Court On Its Own Motion vs Gulshan Bajwa
2006 Latest Caselaw 1478 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. It is necessary for the Court to refer to background giving rise to these two contempt petitions in order to show the conduct of Mr. Gulshan Bajwa @ Flt. Lt. G.S. Bajwa.

2. Flt. Lt. G.S. Bajwa @ Gulshan Bajwa, had filed a review application before the Supreme Court being Review Petition No. 10465/2003 in CA No. 10383/96 praying for review of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 2nd May, 2003. The review application was dismissed vide order dated 4th September, 2003, which reads as under:

We have carefully perused the review petition as well as the documents annexed therewith, but we find no merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Having regard to the allegations and insinuations contained in the review petition, there is justification for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, against the petitioner. However, considering his background as is apparent from the record of the case and the apparent frustration caused to the petitioner as a result of his losing his appeal before this Court, we do not propose to initiate any action under the said Act, since the respondent has preferred the review petition in-person.

However, we notice that the petitioner is an Advocate and is practicing as an Advocate-on-Record in this Court. The conduct of the petitioner in filing a review petition containing such baseless allegations and insinuations reflecting on the conduct of Judges of this Court does call for closer scrutiny, as to whether his conduct does no credit to the noble profession to which he belongs. However, since that matter is not within our jurisdiction and it is only the Bar Council of India which is empowered to take appropriate action, we refer this matter to the Bar Council of India for such action as it may consider appropriate. The Registry is directed to forward to the Bar Council of India a complete set of papers including the letter of the petitioner addressed to the Registrar (Judicial) dated 9th June, 2003 and the office reports to enable the Bar Council of India to take such action as it may consider appropriate.

3. The petitioner Mr. Gulshan Bajwa @ Flt. Lt. G.S. Bajwa had filed Civil Writ petition No. 245/86 praying for setting aside and quashing of entire proceedings of the General Court Martial held against the petitioner, the charge sheet dated 30.4.1983 passed by AOC, Air Force Station, New Delhi and that dated 24.11.1982 to which it was a sequel; order dated 30.4.1983 signed by the Director of Personnel Services, Air Headquarters, directing General Court Martial; Orders dated 10.7.1979 and 15.10.1979 lowering the petitioner's medical category and all orders to which these were a sequel; orders dated 18.6.1982 and 29.9.1982 ordering the petitioner's psychiatric examination; finding and sentence dated 21.6.1983 by General Court Martial; order dated 21.6.1983 passed by Adjutant Air Force Station, New Delhi placing the petitioner under arrest; the purported order dated 14.1.1985 passed by the Central Government under Section 161(2) of Air Force Act, 1950; Section 65 and 110 of Air Force Act; the order for arrest of the petitioner during the trial by General Court Martial from 10.6.1983 to 21.6.1983 and all adverse entries in the annual confidential reports of the petitioner and the effect of low reporting. It was further prayed that petitioner's dismissal from service be declared as null and void and also declare the petitioner in continuous service and entitled to all the consequent benefits including the higher rank (acting and substantive) emoluments and allowances (inclusive of rations allowance) as he would have been entitled to had he been in service but for the illegal orders as mentioned hereinbefore. Further it was prayed to declare the wrongful confinement of petitioner for 85 days from 15.6.1979 to 10.7.1979 and from 22.8.1979 to 19.10.1979 in psychiatric wards as illegal, as also the criminal assault on the petitioner on 28.9.1979 at Command Hospital (Southern Command) Pune as illegal, and award suitable compensation in lieu of that. It was further prayed to declare the arrest of petitioner on 21.6.1979 as illegal, and award suitable compensation in lieu of that.

4. The writ petition was allowed partially by an order of Division Bench of this Court dated 3.8.1995. Thereafter, two review applications being RA 43/95 and 5977A/95 were filed by the petitioner, which were dismissed by order dated 15th September, 1995 and 17th March, 2005 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed another application being CM 3882/2005 for restoration of RA No. 5977A/95. He had also filed CM 8361/2005 for amendment of the review petition. These two applications were dismissed by order dated 5th October, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application being CM No. 13143/2005.

5. Against the judgment of the High Court dated 3rd August, 1995, the Union of India had gone up in appeal being Civil Appeal No. 10383/96, which was allowed vide order dated 2nd May, 2003 and the judgment of the High Court in favor of the petitioner was set aside.

6. The petitioner had filed a review application before the Supreme Court being Review Petition No. 10465/2003 in CA No. 10383/96 praying for review of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 2nd May, 2003 ., which was dismissed vide order dated 4th September, 2003 as reproduced above.

7. During this period, the petitioner filed two contempt petitions against Union of India and its officers being CCP Nos. 160/98 and 741/2006 inter-alia claiming violation of order dated 3rd August, 1995 and various orders of the Supreme Court viz. 14.8.1985, 22nd November, 1985 passed in WP(C) No. 12605/84. The petitioner in person had filed another writ petition being WP ? No. 9244/2006 against Ministry of Human Resource Development and others saying that the authorities were not performing their duties. The main question was with regard to recognition, affiliation and no objection certificate to be issued to the institutions and the malpractices adopted by private educational institution. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner had filed CM 9695/2006, which was not connected with the main petition and certain reckless allegations had been made in the said application, which compelled a Division Bench of this Court comprising HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI to pass the following order on 8th August, 2006:

We have looked into the statement made in the application, which is registered as CM No. 9695/2006. Having gone through the same, we direct for issuance of a notice to the petitioner to show cause why appropriate action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or otherwise shall not be initiated against him. Notice shall be issued to the petitioner by the registry of this Court without process fee and shall be served by the Process Serving Agency of this Court, returnable on 3rd October, 2006

8. This gave rise to registration of Criminal Contempt No. 17/2006 against the petitioner. After issuance of notice, Mr. Gulshan Bajwa did not appear before this Court on number of occasions and the cases were adjourned to 23rd August, 2006, 25th August, 2006, 29th August, 2006, 30th August, 2006 and 31st August, 2006 (CCP Nos. 160/98 and 741/2006, WP(C) No. 245/86) and in WP(C) No. 9244/2006 the matter was adjourned to 25th August, 2006, 29th August, 2006, 30th August, 2006 and 31st August, 2006. Though Mr. Bajwa was filing applications day after day during this period but he did not appear in his personal cases as well as the cases where he was appearing as counsel.

9. Civil Writ Petition No. 5183/2005 was filed by Major Ajay Kumar through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate. The case was heard by different Benches on different dates including the present Bench. On 31st July, 2006 when the case was heard and records were produced before the Court, the Court passed the following order:

The original records have been produced before us. The records reflect that the petitioner had himself signed the result as a consequence of which according to the respondent, he was taken out of the course. Secondly there were a number of complaints for which the petitioner had admitted his fault and sincerely regretted. The original records be shown to the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner to file an affidavit as to why these facts were not disclosed in the writ petition despite the fact that they were in his personal knowledge.

List on 7.8.2006.

10. On the adjourned date i.e. 7th August, 2006, the Major Ajay Kumar engaged another counsel i.e. Mr. G.S. Bajwa and Ms. Jyoti Singh was discharged. In the order it was clearly stated that no further adjournment would be granted and the case was adjourned to 10th August, 2006, On 10th August, 2006, the case was ordered to be listed on 11th August, 2006 and then on 17th August, 2006. After some arguments, on 17th August, 2006, counsel for the petitioner prayed that he wanted to file certain applications and requested for an adjournment, which was allowed by the Court. However, after grant of the prayer, Mr. Bajwa had passed comments on the lady counsel appearing for the Union of India. The Court then passed the following order:

learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he wishes to file some applications and requests for adjournment. Request is allowed.

At this stage, after the request for filing the applications was allowed, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while going back passed a comment on the lady advocate opposing him in the case and appearing for the respondents. She brought it to the notice of the Court and we requested the counsel appearing for the petitioner to come back, which he did.

learned Counsel for the petitioner made a threatening remark to her, saying that now she be prepared for the consequences. Shri Dipak Bhattacharya (Advocate), who was also present in the Court duly confirmed that he overheard this remark being made to the lady advocate appearing for the respondents.

We find this attitude of the counsel appearing for the petitioner to be undesirable and needs to be deprecated and dealt with in accordance with law. It is unfair for any counsel to give any threats to the counsel appearing on the other side, as all of them appear as officers of the Court and assist the Court on their respective clients. However, before we direct any further action or issue notice for contempt, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a request and the case is directed to be listed for tomorrow.

List on 18.8.2006.

11. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel had appeared on subsequent dates but an application being CM 10154/2006 praying for transfer of matter to another Bench was filed. On 18th August, 2006 also nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the case was passed over. A request for adjournment was made in the later part of the day on behalf of Mr. Bajwa on the ground that counsel (Mr. Bajwa) was unwell and he had left. This fact was disputed by the Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India. He stated that he had seen Mr. Bajwa in Court and even an application was served upon them. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 21st August, 2006. However, copy of the application and written statement was placed on record. As nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner on 21st August, 2006, the case was passed over. After taking into account the various averments made in the written submissions, reply to show cause notice, which was not even issued by the Court, the Court vide order dated 21st August, 2006 issued a notice as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against the said counsel for making such averments and particularly threatening the lady counsel appearing on the other side of dire consequences for arguing the case against the petitioner. Certain more averments were made against the counsel for which she filed a reply. In all these matters, the petitioner had filed transfer petitions, which were ordered to be listed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice and in all these cases, vide order 24th August, 2006 dated Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice had directed the cases to be listed before this Bench. The petitioner Maj. Ajay Kumar appeared in person before the court on 29th August, 2006 and made the following statement:

I am the petitioner in the present case. I had not asked my counsel, Shri Gulshan Bajwa, Advocate, to file a transfer petition. However, I had left Delhi and I was informed on telephone by my counsel that he would be filing a transfer petition. I had told him that he could go ahead. I was not informed the grounds on which he wishes to file the transfer petition. Today, in the Court, I have read the copy of the application bearing no.CM 10154/2006 as well as reply filed to the show -cause notice wherein some allegations have been made against Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate, appearing for the Union of India in my case. I had not instructed the counsel to state any of the allegations and averments which have been made in this reply/application. I was away. I have not signed any of the said documents.

I have also seen the written submissions on the Court file running into six pages. The contents at para 6 and contents at para 1 of page 1 and 2 have not been stated with my instructions. However, an interpretation has been made as per my instruction in regard to what is stated in para 2 referring to various laws.

12. The writ petition was finally adjourned vide order dated 30th August, 2006 at the request of the petitioner to 12th September, 2006. Mr. Bajwa also filed another application in WP(C) No. 2705/2005 in which besides making wild allegations against various Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court he also made incorrect factual statement in para 4 that the transfer petitions were disposed of by this Bench and were not placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, thus, causing great injustice. The same reads as under:

4. That the Applicant has not been able to inspect the judicial file since the same had not been released by the Ld. Court (it was with the Ld. Court all along and not been sent to the writ Branch for such time as is sufficient to complete any inspection-process)-- moreso, none of the Orders passed in the said W.P. No. 5183/2005 has been uploaded to the official website of the Delhi High Court.

Hence, the Applicant is not in a position to officially find out as to whether the above matter was taken up on 21.8.2006 out-of-the-way-even after court- hours; and what Order, if any, was passed therein on 21.8.2006.

Unofficially (hence unreliably) he has overheard that the said matter was taken up at 16.08 hours (4.08 PM) and the Show-Cause Notice issued to him earlier was improvised so as to fill-in the gaps and bring in certain ingredients of contempt?whereas none existed vide the original allegation. that is to say, certain fresh allegations (obviously false) were added, upon after-thought, to the initial Show-Cause Notice-moreso, suo motu contempt matters are to be listed before Hon'ble DB No.2 (not D.B. No.4) as per the Roster issued under the hand and seal of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. and any departure there from ought to have prior written sanction of only and only Hon'ble the Chief Justice moreso, in the instant matter, it will amount to denial of effective opportunity of hearing if such a sanction is granted without hearing the Applicant on the aforesaid pre-existing Applications for Transfer.

In any case, listing any Contempt Matters before Ld. DB No.4 would amount to a violation of the judicial maxim `none should sit as a judge in his own cause'-- clearly, Justice will not also be seen to have been done. And it will also palpably show on the face of the record the animus/bias of the said Ld. Judge in not releasing those matters either to Hon'ble the Chief Justice or to that Hon'ble Court to which such matters are assigned by the official Roster.

13. It may be specifically noticed that all the transfer applications filed by Mr. Gulshan Bajwa @ Flt. Lt. G.S. Bajwa were not dealt with or disposed of by this Bench but were placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. In accordance with the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, all these cases were listed before this very Bench. This irresponsible statement with allegations made by Mr. Gulshan Bajwa is, thus, false and contrary to the judicial record. The following allegations and reckless averments were made in list of dates and events filed in WP(C) No. 245/86 on 8th August, 2006, written submissions filed in CWP No. 5183/2005 on 11th August, 2006, copy of which was also placed in Crl. Contempt Petition No. 16/2006 and in CM No. 9695/2006 filed in WP(C) No. 9244/2006 on 7th August, 2006:

28.02.1995 Vide Note in judicial file, written by the Registrar (Judl.)the following Hon'ble Judges declined to hear the personal matters of the petitioner:

1) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y K Sabharwal (now Chief Justice of India)

2) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijender Jain (now Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court)

3) Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain (now a Judge of the Supreme Court)

4) Hon'ble Mr. Justice CM Nayar (now retired)

5) Hon'ble Mr. Justice AS Saharya (now retired)

In addition, from time to time, the following Hon'ble Judges also declined to hear the Petitioner's Personal matters:

6) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (later Judge of the Supreme Court and now retired)

7) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari (now Judge of the Supreme Court)

8) Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Sodhi

9) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahinder Narain (deceased)

10) Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sunanda Bhandare (deceased)

11) Hon'ble Mr. Justice DP Wadhwa (later a Judge of the Supreme Court)

12) Hon'ble Mr. Justice MSA Siddiqui (now retired)

13) Hon'ble Mr. Justice N Santosh Hegde (while in the Supreme Court)

The said refusal stemmed partly from the death of Hon'ble Mr. Justice KJ Reddy's son and the death of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogeshwar Dayal as a result of the written curse (`shrap') made by the humble petitioner; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bahri's son, too, died, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice BN Kirpal has been paralysed for life.

14. Written Submissions filed in CWP No. 5183/2005

Apparently, it is the ego of the judicial office and the accompanying powers-which can be used or mischievously abused/misused, which is making him ill-treat the Hon'ble Members of the Bar and to act in a whimsical, vengeant and harassing manner towards me, in particular. But the Ld. Judge overlooks the fact that he is not the Lord Almighty and there are Members of the Bar who are close to the real Lord Almighty- for example, I wrote to the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and therein cursed that the way justice had been delayed, there will be delay in medical aid and one son of Mr. Justice KJ Reddy shall die; his son died within 4 days. Again, I wrote to His Lordship that Mr. Justice Yogeshwar Dayal shall die- he died within 7 days. Similarly, Mr. Justice PK Bahri's died, Mr. BN Kirpal (retired Judge) has been paralysed for life, Mr. Justice GP Mathur is also suffering with medical problems, etc. Since then at least 13 Hon'ble Judges have declined to hear my personal matters-including Mr. Chief Justice YK Sabharwal.

I, therefore, hereby curse that if due to the aforesaid egoistic and arrogant fixation of the above matter today, I am unable to go to Ghaziabad and my matter in Ghaziabad is dismissed-in-default, then one child each of Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar and Mr. Justice Sistani shall die prematurely- so shall it happen soon 'Bismillah'

15. CM 9695/2006 in WP(C) No. 9244/2006

3. That several Universal Legal Maxims/Principles/Premises-which are followed by all the civilised Nations, have been given a go-by in several legal cases (including the instant case). and the same is palpably apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the humble Applicant hereby curses that one son/child of each of the individuals who passed the motivated orders shall die prematurely- and so shall it happen soon. Bismillah

In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that it is on the written record of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Applicant herein had stated in writing that one son of the then Mr. Justice KJ Reddy would die-he died within 4 days, that the then Mr. Justice Yogeshwar Dayal would die- he, too died within 7 days. And the then Mr. Justice PK Bahri's son also died, Mr. BN Kirpal (retired Judge) has been palaysed. Moreover, ACM Dilbagh Singh (the individual, who had tried to harass the humble Applicant) was not only himself paralysed, but his daughter also committed suicide and his son died in an air-crash. It is pertinent to mention that blatant and motivated abuse of their powers by certain public officials has occasioned miscarriage of justice against the Ex- Servicemen/Servicemen, and their said acts are an open instigation to the Ex- Servicemen/Servicemen to abuse their powers, too- in any case, this is a reason enough for lowering the morale of the Armed Forces personnel who may even refuse to fight against the intruders to save the lives of such corrupted individuals. Hence a copy of this Application is being sent to the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces

16. Following are the serious intentional, persistent and contemptuous acts and deeds of Mr. Gulshan Bajwa @ Flt. Lt. G.S. Bajwa:

(a) Use of undesirable language as afore-noticed with an intention to malign the court and to lower the dignity of the court. The intention is obvious i.e. transferring of the cases in which he is the petitioner himself or counsel for the petitioner unless you are willing to pass favorable orders only in those cases, failing which the threats were extended to the various courts with dire consequences resulting from the curse written or otherwise of the said person. This amounts to apparent interference with the administration of justice and extending undesirable threats to the courts.

(b) Wild allegations are made in the transfer petitions filed by the said person without getting them signed from the petitioner concerned and in fact even without bringing it to the notice of the client as to what application was filed, obviously with an intention to hamper the administration of justice and making allegations in other cases, wherein he was not a petitioner, to browbeat the courts and filing applications even without the knowledge and contents of the application being known to the petitioners in those cases.

(3) Extending threats in presence of the court to Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocate for the respondents of facing dire consequences in the case filed by the petitioner. This was done in presence of the court and the threats extended were even overheard by a senior member of the Bar Mr. Deepak Bhattacharya, (Refer to order dated 17th August, 2006)

17. From the above we are of the considered view and are satisfied that Mr. Gulshan Bajwa @ Flt. Lt. G.S. Bajwa has prima facie committed criminal contempt of Court and every magnanimity of justice shown to him has resulted in doing acts and commissions of graver nature, thus, treating the magnanimity of justice as weakness of administration of justice and with that intent has thrived to achieve selfish goals. The acts are intentional, malicious and have persisted over a long period and are now clearly interfering with the administration of justice and lowering the dignity of the Court.

18. From the record it is clear that it is not possible to ensure attendance of Mr. Gulshan Bajwa @ Flt. Lt. G.S. Bajwa before the Court in normal ways. He has not been appearing in the cases where contempt notices have been issued in his own capacity as petitioner or even as a counsel for petitioner. Notices were issued by the High Court telegraphically as well as in the ordinary manner but of no consequence. Even, the office of the Standing Counsel for Union of India, in terms of the order of this Court, had made all possible efforts to serve the contemnor but of no avail. Our request to the members of the Bar including the President and Secretary of Delhi High Court Bar Association has failed to yield any result despite adjourning the cases to different dates. In the applications referred above, he has not given any address. Even in the power of attorney filed by him in the case of Major Ajay Kumar, no address has been given. However, we direct that bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5000/- to the satisfaction of Officer/Official for his production in Court be issued, returnable on 5th September, 2006. Along with the bailable warrants, copy of this order shall also be provided to Mr. Bajwa. Though Mr. Bajwa has already filed reply to show cause earlier when even notice was not issued by the Court for initiation of contempt proceedings but still we grant him another opportunity to show cause why he be not dealt with and if found guilty be not punished in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The bailable warrants be issued at the following addresses:

1. Mr. Gulshan Bajwa, Advocate-on-Record, C/o 119, Lawyers' Chamber, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.

2.Mr. Gulshan Singh Bajwa, Petitioner in person, C/o 126, Lawyers' Chamber, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi-110001 3. Flt. Lt. G.S. Bajwa, C/o Shri G.S. Bajwa, S-443, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi.

4. Mr. Gulshan Bajwa, Advocate-on-record, C/o 51, Lawyers' Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001.