turn it lowers the dignity of the judicial institution.

(5) The second reference made is on the basis of two applications filed by the respondent. According to the officer the language used in these applications is derogatory and contemptuous.

(6) The third reference has been made on the basis of an application moved by the respondent for recording a finding that counsel for the defendant alone was responsible for delaying the litigation for 30 years. The officer has commented that in fact it was the respondent himself who was responsible for the delay and he has been abusing the judges and using unparliamentary language about them, to convey a threat to the judicial officer who might be dealing with his case at a given time.

(7) In the said three references, apart from referring to the orders passed by many of his predecessors in the file requesting transfer of suits from their Court primarily because of the conduct of the respondent in their Court, the Judge has referred to the objectionable conduct of the respondent, which in his opinion constitutes contempt of Court by written words as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act.

(8) On receipt of the references, notice was issued to the respondent and on his putting in appearance, was asked to file a reply, which he did. The factual basis of the complaint in the three references is not disputed by him. Rather the reply confirms it. In para-I of his preliminary objections, after quoting "Manu Smriti". with obvious reference to the Judges who have passed orders adverse to him, he says: "ANDI have seen such Judges have suffered tragic misfortunes - take the instance of Shri (name of the Judge omitted) ADJ. May God forbid, such a disaster should not become the lot of any person, even to an enemy. His own son died inspite of kidney given by her mother to save, him. Lakhs of rupees were spent and all the District Court Judges donated for the treatment of his son."

 (9) He further goes on to say:    "THE Yare being so .treated by the higher judiciary with the belief that a judge can do no wrong, and no matter howsoever unworthy their conduct, behaviour, their actions, their orders, their acts of forgeries, lies, incapacity, all are totally ignored, rather the person, who points out their misdeeds is punished under Contempt of Court Act, this is Justice of India, whose samples will have to be published, if such injustice is not stopped immediately and incompetent Judges 90% in Lower Courts are not removed/replaced in public and national interest."   

 (10) Para Ii of his reply reads as under:    "I shall do this, with the names of Judges who have passed silly, irrelevant, funny, wrong senseless orders even of dozen atleast. The High Court and Supreme Court Judges, within one month, those will be filed in this case, before publication to check its correctness from record, for which surely application will be moved. To make the Hon'ble Judges realise who is the .cause of scandalising the administration of justice in India some have already been Filed in other Files of Contempt of Court still pending (Cr. Contempt No. 4/87, in regular list with two more, including one by me against Shri (name of the Judge omitted) ADJ. I will be moving that all are consolidated, if not done on oral submission. Because the same thing has been said by me there also."   

 (11) On merits of the proceedings initiated against him, he says:    "EACH word of my remarks about the ability of Judges is 100% documentary fact or can be proved by putting the matter before any sensible person. Many comments on the orders of High Court and Supreme Court Judges arc already on lower Court record and Filed in pending contempt cases. Many more will be Filed with in one month, conversing the orders passed by my lord."  

(12) After quoting an order passed by an Hon'ble Judge of this court, dismissing his application under Section 340 Cr. P.C., he says thus in para 2: "2.I moved SLP(Cr) 49/83 in the Supreme Court of 8 pages beginning with heading "ASSATEY Maiv Jaitey "1. Sitting under the National Emblem "Satya Maiv Jaitey" to remind that in the Court, 'TRUTH Alone Shall TRIUMPH' My Lord Justice (name of the Judge omitted) has given a most glaring perverse verdict on well stressed documentary lies, further encouraging these types of offences, which are being committed in each and every case with impunity in relation to Civil Justice. So far no scientist, philosopher, thinker, Giani, Dhiyani, Rishi, Muni, Yogi had discovered that two quite opposite could be same, as day and night, right and wrong, but it has been held so in this case..."

(13) Then quoted what was stated in Jt, and alleged by (name of counsel omitted)- Defts counsel, and was shown how the application u/s 10 Civil Procedure Code in one suit only, got all the pending suits stayed including that of possession suit, in which the High Court authority in the previous suit was there, that suit could not be stayed. Such is the intelligence of Judges and much more. Cr was got fraudulently admitted, and stay got with false gusting of Sub. Judge Jt. was obtained. "The Courts are encouraging delaying tactics of this dishonest Deft, by ignoring 100% lies (documentary), and are thereby putting the justice to shame,", Para 7 of my petition, at end.

(14) The comments be called from the Justice (name of the Judge omitted) - ignored. This is the performance of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges, who take oath as under:- "THATI will duly and faithfully, and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of my office, without fear or favour, affection or ill will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the Laws." Now when only documents are reproduced, and the orders on those petitions as written arc published, who will not laugh at the ability of superior Judges even, Now Who Is Scandalizing Administration Of Justice My Self Or Such JUDfiES, who arc violating their oath? I want, that my Rashatr justice is not condemned by the world, by pointing out the performance of the Courts."

(15) With regard to the complaint of the counsel for the defendant for initiating contempt proceedings against him, his reply in para 4 reads as under: "MY writing addressing (name of the counsel omitted) in derogatory language and in a degrading manner also constitutes contempt, as he is officer of court. I have shown that he is the person who having successfully misled many courts, having lowered the position of even Justice (name of the Judge omitted), who actually did not read, the Sub Judge order, but wrongly stated in his own order that" I have given my careful consideration to them..." like Shri (name of the Judge omitted) who said that Ext. Da 29 is the copy of the order of Shri Joginder Nath (my application against that Adj para 7) which was totally fse and fabricated story. This "Court Officer", can be now punished for contempt of court as well for which application is being moved against him. He is a habitual liar, which I will prove, who has not allowed this litigation to end, and has put me to suffer by twenty lakhs. He was challenged to File a suit for damages and prosecute me for defamation which he never dared. He must be disqualified -from practicing."

(16) The said reply Filed by the respondent was considered and vide order dated 22 April 1991 this Court recorded its satisfaction that proceedings for contempt of court have to be initiated against him. Accordingly Rule D.B. was issued and he was directed to File an affidavit in defense, which has been Filed. In his affidavit sworn on 29 April 1991, the respondent has staled that whatever he has slated in his reply dated 30 November 1990 in response to the show cause notice arc documentary facts which should have been verified from the record before giving him so much harassment of wasting public time.

(17) We may notice here that in Crl. C.Ref. No. 4A/90, the respondent has Filed a miscellaneous application under 'Section 482 CR. P.C. for taking action against the defendant's counsel. Para 9 of the said application has some relevance to the disposal of these cases and is reproduced hereunder: "9.So I have shown above that this Mr. (name of the Advocate .omitted) is more a Liar and who can corrupt a Judge name of the Judge omitted), an Advocate, Local Commissioner, an Arbitrator, gets documents exhibited fraudulently, and cleverly will not allow them to be de-exhibited. Will fabricate story, get issues framed totally against pleadings, onus wrongly placed on me against mandatory provision of law, he gets fees from other deft. O.P.Gupta also in T.T.I. Suits and defends him in disguise, and does all possible mischief never to end the litigation, and unfortunately no Court has taken notice of his such lies, and successfully misguiding all the dozen A.D.J. and High Court Justice name of the judge omitted), who passed false order dated 22-9-82 (quoted at page 4 bottom in my reply to Cr. Contempt Ref. No.2/90, ignored by S.Ct. Judges also, to encourage lies and injustice."

(18) CR.C.REF. No. 4A/90 arising from Cr. Appeal No. 13/89 : Against an order passed by an Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi dismissing his application under Section 340 Cr. P.C., the respondent Filed an appeal in this court being Cr. A. No. 13/89. On perusal of the appeal, the learned Single Judge found that submissions made in para 1(iii) of the appeal memo amounted to contempt. Accordingly notice was given to him and he was asked to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.' The respondent Filed his reply to the notice. Para 1(iii) of his reply noticed in the order dated 23 April 1990, directing his trial for committing contempt of Court under the Act reads as under: "THE only country which has its national motto 'SATYA Maiv JAITEY' adorned on each High Court wall to remind the Judges, to see that Truth alone should prevail/triumphs and not lies, but it is being put to shame, and to contempt by 95% Judges who have encouraged lies,' fabrications of false documents, forgeries, perjuries, making of false claims, have made the nation immoral, criminals and are cause of natural calamities which will bring soon disasters and grief to the citizens of this Rashlar, according to eternal, irresistible, unbreakable Divine Laws of which each one in the Govt. is ignorant. On this Rish Bhoomi instead of Ram Raj - Dharam Raj, there is worst than Rakshash Raj even, as truth & justice is entirely vanished."

(19) CR. C.Ref. No. 10/96 arising out of Cri. A. No. 150/95: Aggrieved by order dated 20 May 1995, passed by an Addl. Distl. Judge, Delhi dismissing his application under Section 340 Cr. P.C., Filed by him in one of his suits, the respondent Filed a Cri. Appeal being Cr. A. 150/95. When the appeal came up for hearing on 24 September 1996. a learned Single Judge of this Court felt that while Filing this appeal the respondent has made allegations which tend to scandalise the Court. Considering that he was appearing in person,, the Court asked him to delete the malicious and scandalous averments attributing motives to the Judges. However, the respondent did not budge. Since the Court felt that the allegations prima facie appear to scandalise and lower the authority of the Court, appropriate action was required to be taken against the respondent. Accordingly the learned Judge directed that the matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench.

(20) On 17 October 1996 the respondent Filed an affidavit objecting to the transfer of his appeal to the Division Bench. In this affidavit he again used intemperate language against the learned Judge transferring his appeal.

(21) When the matter came up before a regular Division bench, taking note not only of the reckless and scandalous allegations against the Addl. Distt. Judge and other judicial officers dealing with his matters but also the averments made in his affidavit filed on 17 October 1996 leveling further scandalous allegations against a number of judicial officers in the subordinate Courts, the Court took cognizance of these scandalous allegations and issued notice to the respondent to show cause why he be not punished under the Act. The respondent who was present in Court, accepted the notice and on being asked whether he would like to have legal assistance to defend him, his reply was in the negative and stated that he will defend himself and file reply to the notice.

(22) In his reply, dated 9 December 1996 to the show cause notice, while again casting unwarranted aspersions and using intemperate language against a large number of Addl. Distt., Judges, the respondent has alleged that none of the judges of this Court, who heard his cases, have been able to give him justice and in fact all the Judges, without exception have committed themselves the offences in not giving a finding according to law inefficiently or deliberately. Para 4 of his reply reads thus: "4.Dozens Judges upto to Supreme Court have failed to dispose this bogus claim, since over three decades, and created 100 proceedings the list of which - printed- will be filed before some forced Enquiry Commission, whom I will be showing such 18 scandals of different parties originated judicial scandals, allowed by the Courts. I wished that atleast this No. 1 by Dda, would have been decided by special Judge, which takes one second. But Judges/Benches like Justice (Name of the Judge omitted) and (name of the Judge omitted) have refused to do, against my application dated 4-4- 1996 dismissed on 12-2-96, filed in Rfa 746/95. Dda v. H.L.Sehgal. Holding that appellate Court cannot grant the relief claimed."

(23) A part of para 6 of the reply reads as under: "BUT the Judges are promoting all offences against the administration of justice. They have made the nation of criminals, liars, forgers, cheats, corrupt immortals and I will prove they have made devils, like B.N.Dhawan of True Temp Industries. Though he has died innocent this year, thanks the Judges up to Supreme Court. That is equally big judicial scandal No. 2, in connivance with judges like Shri (name of the Judge omitted), Adj, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, shown on many cases file. Why I Am Not Allowed To Prove These Judicial SCANDAL'S, which needs no evidence, and can be known in seconds and minutes. Why?

 (24) Para 7 of the same reply further reads as follows:    "HON'BLEJustice (name of the Judge omitted) dismissed my O.A. 22/92 on 13-11-92 confirming the Findings of Registrar, adding that Adj has acted in discharge of his judicial duty etc. Against this my Fao (OS) 242/92 was dismissed by Chief Justice (name of the Judge omitted) and Justice (name of the Judge omitted) on 16-12-92, with the following order: "No Merit. Dismissed."   

 (25) Had to file SLP(C) 7553/93 on 15-2-93 H.L.Sehgal v. Shri (name of the Judge omitted), Adj, in Supreme Court, against above orders. Justice (name of the Judge omitted) D.B. Court No. 12, directed me to "withdraw all contemptuous allegations from my comments on impugned orders, and from petition. Then I Filed 21 page my Documentary fair comments of 55 offences under 9 heads of Punishment on 17-8-94 and confined the petn. in these words only:    "I have Filed documentary fair comments showing offences ... committed based on record. If these are. not denied with proof by the respondent, and his orders does not come under Judicial Protection Act, in that case this Slp be kindly granted..."   

(26) Very strangely inspite of my representations to previous and present Chief Justice of India dated 7-10-94 and 9-10-94 respectively these are ignored. Registrar called me, wanted me that since these allegations in this comments are already considered contemptuous, therefore this cannot be put up even so short, unless Court order is complied. So inspite of reminders, my stand is why the comments from the Adj arc not called, which is the duty of S.Ct but about dozen Judges of High Court Supreme Court. have allowed brother Judges to abuse, insult me and their proved lies offences under Indian Penal Code . as it can be seen in case of Shri (name of the Judge omitted) Adj and checking my comments on Justice(name of the Judge omitted) dictated C.Writ Jt. on this record. I have got of 18 parties cases to prove such performance of Judges, to convince. Biggest Judicial SCANDAL. Because such grave injustice has created crores of (4.5 crore). Arrears in all Indian Courts up to Supreme Court. 90% Public money is being squandered on trying repeated lies and forgeries, perjuries, in my cases 100%.

(27) In the backdrop of these facts the question arises whether the afore-enumerated imputations made by the respondent in his aforementioned utterances against the opposite counsel in the court of the Ld. Adj, subject matter of First reference and in his applications, subject matter of the second and third references as also averments in appeal memos and various replies Filed to the show cause notices, and use of intemperate and abusive language in pleadings constitute criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Section 2(c) of the Act defines "criminal contempt" and reads as follows: "2(C)-"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 lends 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;"

(28) We feel that the language used in these documents docs bring it within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Act. Apart from abusive language, the criticism is couched in language calculated to impair administration of justice and lower the image of the judiciary and the judicial system.

(29) A bonafide and constructive criticism of any institution including judicial system, aimed at improving its functions and public image and helpful for bringing reform in an institution should be. welcome. Judgments of the Courts are open to fair and reasonable criticism but any personal criticism of the Judges which impairs the administration of justice or tends to bring it to ridicule cannot be permitted. In this context the following observations of the Supreme Court. In cases mentioned below, are worth noticing. In Roshan Lal Ahuja, In Re:, 1993 Supp. (4) S.C.C. 446 his Lordship Dr. Justice A.S-Anand. Speaking for the three Judges Bench observed thus: "WHEN from the criticism a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring down the image of the judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute the courts must bester themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law. No litigant can be permitted to overstep the limits of fair, bona fide and reasonable criticism of a judgment and bring the courts generally in disrepute or attribute motives to the Judges rendering the Judgment. Perversity, calculated to undermine the judicial system and the prestige of the court, cannot be permitted for otherwise the very foundation of the judicial system is bound to be undermined and weakened and that would be bad not only for the preservation of rule of law but also for the independence of judiciary. Liberty of free expression is not to be confused with a licence to make unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the Judges or the courts in relation to judicial matters. No system of justice can tolerate such an unbridled licence. Of course. "Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men", but the members of the public have to abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice and exercise their right of free criticism without malice or in any way attempting to impair the administration of justice and refrain from making any comment which tends to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters."

(30) Similarly in E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N.Nambiar. , the Supreme Court. While dealing with the various forms of contempt, observed as follows: "THERE are many kinds of contempts. The Chief forms of contempt are insult to judges, attacks upon them, comment on pending proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial, obstruction to officers of courts, witnesses or the .parties, abusing the process of the courts, breach of duty by officers connected with the court and scandalising the judges or the courts. The last form occurs, generally speaking, when the conduct of a person tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard. In this conduct arc included all acts which bring the court into disrepute or disrespect or which offend its dignity, affront its majesty or challenge its authority. Such contempt may be committed in respect of a single Judge or a single court but may, in certain circumstances, be committed in respect of the whole of the judiciary or judicial system."

(31) Earlier in State of M.P. v. Revashankar, , the Supreme Court had observed that there are innumerable ways by which attempts could be made to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice in courts and one type of such interference is found in cases where there is an act which amounts to "scandalising the court itself". This scandalising might manifest itself in various ways but in substance it is an attack on individual Judges or the court as a whole with or without reference to particular cases, causing unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character and ability of the Judges.

(32) Recently in Dr. D.C.Saxena v. Hon'bic the Chief Justice of India, , dealing with the case where the contemner, after dismissal of his writ petition by a Bench headed by Hon'bic the Chief Justice of India, Filed another writ petition making imputations against the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, the Supreme' Court dealt with the scope of Section 2(c) of the Act and held as follows: "THE gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to majesty of justice. When the contemnor challenges the authority of the Court, he interferes with the performance of duties of Judged office or judicial process or administration of justice or generation or production of tendency bringing the judge or judiciary into contempt. Section 2(c) of the Act, therefore, defines criminal contempt in wider articulation that any 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 scandalises or lends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding, or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner, is a criminal contempt. Therefore, a tendency to scandalise the Court or tendency to lower the authority of the court or tendency to interfere with or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or tendency to challenge the authority or majesty of justice, would be a criminal contempt. The offending act apart, any tendency if it may lead to or tends to lower the authority of the court is a criminal contempt. Any conduct of the contemnor which has the tendency or produces a tendency to bring the judge or court into contempt or lends to lower the authority of the court would also be contempt of the court."

(33) Noticing the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in L.DJaikwal v. State of U.P., and in Roshan Lal's case (supra), in Dr. D.C.Saxena's case (supra), the Supreme Court further held as follows: "IN the light of the above discussion we have little doubt to conclude that when an advocate or a party appearing before the court requires to conduct himself in a manner befitting to the dignity and decorum of the court, he cannot have a free licence to indulge in writing in the pleadings the scurrilous accusations or scandalisation against the judge or the court. If the reputation and dignity of the judge, who decides the case are allowed to be prescribed in the pleadings, the respect for the court would quickly disappear and independence of the judiciary would he a thing of the past."

(34) We have given copious extracts from the rulings of the Supreme Court to clarify the legal position. We must add that the view taken in them is not meant for the personal protection of persons dealing with the administration of justice but primarily to uphold the viability of judicial system and the rule of law, so necessary for a civilized society.

(35) In the light of the above the prime question which needs consideration is whether the imputations made by the respondent, extracted hereinabove, to scandalise the courts tend to impede the public confidence in the administration of justice or lower the dignity of the court?

(36) We may notice here that on 8 January 1997 when some of the matters came up for hearing, after we had reserved our orders in Cr. C.R. No. 10/96, the respondent had expressed his desire to have the assistance of a counsel and prayed that Mr..Arun Khosia, Advocate who was present in Court may be appointed as amices Curiac to assist the Court on his behalf. Mr. Khosia volunteered to render assistance and at his request the case was adjourned. On 21 January 1997 when the matter again came up for hearing the respondent stated that he had discussions with Mr. Khosia but to his mind Mr. Khosia cannot properly assist him. We accordingly discharged Mr. Khosia from the case. We also found from the record that on one of the dates of hearing the respondent had mentioned that he wanted to examine Mr. R.S.Kela, Advocate and Mr. B.N. Dhawan as witnesses but having regard to the nature of accusations by him against Mr. Kela, we feel that it is not necessary to summon Mr. Kela and subject him to cross-examination by the respondent. The observations of the Trial court on the First reference where the incident occurred and Mr. Kela had to make an application to the learned Adj, hearing the matter, and on the other two references contemporaneously made, are clear enough to rule out the necessity of any cross-examination. Mr. Dhawan is slated to be dead. Even otherwise, as observed by the Supreme Court in Dr. D.C.Saxena's case (supra): "IT would not be open to the contemnor to bring forward evidence or circumstances to justify or to show whether and how fairly imputations were justified because the Judge is not before the Court. The defense justification to an imputation would not, therefore, be available to the contemnor. The imputation of improper motives or bias cannot be justified on the principle of fair contempt."

(37) We have accordingly heard the respondent on the basis of existing replies/affidavits. In a bid to justify what he had stated/uttered in various application and affidavits in courts, he only submitted that he had been in litigation for over two decades in a number of matters, which could be disposed of in minutes but were kept hanging for no reason. Even if so, what he did was not the proper course. He had no right to indulge in casting aspersions, to browbeat the opposite counsel or scandalise the courts in relation to judicial matters. For wrong, if any, done to a suitor, there is an appropriate remedy and forum which he may avail of and not indulge in scurrilous and reckless attacks on public functionaries to denigrate and annihilate the system itself. His conduct in doing so is amply borne out from the averments made in various applicalions/affidavits, as per emphasis added therein, in the extracted paragraphs hereinabove.

(38) Having perused the entire material on record including the replies and affidavits Filed by the respondent we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the respondent has deliberately and persistently made reckless allegations/statements in his pleadings and replies to the show cause notices issued to him, which are derogatory to the dignity of the Courts. His utterances in the form of pleadings tantamounts to scandalising the Court, which lend to lower the authority not only of the subordinate courts but also of the High Court in relation to judicial matters which has the effect of interfering with and obstructing the administration of justice, and in turn ridiculing the. judicial system ilself. The scurrilous allegations made by the respondent against the judges in the subordinate courts and of this Court arc per se contumacious and contemptuous which are deliberately made to scandalise the courts and undermine their authority. If the judges and lawyers and the litigants are intimidated, in the manner attempted by the respondent. It would be impossible to gel free and impartial justice and people's faith in the judicial system would be shaken, which would sound death knell of this august institution. Thus the paramount concern is not to protect the personal dignity of a particular judge or judges but to ensure that the confidence and the faith of people in the effective administration of justice by the Courts is not eroded. In this context we are tempted to quote Salmon Lj in Jennison v. Baker 1972(1) All. E.R. 997: "CONTEMPT of Court is an unfortunate and misleading phrase. It suggests that it exists to protect the dignity of the judges. Nothing could be further from the truth. The power exists to ensure that justice shall be done. And solely to this end it prohibits acts and words lending to obstruct the administration of justice. The public at large, no less than the individual litigant, have an interest and a very real interest, in justice being effectively administered. Unless it is so administered, the rights, and indeed the liberty, of the individual will perish.

(39) The Supreme Court in M.B.Sanghi v. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has also observed as follows: "VEILEDthreats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming a judge into submission to secure a de- sired order. Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the concerned judge but the entire institution. The foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity."

(40) It is evident from the facts available on record that the respondent is an old litigant having instituted a number of cases in various courts. Infact, as noticed above, he had attempted a similar mis-adventure as far back as in 1968 when contempt proceeding were initiated against him. At that stage perhaps wiser counsel had prevailed upon him and he retraced his unwise steps at the earliest opportunity and was, therefore, let off by a simple warning to be careful in future. So obviously he knows the consequences of the language used, its purpose and the effect, it cannot, therefore, be said that it is a case of spontaneous emotional outburst of a litigant, disappointed by an unfavorable verdict and not acquainted with the judicial procedure. In this context it is pertinent to mention that when these matters came up before a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 16 August 1995, he was given indulgence of one more opportunity to inform whether he would unconditionally withdraw the allegations made at various stages of the litigation and was directed to File an affidavit in that behalf, if so advised. We are sorry to record that no such affidavit or any apology is forthcoming and as a matter of fact his attitude is still defiant.

(41) In view of the foregoing discussion we are constrained to hold that the respondent's afore noted imputations in criticising all the judges, who have passed orders against him and use of intemperate and abusive language against the opposite counsel and in pleadings had the effect of scandalising the court and his conduct has the tendency to impede public confidence in the administration of justice by courts and squarely fall within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Act. The respondent is, therefore, guilty of committing gross contempt of court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.

(42) Although the contumacious outbursts of the respondent arc primarily directed against the officers in the subordinate courts, who, he alleges have failed to grant 'him relief for years which, according to him he was entitled to and could have been granted within few minutes but exercising the power of superintendence over the subordinate courts, it is the bounden duty of the High Court to see that the officers in the subordinate courts are not browbeaten and are duly protected as and when an attempt is made to intimidate then by any one in whatever manner. Timely action must be taken to ensure that administration of justice is carried on unsullied, unhampered and uninterrupted.

(43) The respondent having committed gross contempt of court, The next question which arises is what punishment shall be awarded to the respondent. As noticed above, this is not the solitary incident which has occurred at one spur of the moment. From the material on record and his past history, it appears that he is in the habit of taking liberty of casting wholly unjustified aspersions on the fairness of judges of the subordinate Courts, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the discharge of their judicial functions. He seems to be under a wrong notion that he can obtain favourable orders by browbeating the courts. Instead of showing any remorse or regret, particularly after the afore noted order was passed, he still has an arrogant attitude. We feel that he does not deserve any sympathy. Accordingly, we sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 . In case of default in payment of Fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for seven days. However, taking into consideration his advanced age, physical condition and his submission at the conclusion of hearing that he is losing memory, we suspend his sentence subject to the contemner furnishing a personal Bond within two weeks to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court, undertaking to maintain good conduct and not to indulge in making reckless and contemptuous allegations against the courts in future. This bond will remain in force for a period of one year. In case the contemner fails to furnish the requisite Bond within the stipulated period or if submitted, commits a breach thereof, the order of sentence will come into operation forthwith and he will be taken into custody to undergo the sentence awarded.

(44) CRI. C.Ref. No. 208/87 This is respondent's petition for initiating contempt proceedings against an Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi for allegedly violating the orders passed on 2 September 1981, for expeditious trial of the suit Filed by him.

(45) There are a few averments in the petition which are per se contumacious in nature, tending to denigrate the judicial officers, Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court, for allegedly ignoring conduct of the officers in the subordinate courts. Since this aspect of his conduct has already been dealt with above in the other contempt petitions, we do not propose to lake further action against him in this petition.

(46) As these expressions basically arise out of his grievance that despite orders of the High Court the judicial officer concerned has delayed disposal of the suit and not complied with the directions of the higher Court, we are of the view that no action under the Act is called for against the officer concerned. However, his allegation of delay in disposal of his suit needs being looked into on the administrative side. For it, we direct the office to obtain appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. All the petitions stand disposed of.