Name of the file in the Computer: “Contempt of Courts Act”

Index S. No. 1. 2. 3 4. Index A. Detail of sections of the contempt of courts Act, 1971 B. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (1) of CCA C. Detail of judgments and propositions of law containing the definition of contempt as given in section (2) of CCA C-1. Synopsis and judgments alongwith their relevant extracts as per AIR Manual :C-2. Synopsis and judgments alongwith their relevant extracts as per the book titled “Iyer’s Law on Contempt of Courts” 4th edition published by Delhi Law House :C-3. Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts pertaining to Civil Contempt C-4. Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts pertaining to Criminal Contempt as defined in sub-clause (i) of Clause (C ) of Section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act (Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court). C-5. Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts pertaining to Criminal Contempt as defined in sub-clause (ii) of clause (C ) of section 2 of Contempt of Court Act (Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings) C-6. Detail of judgments pertaining to Criminal Contempt as defined in sub clause (iii) of Clause ( C ) of Section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act (Interferes or tends to interfere with , or obstruct or tends to obstruct, the Administration of justice in any manner ) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and Other High Courts 1. “ Court on its own motion v. K.S. Sethi, AIR 1968 Delhi 248” (FB) (24.11.1967)(referred by Sh. Vinod Gaur. Irrelevant) (Available) 2 “The Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another, AIR 1980 SC 946” (Available) 3. “In the Matter of Nanak Chand Theog, AIR 1989 Himachal Pradesh 46” (19.8.1988). (Available) 4. “Dr. (Mrs.) Roshan Sam Joyee vs. S.R. Cotton Mills Ltd. And others, AIR 1990 S.C. 1881” (6.4.1990) (Available) (M.Imp.) 5. “Delhi judicial service association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vs. State of Gujarat and other, AIR 1991 SC 2176” (11.9.1991) (Available) Subject Matter/Contents Page Nos. 1-7 8 8 8-9 9-11 11-20

21-24 25-27

28-30

31

31

31

31 31

31

6. “Court of its own Motion v. B.D. Kaushik 46 (1992) DLT 35” (Referred by Sh. Vinod Gaur) (Not available) 7. “Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 529” (19.2.1992) (Available) Note: The above referred judgment has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, 161 (2009) DLT 130” (SC) 8. “Modern Food Industries (I) Ltd & Another Vs. Sachidanand Dass & Another, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 465 (21.9.1992) :- (Contempt for non-compliance with Court’s orders) (Available) Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 9. “National Textile Corporation v. Sundram Ors, 1994 (1) Scale 344” (Contempt for non-compliance with Court’s orders) (Not available) 10. “Major Genl. B.M. Bhattacharjee (Retd.) And Another Vs, Russel Estate Corporation and Another, 1993 (2) SCC 533” (4.2.1993) (Available) Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 11. “National Textile Corporation Vs, V. Sundaram & Ors., 1994 (1) Scale 71” (19.1.1994) (Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 12. “K.A. Mohammed Ali Vs. C.N. Prasannan, JT 1994(6) S.C. 584” (4.10.1994) (Available):13. “Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 : 1995 RLR 1 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 4994” (14.11.1994) (M.I.) (Available) :14. “Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 130 : 1994 (4) Scale 1088” (23.11.1994) (Available) 15. “Prof. Shradha Kumari Vs. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad And Others, 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 85” (24.1.1995) (Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 16. “In Re: Sanjiv Dutta, (1995) 3 SCC 619 : JT 1995 (3) SC 538” (Both Available) (19.4.1995) Note: The above referred judgment has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, 161 (2009) DLT 130” (SC)

31 31

31

31

31

31

31 31

31 31

32

17. “Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1795” (2.5.1995) (M.I.) (Available):18. “Afzal and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1996 SC 2326” (17.1.1996) (Available):(Contempt of Court and IPC) 19. “State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and Another, (1996) 4 SCC 411” (10.4.1996) (Available) 20. The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association vs. State of Assam and another, AIR 1996 SC 1925 (9.5.1996) (Fining false proceeding in the court) (Available) 21. “J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and others, AIR 1997 SC 113” (11.9.1996) (Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 22. “Rita Markandey Vs. Surjit Singh Arora, AIR 1997 SC 2174 : 1996(2) RCR 472” (27.9.1996) (M.I.) (Both Available):23. Satish Khosla v. M/s Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. and another, 71 (1998) DLT 1: “1998 1 AD (Delhi) 927” : “1998 (44) DRJ 109” (DB) (12.12.1997) (Available but not attached herewith) :24. “Indian Airports Employees Union Vs. Ranjan Chattarjee And Another, AIR 1999 SC 880” (2.2.1999) (Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 25. “K.S. Villasa Vs. M/S Ladies Corner & Another, AIR 1999 SC 2140” (3.2.1999):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 26. “Ms. Sophy Kelly and another Vs., Chandrakant Ganpat & Others, AIR 1999 SC 1042 “ (4.2.1999) (Not Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 27. “Suo Motu Contempt, in Re : Nand Lal Balwani, AIR 1999 SC 1300 (26.2.1999)” (Available):28. “T.C. Mathews and anr. V. Distt. and Session Judge, 2000 RLR (N. S.C. ) 19” (Not Available) 29. “Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction And Another, (1999) 6 SCC 18” (5.4.1999) (Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case.

32

32

32 32

32

32

32

32

32

32

32 32 32

“Surya Prakash Khatri & Anr. K.8.2001) (Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case.30.2001) (Both Available):42. AIR 2000 SC 68” (16. 31.B. 92 (2001) DLT 665” (F.R. C. Union of Indian and others. Not relevant) (Available) 35.5.2001) (Available) 41. “Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. 2000 RLR 124 (SC)” (25. Shahnaz Husain. “Pallav Sheth vs.. “Pravin C. Srinivas.J. “P. (2001) 7 SCC 549” (10. 2002 (62) DRJ 346 (DB)” (Delhi) (13. Vs.7. “Murray & Co. Vinod Gaur.2003) (Available) 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 . “Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. 2000 RLR 308 (SC)” (22. 2001 RLR 144 :89 (2001) DLT 572” (DB) (Delhi) : (16. Chidambara and another. 84 (2000) DLT 264 (DB)” (4. AIR 2001 SC 3041 and VII (2001) SLT 153” (9. Madhu Trehan & Ors.C.10.1. 493” (30.2000)(Referred by Sh. Vs.8. 39.S. Mittal etc. (2001) 7 SCC 549” (10. Matter of statement made by Shri Raman Duggal. State of Bihar.10.) (28. “Court on its own motion Vs. Ashok Kumar Newatia.2.2001) (Available) (For filing false proceedings in court) 38. Tyagi. Custodian and others. 32.2001) (Available) 36.2002) (Available) 43. Kapil Deo Prasad Sah And Others Vs. AIR 1999 SC 3215” (25. Smt. AIR 2001 SC 2018” (3. “Rajeev Malhotra Vs.2. D. AIR 1999 SC 3345” (15.5. 2004 Cri L. “Padmahasini alias Padmapriya Vs.2000) (Available):34. Shah vs. “Sudhir Chona vs.2000) (Not Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case and moreover. Advocate. Mohd.3. “In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh.1999) (Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. Ali and Anr. Singhal Vs.B. Union of India And Others. R.8.K.11. Custodian and others. 33.1999) (Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 2002 (63) DRJ 243 (DB)” (Available) 40. High Court of Karnataka v.2001) (Both Available):37.1999) (Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case.A. “Advocate General. this judgment has been overruled in the judgment reported as “Pallav Sheth vs.1.

151 (2008) DLT 695 (DB)” (Delhi) (21. Special Court. Vs.11. the Administration of justice in any manner ) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. “In the matter of Contempt Proceedings against Kanwar Singh Saini. 161 (2009) DLT 466” (DB) (20. STATE & ORS.20. Delhi High Court.U. “COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. Swaran Singh Banda.J. LTD.11.R. AIR 2006 SC 1367” (8.E. 8. “Zahira Habibullah H.10. or obstruct or tends to obstruct.4. C. Lotus Herbals UK Ltd .169.206 & 207) (Available) (This judgment is in respect of B. I. 2339” (9. “Bal Thackrey vs. Sareen & ors.143. “Court On Its Own Motion vs.K.125. Harish Pimpalkhute and another. Rajiv Dawar.44. 1 (2009) SLT 261” (20.K. 159 (2009) DLT 362” (DB) (17.C.2007) (Available) 49. v. 161 (2009) DLT 130” (SC) (Available) 54..2.127. 164 (2009) DLT 473 (9. 2007 (1) AD (Delhi) 567” (Delhi) (Not available) Note: Relevant extract of this judgments pertaining to Contempt of Court has been quoted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its following judgment. Sheikh and another vs State of Gujarat and others.2008) (Available) 53.8.2009) (Available) .2009) 56.2. 47. “Court on its own Motion v. Bombay. Delhi High Court and Other High Courts 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 35-94 . AIR 2005 SC 396” (29. AIR 2003 SC 3039” (19.2003) (A Three Judge Bench) 45. Anand v.3.2009) C-7.2004) (Available) 46.W.2008) (Paras 2.2009) (Available) 55. “S.2004) (Available) Note: This judgment explain the procedure to be followed for registering a criminal contempt petition. 51. R.78.8. Ives Laboratories Inc. Relevant extracts of the above referred judgments pertaining to Criminal Contempt as defined in sub clause (iii) of Clause ( C ) of Section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act (Interferes or tends to interfere with .7. Kanwaljit S. Registrar. 138 (2007) DLT 682 : 2007 Cri L. AIR 2004 SC 3114” (12. Vs.155.S.M. “Three Cheers Entertainment (P) LTD & ors. “R. “ST. “Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & anr. 165 (2009) DLT 520 (DB)” (6.2006) (Available) 48. State of Gujarat & ors.11. “Court on its own motion against Ajay Yadav. Ramaraj Vs. Khan and Mr. Anand were Public Prosecutor and Defence Counsel respectively) 52.11.10. “Court on its own Motion v. 50. Case wherein Mr.

Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (4) of CCA F. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (13) of CCA O. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (11) of CCA M. 1971 95-132 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133-137 137 137-138 138 138 138 139 139 139 139 139 140-141 . Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (9) of CCA K. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (12) of CCA N. Relevant extracts of the above referred judgments pertaining to Contempt of Courts Act. which are important for the present case and appeal against the order dated 28.C-8.3. Detail of judgments and propositions of law pertaining to section (20) of CCA as given in the court of Contempt of Courts Act. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (8) of CCA J. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (17) of CCA S. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (16) of CCA R. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (15) of CCA Q. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (19) of CCA U. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (7) of CCA I. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (3) of CCA E. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (10) of CCA L.. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (6) of CCA H. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (18) of CCA T. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (14) of CCA P.2008 D. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (5) of CCA G. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (20) of CCA U-1.

Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (22) of CCA X. 1971 does not apply in a case of continuing wrong. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (24) of CCA Z.2008 Z-2. U-4. 20 of the Courts of Contempt Act. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (23) of CCA Y. 1971 as given in the book titled “Iyer’s Law on Contempt of Courts” 4th Edition published by Delhi Law House. 6 CPC:- 142-159 160-167 168-170 171 171-172 172 172 173-174 175-192 193 . Relevant extracts of the above referred judgments pertaining to Contempt of Courts Act. Prosecution of Judges and public servants Z-1. V. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (21) of CCA W. which are important for the present case and appeal against the order dated 28. Important proposition of law pertaining to ‘Contempt of Courts Act’ relevant for arguments on the petitioner’s application U/o 12. Detail of judgments and their relevant extracts as given in the AIR Manual U-3.3.U-2. R. Commentary on section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts which contain the proposition of law that Limitation as provided S.

(ii) Any action on the part of a litigant. 1971 Note : “The Contempt of Courts Act. the administration of justice in any other manner. or by signs.O.. or interferes or tends to interfere with. (NOC) 8 (DB)(Cal. B. vide Ajay Kumar Pandey (in re:). (c ) . or obstructs or tends to obstruct. the due course of any judicial proceeding . unless the context otherwise requires(a) “contempt of Court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt. or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize. Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. (d) “High Court” means the High Court for a State or a Union territory. writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. spoken or written. Detail of sections of the contempt of courts Act. or (ii) prejudices. order. for prejudicing the mind of the people against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. C. “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words.A. direction. AIR 1998 SC 3299. High Court of Judicature of M. or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard. Detail of judgments and propositions of law containing the definition of contempt as given in section (2) of CCA Note : This Section deals with definitions and this section particularly defines contempt of court including criminal contempt and this section reads as under :“Definitions. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (1) of CCA Note : Section 1 of CCA deals with ‘short title and extent’ (Not relevant) 1. or lowers or tends to lower the authority of.be he a lawyer appearing in person – which has the tendency to interfere with or obstruct the due course of justice has to be dealt with sternly and firmly to uphold the majesty of law. any court . and includes the court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory. To make a speech tending to influence the result of a pending trial. Comments (i) Attributing improper motive to a Judge or scurrilous abuse of a Judge will amount to scandalizing the court. It is incumbent upon courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented. or (iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with.In this Act. decree. 1971” contains 24 sections. Speech or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the court or prejudicing the public for or against a party or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. Offence of Contempt is one between Court and Contemner –Third party cannot intervene –Provisions of CPC do not apply vide “1991 Cri L.)”. (b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment. or by abusing parties to actions.J. No one can be permitted to intimidate or terrorise Judges by making scandalous unwarranted and baseless imputations against them in the discharge of their judicial functions so as to secure orders which the litigant ‘wants’. whether civil or criminal is a grave contempt. (iii) Contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalizing the court itself. or by visible representation.

Roshan S.2(b)= “Civil Contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment. Synopsis and judgments alongwith their relevant extracts as per AIR Manual :S. Initiation and institution of Contempt Proceedings are not identical or similar. AIR 1993 SC 1348.Comments on pending proceedings. Dehradun. writ OR OTHER PROCESS OF A COURT or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. spoken or written or by signs. or (ii) PREJUDICES. court should take care to ascertain WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT PROOF before the Court that the respondent is guilty of contempt vide “1998 (3) Crimes 115 (DB)” 6. There is A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt. the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt vide “AIR 2001 SC 3468 (3469)” 5. Ch. or (iii) INTERFERES OR TENDS TO INTERFERE WITH. Venkaiah Vs. S. C-1. or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which :(i) Scandalises or tends to scandalize. 1991 All CJ 586 (588). 3. DIRECTION.” . or by visible representations. They are different –proceeding is instituted by a litigant and it is initiated by a court vide “1993 (2)WLC 397 (411)(DB)(Raj. E. 1.)” 8. order. The criminal contempt relates to causing of prejudice or INTERFERES OR TENDS TO INTERFERE WITH DUE COURSE OF ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE vide “1998 (1) Cal. 2 (a)=”Contempt of Court” means Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt 2. or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court . decree. Cotton Mills Ltd. A Proceeding under CCA is a quasi –Criminal and as such. Boyce Vs. LT 447 (451” (DB). OR OBSTRUCTS OR TENDS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN ANY OTHER MANNER 4. IIIrd Additional District Judge. or interferes or tends to interfere with. are generally a more serious contempt than those coming from independent sources. (vi) The law of contempt must be strictly interpreted and complied with before any person can be committed for contempt. THE DUE COURSE OF ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS . 7. State of Haryana Vs.R. Vidya Sagar Vs. LJR 174. Government of Andhra Pradesh. Bhajanlal. (iv) Non caring of the warrant issued by the criminal court amounts to criminal contempt. (v) Any willful disobedience to the orders of the court to do or abstain from doing any act or breach of any undertaking given to the court is prima facie civil contempt. 1992 (3) ALT 193 (199). if emanating from the parties or their lawyers. Highly placed police officials disregarding order of Court-Even if order obtained by fraud remains valid unless revised-Violation amounts to contempt vide “1980 Cri LJ 57 : 1979 Pat. AIR 1990 SC 1881. B. In proceeding under CCA. in that Civil Contempt is a wrong for which the law awards to reparation to the injured party though nominally a Contempt of Court is in fact a wrong of a private nature as BETWEEN SUBJECT AND SUBJECT AND THE KING IS NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS to punish it. 2(c )= “Criminal Contempt” means the publication (whether by words.

” 12. and (iii) constructive contempt depending upon the influence of an intention to obstruct the course of justice vide AIR 1955 Andhra 156 (159) : 1955 Cri LJ 1028 (DB). R.” 18.” 17. There are three categories of contempt : (i) contempt in respect of orders of Court. The High Court can initiate contempt proceedings suo motu even in a civil contempt. would certainly amount to contempt vide “(1969) Mad.C.” 16. Where suo motu notice of contempt has been initiated and determined initiation of inquiry and proceedings under S. Contempt proceedings power to initiate suo motu ca be exercised only by Court of record such as Supreme Court ad High Court. For constituting civil contempt essential ingredient is “willful disobedience” and “willful” connotes “Purposeful” and “clear intention to flout”. as for instance. 114: 1993 (1) Civ LJ 394 (398) ** 1993 (I) Pun LR 226 (229) : 1993 (1) Rev LR 202 (DB).Not a fit case for taking action against contemner vide “1978 Cri LJ 1440 (1444) : 1978 Raj LW 224 (DB). The question of initiation of contempt proceedings in exercise of suo motu power by a Judge or Judges will arise only when they are hearing a particular case and conduct of case comes to notice of Court vide “2004(1)Andh WR 418 (468) : 2003 (12) Ind LD 342 (DB). Proceedings in contempt-Vague and general allegations not sufficient to make out a case for proceedings in contempt of Court vide “1972 UJ (SC) 462(2)(463). Art. There can be o comprehensive or final definition of what would constitute contempt of Court.Status quo order.9.” 11. No particular form of procedure is necessary so long as the proceedings are initiated giving an opportunity to the contemner to defend himself. 941) :1987 BLJR 386 (DB) ** 1993 (21) All LR 155 (157) ** 1993 (1) All Rent Cas. (ii) contempt by letters or pamphlets addressed to the Judge who is to decide the case with the intention either by threats or flattery or bribery to influence his decisions. when comments are made on a pending case. but any conduct which has the effect of diminishing the prestige and authority of the Court. For constituting criminal contempt essential ingredients are “iterferna” or “tending to interfere with” the due course of any judicial proceeding or “interference” or “tending to interfere with” or “obstructing” or “tending to obstruct” the administration of justice in any manner vide “1986 Pat.” 10. 340 Cr. Letter written by contemner to Union Home Minister regarding corruption in judiciarySole object in writing the letter was to invite the attention of the concerned authorities to increasing corruption – No improper motive or malicious intention attributable. 28)(DB). with impunity the orders of the High Court could be disobeyed by mere stratagem or contrivance. LJR (HC) 933 (940. THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO ACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH THE DECISIONS OF HIGH COURT AND IN CASE THESE RULINGS ARE NOT FOLLOWED IN APPROPRIATE CASES THEY ARE LIABLE TO BE PROCEEDED WITH FOR CONTEMPT VIDE “1972 TAX LR 1952 (1953) : 37 CUT LT 1232. 21 of the Constitution is not I any way of violated thereof vide “AIR 1974 Mad.” 15. which is likely to lower the esteem of the Court in the minds of the public and which gives an impression that.Such approach of trial Court runs counter to principles governing contempt proceedings. 313 (316) : (1974) 1 Mad LJ 155.Order of trial Court liable to be set aside vide “AIR 2005 (NOC) 173 : (2004) 6 Andh LD 579. 2A CPC. LW (Cri) 25 (27. Contempt is of two kinds : (a) that which interferes with the due course of justice and pollutes the stream of justice in so far as it concerns parties to a cause.” 14.” 13.” . (b) that which is calculated to bring a Judge into contempt or lower his authority or to interfere with the lawful process of the Court vide “AIR 1953 Orissa 33 (38) : 1953 Cri LJ 349 (DB).Trial Court had dealt with contention in reply affidavit treating it as application U/O 39. P.Alleged violation of –Detention of defendant by trial Court in civil prison straightway.” 19. would not be in interest of justice vide “2007 Cri LJ 2339 (2347) : 2007 (138) Delhi LT 682.

Provisions of Act. must be regarded as an extreme measure. (Mrs. “R. “Pushpendra Pal Singh Vs. AIR 1990 SC 1881 33. 1993 Suppl. B. Sahadeo Jha. Devraj Pandey. 215.” C-2. “V. 219 at page 228” 38.R. but to preserve the proceedings of the courts from being deflected or interfered with and to keep the streams of justice pure. Accused bringing some persons to impersonate as contesting respondents and persuading court to accept compromise held guilty of contempt 1. 349” 34. USING OF FORGED ORDERS OF COURT 1. 1977 Cri L. 2004 Cri L. Non-compliance with courts order 1. “R.J.J. “Hindustan Level Limited Vs. 3706 (All. Synopsis and judgments alongwith their relevant extracts as per the book titled “Iyer’s Law on Contempt of Courts” 4th edition published by Delhi Law House :1. Scope 1.” 2. to punish the contemner in order to preserve its dignity. though painful. Subba Reddy.) Vs. serene and undefiled. No one claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt.20. N.J.)” 3. AIR 1967 A. B. “Daya Shankar Dubey Vs.J.) 27. not attracted vide “1996 Cri LJ 1090 (1095) : 1996 (1) Mah LJ 491 (DB) (Bom). 2.P. Dr.J. To punish an advocate for contempt of court. 4008 at 4009 (M.P. Jagarlamudi Candramouli.)” 3. Criminal contempt. Pandey.P. BREACH OF UNDERTAKING DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY – CONTEMPT PROCEEDING BEST METHOD TO DEAL WITH SUCH SITUATION 1.)” “Kedar Nath Sinha Vs. 1992 Cri L. 1999 Cri L. 1999 Cri L. THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT ALLOW A PATENT DISHONESTY ON THE PART OF A LITIGANT TO PERPETUATE 1. Tiwari Vs.High Court taking suo motu cognizance under Art. (1) SCC 529 : AIR 1992 SC 904” Para 61 of the above referred judgment :- “61. if his act or conduct in relation to court or court proceedings interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice. Willful disobedience of the order 1. Cotton Mills Ltd . High Court of M. Subhas Kumar. Govindaswami Mudali Vs. 1174(Pat. no doubt.K. “In re : Vineet Kumar Singh AIR 2001 SC 2018” . (i) “Pritam Pal Vs. “Roshan Sam Boyce. Cavinkare Limited. Narapa Vs. 1986 (3) Crimes 170 (AP)” 26.C. it becomes the duty of the court.K. 319 (All.

the contemners and the other members of the governing council who tended and proceeded with the meeting did not commit any contempt when the ignored the order of injunction passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal) 3. “1913 A. Judgments can be criticized. (1819) 3 Swan 529 at page 564 and Amar Nath Vs. this could not be the subject matter of punishment under the Act.N. in the particular circumstances of this case.C.) 59.(A false. the order of the Tribunal is said to have been committed was wholly without jurisdiction and as such. Shiv Shankar. NON-COMPLIANCE OF ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT 1. the court would forget its duty. and hence. The order of which contempt is alleged to have been committed was without jurisdiction.) 62. P. Thus the Judges must do. V. 1243 (All. (1988) 3 SCC 167” (Administration of justice and judges are open to public criticism and public scrutiny. Jai Prakas University AIR 2001 SC 2552 “ (THE SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE IS BOUND BY THE ORDER EVEN IF IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD AT THE TIME OF ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDER SUCH A PLEA BY THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST IS NOT IN TENABLE. “P.J. He can rely on its in validity when it is set up against him. 520 at pages 532-533” (Most important) (Where an authority which purports to pass an order is acting without jurisdiction.) 2. or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order is contempt. to defend and uphold the constitution and lodge without fear and favour. if it did not give the respondents the benefit of the fact that the order might not to have been made.J. 417. Therefore. Vidyavardhini Sabha. 1880 at page 1884 (Delhi)” (The remarks of Viscount Haldane. Duda Vs. or lack of jurisdiction to make the order.) 2. “Dhurandhar Prasad Sinha Vs.C. 1981 Cri L. who objects to that order to apply to set it aside. “Vivekanand Atmaram Chitale Vs. in the light given to them to determine what is right. In the instant case. then there is no duty that the order be first obeyed before its is quashed by the same or a superior court.) 61. Once the order is held to be without jurisdiction then the disobedience of the order would not be a contempt.e. Fair criticism of the conduct of a judge 1. Judges have their accountability to the society and their accountability must be judged by the conscience and oath to their office i. although he has not taken steps to set it aside.J. Drewry Thacker. In re : (2002) 3 SCC 349 : AIR 2002 SC 1375” . Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 1984 Mah. “Kuldip Narain Lal Vs. do support the view that when there is an irregularity of substance. Mahendra Pal Jain. L. “Arunadhati Roy. 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 the judges and brings administration of justice to ridicule must be prevented the contempt of court proceedings arise out of that attempt. 1984 Cri L. Scott.) (The proposition that the executing court cannot go into the legality or otherwise of the decree is not an absolute proposition and certainly the court could go behind the decree if the decree is said to be without jurisdiction. Motives to the judges need not be attributed. Order passed without jurisdiction : 1. purported order is a nullity and it is not necessary for a party. in Scott Vs.

D.M.HE MUST OBSERVE LIMITATIONS WHILE DRAFTING THE CONTENTS OF THE PLEADINGS 1. 2. Prof.(In a democracy. Breach of undertaking 1. 236 at Page 241” 84. 2. K. 353 (AP)” “Subramanian Swamy Vs.J. AIR 1952 SC 149” 71. 2. Ramakrishana Reddy Vs.M. 2004 Cri L.R.) : 1990 (2) Bom. “Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Sadhanandam Vs. State of U. ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORITY CONTRARY TO JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT 1. J. 1554 (All. State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Rama Murthy. judges and courts alike are. 1995 Cri L. 1290 (Raj.)” “C. Heartfelt apology and paper apology –distinguished 1. State of Madras. Shetty. BREACH OF SOLEMN UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO THE COURT AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT 1. Ajay Bansal. 2564 at Page 2567 (Raj. therefore..J.J. 3641 at page 3643 Bombay “Union of India Vs.) 70. “Noor Ali Babul Thanewala Vs. Chaudhury. S.J. “Bank of Baroda Vs. 3. BREACH OF UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO THE COURT IS A SERIOUS MATTER AND ITSELF AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT 1. subject to criticism and if reasonable arguments or criticism in respectful language and tampered with moderation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law or public good.J.) 78. 1996 Cri L. Snehlata 1996 Cri. L. 1996 Cri L. “Virendra Nath Sorav Vs.. 1997 (A) ALD 225 (DB)” 80. Sajjan Kumar. AN ADVOCATE OWES A DUTY NOT ONLY TO HIS CLIENT BUT ALSO TOWARDS THE COURT. AIR 1984 SC 1374” 73. 1996 Cri L. Hari Bhhaskar (2003) 1 SCC 504” .)” (Law has been well settled by the Apex Court that a party giving undertaking to the court based on implications or exemptions which are false to its knowledge is guilty of misconduct amounting to contempt of court within the ambit of section 2). (1990) 1 CRC 378 (All. 2. “Anita Sohania Ghai Vs. Sadruddin Hasan Haya (2004) 1 SCC 360 at page 371” (The violation of breach of undertaking which became part of the decree of the court certainly amounts to contempt of court. “Srinivasa Rao Kumbhari Vs. 2601 at pages 2614 (P & H) “B. 4. Hari Nath Sharma.)” “L.R.J. Jaikawal Vs. no court would treat criticism as a contempt of court. C. “Ramesh Chandra Vs. Gulsha Bajwa (2003) 7 SCC 545 at page 545” “Court on its own motion Vs.P.

282” 11. “K. 19. 13. 399. 1. Soni Chandubhai Gordhanbhai. 182 at p. AIR 1948 Cal. 10. AIR 1951 231 at page 237.(Delhi) “K.C. 14. 9. Ajeet Kaur (1985) 27 DLT 197 at p. Gopi Mohan Bhattacharjee. 669 at Page. New Delhi Vs. State of Gujarat. Delhi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. AIR 1991 SC 1171 at p.M. D. AIR 2000 SC 3515 at p.G. 8. 201” “Union of India Vs. Rajesab Hasan. Co. (1980) 3 SCC 47” “R. Sudhir Bhasin.J. AIR 1980 Delhi 39” at p. Mario Cabralae Sa. 269 at P. AIR 1996 SC 2481” 91.P. Breach of undertaking given to court amounts to contempt –Apology not acceptable 1. Tarasankar Ghosh. 18. 172” “Saleemuddin Vs. 16. 1222” “J. 670” “Sukumar Mitra Vs. 482” “Ram Juwan Vs. 7. Ltd Vs.591 at p. “Rajiv Choudhary Vs. Rajenderan. 296” 2. 3515” . LJ 395” at p. Saxena Vs.C. Tis Hazari Courts. AIR 1960 MP 280 at p. 6. D. 1996 J. AIR 1952 Cal. 273. Interference with administration of justice 1. Dalal. “Dr. 5. 281. 337” “Sambhu Charan Nundy Vs. 1982 Cri LJ 187 (SC ) “State Bank of India. Verghese Vs. AIR 1957 SC 478 at p. Kapur Chand Ltd. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 294 at page “Bajrang Lal Gangadhar Khemka Vs. 15. AIR 1991 SC 2176 2. Shiva kumar Vs. AIR 2003 SC 1555” 86. “Nisha Kanto Ray Chowdhury Vs. 1982 Cri. Kanak Raj Mehta.B.T. 1982 Cri.Goyal Vs.S. Ramaul Vs. “Chhaganbhai Norshinbhi Vs. 183” “Bhatanagar and Company Ltd Vs. AIR 1951Cal. 593. AIR 1952 Cal. Smt Saroj Bashini Goho. Ram Saran Das. 787 : AIR 1976 SC 1909 12. K. Narishingha Prosad. Jagdish Narain Khanna.C.” “Raziya Mahboob Patel Vs. at pages 6. “Delhi Judicial Service Association. 4. “Babu Ram Gupta Vs. 507 at page 509 “Bukhtiartur Bihar Light Rly.)” “Smt Lajuklata Vs.3. LJ 1219 at p. 42” “Virochan Vs. 17. 274 (Kant. State of Bihar.L. Union of India. 7 (SC)” 90.C.” “Suretennaessa Bibi Vs. 2001 Cri L. 1976 (3) SCR 786 at p. Chaintaharan Das AIR 1955 Cal. Devendra Nath Gupta. 3. Breach of undertaking Breach of undertaking is a type of civil contempt. Sharfuddin. AIR Bom. 326 at p.

” The object of writing these offending paragraphs and particularly of filing the representation petition in the High Court at the time it was actually done was quite clearly to influence or affect the minds of the Judges and to detract them from the strict performance of their duties. the petitioner has stated that : “This Court has become a constitutional liability without having control over the illegal acts of the Government. 145.” Yet at another place.R. 21.)”. Saraf was an active subscriber leave no manner of doubt that they were made mala fide to disrepute the Judge and to scandalize . 143 at pp.” No person is permitted to make allegations scandalizing the Judge of the Court even in an application for transfer of a case from that Court.” At one another place. Rev. 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Vide “Sudesh Kumar Vs. 107 at pp.L. the petitioner has stated that this Court is sleeping over the issues like Kumbhakarna. prima facie guilty of contempt.” Action of the respondents in SWEARING PRIMA FACIE TO THE FALSE FACTS IN THE AFFIDAVITS AND IN THEIR STATEMENTS amounts to gross contempt of this Court as the action of the contemner substantially interferes with the due course of justice. Jai Narain.R. open expression of lack of confidence in the Judge without any valid reason and then urging him to release a case. T. A.20. Rustam Jahangir.1980 (1) SCC 205” 92. Kerala State.R. Vide “Advocate General. Vide “Sarat Chandra Biswas Vs. The nature of the allegations in such case assumes importance. These statements scandalize and lower the authority of this Court and obstruct the administration of justice.C. 1988 All. affirmed as they are by the statements made by him and in the affidavit filed in this Court clearly show that he has committed criminal contempt as defied in Sec. Mathew. Civil Judge. The reading of the writ petition gives the impression that it is clearly intended to denigrate this Court in the esteem of the people of India. 107. A. Surendra Mohanty. Vide “Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Trivandrum. 22. It was opined that the allegations in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the transfer application in the instant case. setting up against him unfounded plea of bias.T.I. and to which allegations Shri C. s such unproductive and out-dated according to socio-economic conditions of the country. 108. (1995) 6 SCC 249” “Shanti Lal Makanji Kalyanji Shah Vs.Vasudevan Vs. 23 at p. 128. Dhananjaya . Vide “Ram Ji Lal Sharma Vs. 1969 Orissa 117 at p. A. AIR 1984 SC 182” “J. 26. CONTEMPT IN PLEADINGS The averments made by the second respondent in his affidavit before the Sub-Court. 1988 S. Union of India. Further.R. K. 1971. 146. and seeking unnecessary adjournments on non-existent grounds with oblique motive of arresting or obstructing the progress of a case are the instances of contumacious conduct tending to interfere with the administration of justice inviting action for contempt. At one place in the writ petition. 299 (Ker.” Moving contempt application against a Judge on flimsy grounds with deliberate intention of embarrassing and disqualifying him from trying a case. Prima facie view is that the petition has been drawn up with a designed purpose of bringing the Court into contempt and the petitioner is. therefore. he has alleged : “Thus the working of the Judges are cocktail based on Western Common Laws and American techniques. 1974 P. Idris Vs.I.R.I. Ranchoddas Girdhardas. Ernakulam Vs.K. Thus the people for whom the Constitution is meant have now turned down their faces against it which is a disillusionment for fear that justice is a will of the wisp. 1986 (1) Crimes 294 at p. “Mohd.

S.C. Maitra. Vide “Sitamarhi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs.S. Sher Singh Vs. A mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable the Court from passing any interim orders.R. 227 at p.C. 235. 231. 1986 Cr.” The mere statement that Magistrate is friendly with a party who happens to be an advocate and enjoys his hospitality or has friendly relations with him will not constitute contempt unless there is an imputation of some improper motives as would amount to scandalizing the Court itself and as would have a tendency to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of the people in the Courts. vide “Govind Ram Vs.N. Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha. 56. A. AIR 1965 Pat. 601. L. Vs. At the same time. Vide “Express Newspapers Pvt. not the individual who sits as a Judge. 1968 P & H 217 at p. Xavier.” If some allegations are made in the oral or written representations which turn out to be true. 919 at p.) 67 at p. 1984 Sim. it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that these documents prejudiced. Ltd Vs. should never have sworn the affidavit unless he had personally verified the facts from the official record. It is open to the Court to modify these orders while holding that it has no .I. The interim orders so passed are orders within jurisdiction when passed and effective till the Court decides that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.I. 1986 S. a person cannot be allowed to commit contempt of Court by making allegations of a serous and scurrilous nature scandalizing the Court and imputing improper motives to the Judge trying the case.C. 937. Such attempts to question the sanctity of the Court proceedings.R. 71. Ajit Singh. IT SHOULD ALSO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME.R. False affidavit may amount to contempt of Court. Major P. 936 at p. These interim orders undoubtedly come to an end with the decision that Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. It can yet pass appropriate orders. The allegations contained in the said two letters are WHOLLY INACCURATE AND TOTALLY FALSE. 989 at pp. 1972 S. 995. State of Maharashtra. Under Secretary (Education). Vide “State of M. 993. therefore. ought to be extremely careful as to what language they use and what statements of fact they make.” The review application is LACKING IN BONA FIDES BASED ON FALSE AVERMENTS and constitutes a flagrant abuse of the process of the Court. even then the petitions ridiculing the Courts and lowering their position in the eyes of the general public are not permitted.” Shri M. 590 at p. Kaushik. 1952 Cal. Vide “Court on its own motion Vs. unless ruthlessly curbed.J. As these documents were filed before the Court under the directions of the Court itself.” The opposite party committed contempt of Court by attributing mala fides to the Assistant Registrar in his memorandum of appeal so much so that the Assistant Registrar in his memorandum of appeal so much so that the Assistant Registrar was made a respondent in the appeal and cost was sought to be recovered personally against him.R. A. Vide “Court on its own motion Vs. Union of India.I. Sood. are clearly to safeguard only the interest and prestige of the public justice. 51 at pp.P. He is warned not to repeat it in future. 1985 (2) Crimes 208 at p.) see also Barely Vs. It is the prestige of the Court which is at stake.” Swearing affidavits personally for the purpose of the same being used in this Court. Of course. Raghu Pati Kapur.” The submissions made in pursuance of the order of the Court. m1986 (3) Crimes 544.P. Murgai Vs. he was at liberty to say in the verification that he was verifying from the copies of the record shown to him by the particular person. (Cr. State of Himachal Pradesh. L. Contempt proceedings.C. will have the tendentious effect of making fearless dispensation of justice by the courts in India almost impossible.him. 1980 (1) S. 213 (M. they cannot be held to be private communications to the Company Judge in order to decide the case. Chandra Kant Saraf.59. Vide “Tarafatullah Mandal Vs. In the garb of a transfer application. 925. interfered or tendered to interfere with the due course of justice. Vide “S. A.L.” It depends upon facts and circumstances in a case whether the allegations contained in transfer application amount or do not amount to contempt of Court.N. Vide “Major R.C.

“Hastings Mill Limited Vs. In re: AIR 1956 Mad. 528 (Imp. 1250 : (1997) 3 SCC 443. 2199 at P. “AIR 2000 Cal. 7. while holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Vide “Tyabbhai M. Hira Singh 1978 Cri L. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. 68” “A. 2964 (Mad.J. 335” (A person is not desirous of complying with the order amounts to contempt of civil court).J. “A.R.C. the Court should.I. Collector of Kamarajar. AIR 1954 SC 340 & 1985 Cri. 3. It is seen that Ahlawat. Indeed. take a case where a party has been dispossessed from the suit property by appointing a receiver or otherwise in such a case. AIR 1996 SC 302 at p. with his connivance.) (An act of misleading the court by deliberate suppression of fact or by the presentation of falsehood is as much abuse of the courts process as the act of bringing frivolous and vexatious and oppressive proceedings ) 4. must put back the party in the position he was on the date of suit. Ltd. Vasudevan. A. “T. Dhananjaya Vs.) 113. Dharamarajan Vs. For example. 257 (FB) .J. 560 (Cal. these orders have to be obeyed and their violation can be punished even after the question of jurisdiction is decided against the plaintiff provided the violation is committed before the decision of the Court on the question of jurisdiction. “Criminal contempt” defined in Sec.Whether he committed contempt in the proceedings of Supreme Court ? Section 2(b) defines. 359” (It is well settled that an order without jurisdiction is a nullity which can be ignored with impunity ) 97. in certain situations. it would be its duty to modify such orders or make appropriate directions. 1994 Cri LJ 2960 at p. Socha Gowder. CONTEMPT OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS BY MAKING FALSE AND FABRICATED STATEMENT In the instant case. 6. 2. Deliberately making effort to disobey the orders of the court amounts to contempt 1. 2200” “(1980) 3 SCC 311” (Most important) “(1983) 1 Cri L. 5. 1997 S.jurisdiction to try the suit. 1240 at p. L.S. But this power or obligation has nothing to do with the proposition that while in force. respondent No.R. Bagasarwalla Vs. Instances of civil contempt 1. 304 & 305” 98. “1982 Cri. 2(c ) means interference with the administration of justice in any other manner. J.J. L. 3.” 93. “Contempt of Court” to mean any civil or criminal contempt. the question was. caused .) “AIR 1942 Bom. Attempt to exploit the courts order by illegal means amounts to contempt 1. A false or a misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. to the main writ petition and incharge of the criminal administration.

In a deliberate and calculated manner. 75 (S. If an apprehension is created in the public mind about the integrity.R. according to Court in the circumstances. A full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Advocate General Vs. only with an oblique motive to bring the administration of justice into disrespect. Bank Ltd Vs.P. 1996 S. whether of a superior Court or a subordinate Court.P. 1996 (1)Crimes 58 at p. after discussing the contents of the affidavit. He scandalised the authority of the Court and tried to bring it down by his false accusations.” 117. himself had fairly conceded to the need of transfer of the investigation to the Economic offences wing. that they were not in wrongful detention nor are they taken into custody which was later found to be false.C. he is required to make truthful statements before the Court. mischievous and scurrilous allegation amounts to criminal contempt There are no good reasons to infer that the respondent was interested in the purity of administration of justice and. e tried to gain an unfair advantage by insisting that the cheque should be given in his name without filing the affidavit of the decree-holder. Thus the investigating officer by his conduct and statements tried to interfere with the administration of justice in as much as that he tried to get the petition dismissed by making false statements on oath and to the prejudice of the petitioner when the facts clearly warranted the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. His attempts to justify his conduct and his offer to tender unconditional apology do not go together.L. his attitude appears to be to terrorise judicial officers and show his prominence to everybody with a view to gain unfair advantage as a legal practitioner. Court does not find any bona fides in his expression of regrets.L. He first used fabricated counter-affidavit. Vide “Afjal Vs. He made an averment in the counter-affidavit dated 30t October. 397. but he made obviously false statements. Not satisfied with that. Being a responsible officer. He submitted an advocate copy of his affidavit to the Bar Association and the bar Association. 2005 Cr. In spite of it. He has no regard for truth from stage to stage. vide “The Kapol Co-op. forget by Krishan Kumar in the proceeding to obtain a favourable order.J. he tried to denigrate the two judicial officers. 2326 : (1996) 7 S.C. by taking shelter of section 13 of the said Act.I. amounts to scandalizing the Court itself.J. therefore. ability or fairness of a judge. 769. Affidavit containing false. 774. He was aware of the clear legal position but he tried to bamboozle and over-awe the judicial officer in the open court by threatening to show his power. His plea in the counter-affidavit that he was interested in the purity of administration of justice is only a camouflage to gain sympathy of the Court.” The investigating officer by the false statements on oath had clearly tried to misland the Court with the intention to get the petition dismissed and at no point of time till the disposal of the petition expressed willingness to withdraw from pursuing with his objection for transfer of the investigation even after the A. State of Maharashtra. he further committed contempt of the judicial process. One of the advocates who written statement present in the Court gave an affidavit describing in verbatim the scurrilous attacks made by the respondent against the officer in the open court. came to the conclusions that all of them were false and the respondent was requested not to submit the same to the High Court. vide 1990 (3) A. he committed contempt of the Court by making false statements. it is a Contempt of Court. 765 at pp. the respondent had chosen to submit to the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court. observed : “Any attack on the competence and integrity of a Judge. He has no regard for decency and decorum. When the act complained of substantially interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of justice which is a facet of the broad concept of the administration of justice. Thereby.the Subordinate Judge and the District Munsif. he made a written complaint against the District Munsif making a false allegations to what happened in connection with the passing of orders o the cheque petition.two minor boys wrongful detention. then the contemner is not entitled to evade the peal consequences of such act. he fabricated further false evidence and sought to use an affidavit evidence to show that Krishan Kumar had forget his signature without his knowledge and filed the fabricated document.) 1996 Cr. But when he perceived adverse atmosphere to him.C. Affirmatively it need not be proved that there is an interference with the administration of . 1679 : A. Thereby. State of Haryana. Being a senior Advocate of 32 years standing at the Bar. 531 after reviewing the case law on contempt of court.L.C. his affidavit containing false.T. He thus gave wide publicity to what he intended to do and this was done. he committed criminal contempt of judicial proceeding of Supreme Court. he made complaints believing them honestly to be true to the High Court against the officers. mischievous and scurrilous allegations against the Subordinate Judge. Rachapudi Subba Rao. 1993.

507” 176. Vide “Harbhajan Kaur Vs. 1996 (1) SCC 589 at p. 1376” (Important for Mr. 2174 at pp. 221. The conduct of the petitioners prima facie amounts to gross contempt of Court.” 138. Vs. are directed to appear inn Court on 11th February. AIR 1995 (P&H) 216 at pp. 2178. vide “Advocate General. State of Haryana. National Council for the Church & Social action.justice. 3821 (All. “State of A. India. State of Rajasthan 1995 Cri L. Filing of forged and fabricated documents with the help of others amounts to gross contempt of court 1. 506. (Petitioner) Ltd. The counsel undertook to produce the petitioners in the Court. 220. Reprehensible conduct and indifference to implement the order of Supreme Court calls for strong condemnation and the contemner is unworthy to hold ay office of responsibility 1. Punjab and Haryana High Court was influenced by the suppressio veri and suggestion falsi. Pvt. “Phool Singh Vs. Surjit Singh Arora. Any conduct intended to interfere with the administration of justice amounts to a criminal contempt 1. AIR 1994 SC 4994 : (1995) SCC 421” (Available) “Dhananjay Sharma Vs. 2. Ltd. 592. 1996 Cri LJ 3818 at p. “Chandra Shashi Vs. see also Rita Markandey Vs. 1995 (1) Crimes 86 at pp. as and when desired. 2. through their counsel. Khanna C/o Mr.) 157. so that the show cause notices be served upon them. The petitioners. 2860 (A. INDIFFERENT AND NEGLIGENT ATTITUDE OF THE OFFICIALS TO ANY ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AMOUNTS TO CIVIL CONTEMPT 1. “Abhijit Tea Co. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution Guarantees freedom of speech and expression but makes an exception in respect of contempt of court . 2859. AIR 1997 S. B. Ramakrishna Reddy.J. 2177. An individual occupying a judicial officer cannot be treated apart from his office in respect of the work he does in the court. 2(c )(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act. State of Punjab.P.P.” The conduct of the respondent falls clearly within the ambit of the definition of criminal contempt under sec. Judicial order passed in bonafide belief cannot be treated as contempt but an error of judgment 1. “Yaqub Ali Vs. 593” 156. in re: (2001) 5 SCC 501 at p.)” “Vineet Kumar Singh. Terai Tea Co. Let show cause notice to issue to them.P. S. 90-91 (A. 1994.C. Mehta Advocate) 154. Andhra Pradesh Vs.)” 118. Anil Kumar. Tulai Ram Gangwar. Vs.L. CONCEALING OF FACTS AND FALSE REPRESENTATION AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT The petitioners obtained favourable orders in the writ petitions by concealing the material facts and making false representation. 1996 Cri LJ 2857 at p. AIR 1995 SC 1795” (Available) 141.

which means a willful disregard of the orders of Court and. As Judicial Officer. From 11th July. The adjournments granted by the respondent in the I.D.864. State of Haryana AIR 1996 SC 2326” (Available) 188. In view of this. till the boycott was lifted on 5th September. in any manner. Krishna Rao (D. Sankran Namboodripad Vs. “I offer unconditional apology for any act I may have done inadvertently and pray this Hon’ble Court to exonerate me in the interest of justice in view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in my earlier affidavit…. “Afzal Vs. therefore. 2. Khanna C/o Mr. The plaintiff’s advocate never attended the respondent’s court. The dilatory and leisurely manner in which he dealt with the matter discloses a certain casualness and unconcerned approach to the directions of this Court.A. which were all before him and disposed of the matter keeping in view the provisions of Rule 3A of order XXXIX of the Code. when an act or omission complained of is committed by a Judicial Officer and it involves violation of an order of a superior court it can amount to criminal contempt of superior court depending on the nature and magnitude f the violation and the manner of violation establishing willfulness. he offered apology in the following terms.”.B. Narayanan Nambiar. “In re : . 848 at pp. 189. Vide “G. hinder or hamper the even flow of justice. He sought the dismissal of the contempt case with costs. UNCONCERNED APPROACHED OF THE TRIAL JUDGE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF SUPREME COURT MEANS A WILLFUL DISREGARD AND CONSTITUTES CRIMINAL CONTEMPT Where disobedience or on-compliance of an order of a superior court is not by a party to a proceeding but by a subordinate court or tribunal. Mehta Advocate ) 184.).A. Thus. “E. in re : AIR 2002 SC 1375” 178. the plaintiff’s advocate being the President of the local Bar Association. 855. “AIR 2001 P & H 49” .Ajay Kumar Pandey AIR 1997 SC 260 at Page 272” (Important for Mr.L. T. Contemner the advocate questioning the conduct of the judges of Supreme Court demanding apology and compensation from them. the respondent did not tender any apology in his counter affidavit.L. the respondent should realize that his first duty is to the institution of Justice and that he should not. their Lordships close the contempt proceedings recording that the conduct of the respondent. 863. different considerations may arise.6 months’ imprisonment 1. 1995.P. merits admonition and a warning to be careful in future. B. Raja Kumari Vs. A FALSE OR A MISLEADING OR A WRONG STATEMENT DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY MADE BY USING FABRICATED COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO OBTAIN FAVOURABLE ORDER AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT 1. B. if the respondent was inclined to diligently follow the directions of A. absent good faith. Their Lordships had to consider the matter by not looking at each adjournment granted but on an overall view of the manner in which the respondent proceeded with the matter and adjudge his attitude. constitutes contempt of court. 1995 onwards he had clearly disclosed that he was willfully and intentionally accommodating the plaintiff. High Court he ought have gone through the papers himself.1. 1996 (3) A.M. Overruled case law cited –Not amount to contempt 1. He shall heed this. In the present case. He did not even mention that he disposed of the I. In his additional-affidavit. Under these circumstances. (1970) 2 SCC 325” “Arundhati Roy. who was not able to bring his advocate to the Court in view of the advocates boycott. on 3rd November 1995.

Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts pertaining to Civil Contempt .C-3.

.

.

.

Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts pertaining to Criminal Contempt as defined in sub-clause (i) of Clause (C ) of Section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act (Scandalises or tends to scandalise. .C-4. or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court).

.

.

Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts pertaining to Criminal Contempt as defined in sub-clause (ii) of clause (C ) of section 2 of Contempt of Court Act (Prejudices. or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings) .C-5.

.

.

C. Registrar. M/s Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad And Others.(Contempt for non-compliance with Court’s orders) (Available) Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case.) (Available) :14.1967)(referred by Sh. Delhi vs. K. AIR 1990 S. 584” (4. 9. 1881” (6. B.1992) :. Vinod Gaur) (Not available) 7.R.) Roshan Sam Joyee vs.10.1994) (Available) 15. “Pritam Pal v.4. 1993 (2) SCC 533” (4. Detail of judgments pertaining to Criminal Contempt as defined in sub clause (iii) of Clause ( C ) of Section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act (Interferes or tends to interfere with .1994) (M. 12. Kaushik 46 (1992) DLT 35” (Referred by Sh. 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 85” (24. (2) SCC 130 : 1994 (4) Scale 1088” (23.1. Russel Estate Corporation and Another. the Administration of justice in any manner ) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. “In the Matter of Nanak Chand Theog. 1994 (1) Scale 71” (19. Tis Hazari Court.) 5.C-6. Bhattacharjee (Retd.) And Another Vs. Sundaram & Ors.A. Vinod Gaur.S. Anand v. “Delhi judicial service association. “Major Genl. (4) SCC 465 (21. “Prof. Delhi High Court.1994) (Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. “National Textile Corporation Vs. S.9. (Available) 4.1992) (Available) Note: The above referred judgment has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “R.C. JT 1994(6) S. Shradha Kumari Vs. Sethi. Anil Kumar Verma.1995) (Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. “Chandra Shashi Vs.Imp. “Dr.D.1993) (Available) Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case..1990) (Available) (M. Irrelevant) (Available) 2 “The Advocate General. Sundram Ors. 161 (2009) DLT 130” (SC) 8. V.11. B.11. Cotton Mills Ltd. “Modern Food Industries (I) Ltd & Another Vs.11.K.N. 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 529” (19.M.1991) (Available) 6. .9. AIR 1968 Delhi 248” (FB) (24. Prasannan. High Court of Madhya Pradesh. State of Gujarat and other. Delhi High Court and Other High Courts 1. Arvind Shukla. Mohammed Ali Vs.C. 1994 (1) Scale 344” (Contempt for noncompliance with Court’s orders) (Not available) 10. “ Court on its own motion v. “Ram Autar Shukla v.2.1988). “National Textile Corporation v. “K. or obstruct or tends to obstruct. Sachidanand Dass & Another. 1995 Supp. (1995) 1 SCC 421 : 1995 RLR 1 (SC) : 1994 AIR SCW 4994” (14. (Mrs. And others. AIR 1989 Himachal Pradesh 46” (19.1994) (Available):13. 11. State of Bihar v. AIR 1980 SC 946” (Available) 3. “Court of its own Motion v.8.I. 1995 Supp.1.2. AIR 1991 SC 2176” (11.

“In Re: Sanjiv Dutta.) (Both Available):23. AIR 1997 SC 2174 : 1996(2) RCR 472” (27. Allibhoy and Another.16. (1995) 3 SCC 619 : JT 1995 (3) SC 538” (Both Available) (19. AIR 1997 SC 113” (11.1996) (M. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1795” (2. Surjit Singh Arora. Delhi High Court.2. “J.1997) (Available but not attached herewith) :24.) (Available):18. (1996) 4 SCC 411” (10.1999) (Available):- . 30. “Delhi Development Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others.1999) (Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 2000 RLR (N. AIR 1999 SC 1042 “ (4.9.12.2.1996) (Available):(Contempt of Court and IPC) 19.2. 31.8.4. Hailakandi Bar Association vs. 71 (1998) DLT 1: “1998 1 AD (Delhi) 927” : “1998 (44) DRJ 109” (DB) (12.1995) Note: The above referred judgment has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “R.1995) (M.1999)” (Available):28. and Session Judge. Chandrakant Ganpat & Others.4.S. State of Haryana and others. 161 (2009) DLT 130” (SC) 17.1999) (Not Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. State of Assam and another. Sophy Kelly and another Vs. AIR 1999 SC 880” (2. “Rita Markandey Vs. “Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Anand v.9. Kapil Deo Prasad Sah And Others Vs. 22. Mathews and anr.1996) (Available) 20. The Secretary. “Suo Motu Contempt. 27. Satish Khosla v. in Re : Nand Lal Balwani.. “Afzal and another Vs.4. Distt.2. “State of Maharashtra Vs. Parihar Vs.K. V. AIR 1996 SC 1925 (9.1. State of Haryana and others. “Ms. M/S Ladies Corner & Another.C. Registrar. AIR 1999 SC 1300 (26. 26. AIR 1999 SC 3345” (15. Ranjan Chattarjee And Another.I.I. Ganpat Duggar and others. AIR 1996 SC 2326” (17.1996) (Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. State of Bihar.5. AIR 1999 SC 2140” (3. ) 19” (Not Available) 29.10. Villasa Vs.S. AIR 1999 SC 3215” (25.5. M/s Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd.C. S. (1999) 6 SCC 18” (5. Skipper Construction And Another. “T.1996) (Fining false proceeding in the court) (Available) 21. Mahboob S.1999):- Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. “Dhananjay Sharma Vs.1999) (Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case.1999) (Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. “K. “Indian Airports Employees Union Vs. and another. 25.

47. 92 (2001) DLT 665” (F. 40. Kanwaljit S. “Padmahasini alias Padmapriya Vs. (2001) 7 SCC 549” (10.2003) (Available) 44. AIR 2003 SC 3039” (19.11.B. Ali and Anr.7. High Court of Karnataka v.1. Bombay. Union of India And Others. 33. 39. K.2000)(Referred by Sh. Vs. “In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh. “Rajeev Malhotra Vs..2. “Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & anr.A. 493” (30.. AIR 2000 SC 68” (16. Mittal etc.J. “Pravin C.3.C. 32. Tyagi. 138 (2007) DLT 682 : 2007 Cri L.2000) (Available):34. Smt.R.8. Not relevant) (Available) 35. AIR 2006 SC 1367” (8. 2000 RLR 124 (SC)” (25. C.4.2001) (Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case.2007) (Available) 49. Swaran Singh Banda.2002) (Available) 43. R. 2001 RLR 144 :89 (2001) DLT 572” (DB) (Delhi) : (16. AIR 2001 SC 2018” (3.2. “Om Prakash Jaiswal vs.2. “Murray & Co.5.K. 84 (2000) DLT 264 (DB)” (4. “Surya Prakash Khatri & Anr. Ramaraj Vs. 159 (2009) DLT 362” (DB) (17.8.2003) (A Three Judge Bench) 45.2001) (Both Available):42. 2002 (62) DRJ 346 (DB)” (Delhi) (13. 36.2001) (Both Available):37.10. Singhal Vs.1. Madhu Trehan & Ors. Harish Pimpalkhute and another. Matter of statement made by Shri Raman Duggal. Vs.2004) (Available) 46.S. “S. Sheikh and another vs State of Gujarat and others. “Sudhir Chona vs. Advocate. Special Court. “Zahira Habibullah H. 2004 Cri L. Vs.1999) ( Available) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case.2001) (Available) 41. Shah vs. Srinivas.B.J. AIR 2005 SC 396” (29.2. AIR 2004 SC 3114” (12. 2000 RLR 308 (SC)” (22. Shahnaz Husain.Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. “Bal Thackrey vs. “Court on its own Motion v.2004) (Available) Note: This judgment explain the procedure to be followed for registering a criminal contempt petition. “Court on its own motion Vs. Custodian and others. Ashok Kumar Newatia.2001) (Available) (For filing false proceedings in court) 38.2009) (Available) . State of Gujarat & ors. 2002 (63) DRJ 243 (DB)” (Available) “Pallav Sheth vs. D.2000) (Not Available):Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. “Advocate General. 2339” (9. Mohd. Chidambara and another.11. Vinod Gaur.3.2006) (Available) 48. Sareen & ors. “P.R.) (28.5. AIR 2001 SC 3041 and VII (2001) SLT 153” (9. “Court on its own Motion v.

2009) (Available) 55.11. 164 (2009) DLT 473 (9. v. Rajiv Dawar. “Court On Its Own Motion vs. “In the matter of Contempt Proceedings against Kanwar Singh Saini. 161 (2009) DLT 466” (DB) (20. Delhi High Court.50. 165 (2009) DLT 520 (DB)” (6. 8.10.143. 151 (2008) DLT 695 (DB)” (Delhi) (21. “COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. 56.S. R. 1 (2009) SLT 261” (20.2008) (Paras 2. 51. Case wherein Mr. Anand were Public Prosecutor and Defence Counsel respectively) 52. C.20. Khan and Mr. STATE & ORS.K.125.W.C.2009) “ST.78.U. 161 (2009) DLT 130” (SC) (Available) 54. 2007 (1) AD (Delhi) 567” (Delhi) (Not available) Note: Relevant extract of this judgments pertaining to Contempt of Court has been quoted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its following judgment. LTD.206 & 207) (Available) (This judgment is in respect of B. “R.M. I.E.155.K. Ives Laboratories Inc. Lotus Herbals UK Ltd . “Court on its own motion against Ajay Yadav. Registrar.2009) .11.7. Vs.11. Anand v.2008) (Available) 53.10. “Three Cheers Entertainment (P) LTD & ors.127.169.8.

Reversed. Vinod Gaur) (Not relevant) 2.1974 (Pat).4. because.24.S. State of Bihar v. the Administration of justice in any manner ) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Original Cri. WHILE THOSE WHO DEFY IT GO FREE. Rule 16 or in some other manner. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and. not in order to protect the dignity of the Curt against insult or injury as the expression “Contempt of Court” may seem to suggest. Delhi High Court and Other High Courts 1. to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented. an abiding and a real interest. unless justice is so administered. “It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law. A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH ABUSES AND MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. Sethi. in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage”. Section 2 (c ) – ‘Criminal contempt’ – What amounts to – Proceedings for contempt – Duty of Court. by striking out pleadings under the provisions of Order 6. AND THOSE WHO SEEK ITS PROTECTION LOSE HOPE. D/. It may be that certain minor abuses of the process of the Court may be suitably dealt with between the parties. or obstruct or tends to obstruct. THE CONDUCT OF CONTEMNERS WAS SO REPREHENSIBLE AS TO WARRANT CONDEMNATION BY IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE – Supreme Court sentenced – each of the contemners to pay a fine of Rs. AIR 1968 Delhi 248 (referred by Sh. AIR 1980 SC 946” (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred AIR:- “Contempt of Courts Act (1971). Relevant extracts of the above referred judgments pertaining to Criminal Contempt as defined in sub clause (iii) of Clause ( C ) of Section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act (Interferes or tends to interfere with . No. but. 7 of 1973. Court on its own motion v. “The Advocate General.C-7. on the other hand. so it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court. Every abuse of the process of the Court may not necessarily amount to Contempt of Court . IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO PUNISH AS CONTEMPT. Misc. (ii) Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR:- “Contempt of Courts Act (1971). there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. Section 12 – Punishment for contempt of court – Apology – Contemners expressed unconditional apology to High Court – HELD. prejudiced. The public have an interest. 500/- . But. or interfered with. K. M/s Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another. and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice. ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT CALCULATED TO HAMPER THE DUE COURSE OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING OR THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT. THE LAW SHOULD NOT BE SEEN TO SIT BY LIMPLY.

(70 of 1971). except in cases covered by S. (i) “In the matter of Nanak Chand Theog. R. Thus where the tenant. 39. S. 2-A reads as under :“Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. 228 of IPC reads as under :“Whoever intentionally offers any insult.” 4. “Dr. (1908).---.C. it may be mentioned that under the Contempt of Courts Act.1990) (i) Head Note of the above referred AIR:“Contempt of Court Act. shall be punished in the simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine. R. THEREFORE. who had filed a writ petition against the eviction decree passed against it.) Roshan Sam Joyee vs.C.” (ii) Relevant extract of para 10 of the above referred judgment :“------At the very outset. stand on a different putting and they are required to be dealt with in accordance with law WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF THE HIGH COURT. AIR 1990 SC 1881” (6. 2-A. And other. 228. R. Art. Constitution of India.C. 228 Civil P. even if the contempt is found to have been committed by any person or authority. Civil P. –Disconnection of office telephone of subordinate court for nonpayment of bills-Initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against Junior Engineer. cases by S. 2A of the Civil P.1988)” Head Note (A) of the above referred AIR :“Contempt of Courts Act (1971).” Note (1) : S. on the petition being dismissed prayed for grant of time to vacate the premises and the time was granted subject to its filing a written undertaking that it would not part with the possession of the suit premises or create third . 39. (Mrs. The party giving undertaking to Court BASED ON IMPLICATIONS OR ASSUMPTIONS WHICH ARE FALSE TO ITS KNOWLEDGE IS GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AMOUNTING TO CONTEMPT. 39. while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. a subordinate court has no jurisdiction. 10 of the Act. O. Telephone by subordinate Court –Illegal and without jurisdiction-Proper course is to take up matter on administrative side with higher Telephone authorities with intimation to Registry of High Court. a Company.4. THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED IN SUCH A CASE BY A SUBORDINATE COURT. or causes any interruption to any public servant.Contempt – Giving undertaking to Court based on assumptions which undertaker knows are false. power and authority to punish for the contempt of itself. S. 2-A.3. IS TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE HIGH COURT. 39 R. 228 of the IPC or O. SR Cotton Mills Ltd.” Note (2) : O. The power to punish for the contempt of the subordinate courts is vested in the High Court under S. Penal Code (1860). AIR 1989 Himachal Pradesh 46 (19. Of course. Penal Code and O.8. S. 10-Contempt of subordinate Courts-POWER TO PUNISH VESTS IN HIGH COURT ALONE. 2. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 142.

“Delhi Judicial Service Association. Art. the tenant was guilty of misconduct amounting to contempt. involved in arrest.. Tis Hazari Court. Section 15 (2) does not restrict the power of the High Court to take cognizance of the contempt of itself or of a Subordinate Court on its own motion although apparently. 20 (3). Delhi vs.party interests in the suit premises and the tenant Company ALTHOUGH KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPANY WAS ALREADY A LAWFUL SUB-TENANT OF THE SUIT PREMISES.Mere issue of notice of contempt and asking them to file their version before commissioner appointed by court – Not Violative of Art. Criminal P. State of Gujarat and other. Article 20 (3) – Double jeopardy – Contempt proceeding against police officials. there has been no violation of Art.C. the section does not say so. the condemners. 20 (3) of the constitution and commission’s findings are not vitiated…. 300 Double jeopardy – Contempt proceedings against police officials Contempt proceeding is sui generis. and thus mislead the Court. --------. 129 – not restrictive but extensive in nature. wrongful detention of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and against whom criminal cases were also registered do not stand in the position of a “person accused of an offence” Merely on account of issue of notice of contempt by the Supreme Court……. AIR 1991 SC 2176 (11. (iii) Relevant extract of Head Note (F) of the above referred AIR:“Constitution of India Art.In this view.1991) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (C) of the above referred AIR:“Constitution of India. ( 2 of 1974).they are not “persons accused of an offence” . 129. . police officials. SECTION 15 PRESCRIBES MODES FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT BY THE HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT. In this view.9. Section 15. assault.Criminal proceedings already pending against them. on the other hand. 1979 curtailing the Supreme Court’s Power with regard to contempt of Subordinate Courts. gave the requisite undertaking which clearly implied that the Company was in possession of the suit premises and in a position to hand over possession of the suit premises after the time granted to vacate the premises expired. --------. S. 129 – Scope – Contempt of Subordinate Court – expression “including the power to punish for contempt of itself” in Art.” (ii) Relevant extract of Head Note (E) of the above referred AIR:“Constitution of India. it has peculiar features which are not found in criminal proceedings. 5.Contempt of Subordinate Courts – Powers of Supreme Court – CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 DOES NOT IMPINGE (ENCROACH) UPON POWERS OF SUPREME COURT WITH REGARD TO CONTEMPT OF SUBORDINATE COURTS UNDER ART. 129—Scope. expressly refers to the Supreme Court’s power for taking action for contempt of Subordinate Courts. There is no provision is Contempt of Courts Act.

--------Ordinarily. the Supreme Court took Cognizance of the matter. IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD PROTECT THEM. 215. -------There may be occasions when attack on Judges and Magistrates of Subordinate Courts may have vide repercussions throughout the country. 134. it may not be possible for a High Court to contain the same. it was observed that the Supreme Court will sparingly exercise its inherent power in taking cognizance of the contempt of Subordinate Courts. 129 recognized the existing inherent power of a Court of record in its full plentitude including the power to punish for the contempt of inferior courts. The expression used in Art. 36.----------THE SUBORDINATE COURTS ADMINISTER JUSTICE AT THE GRASS ROOT LEVEL THEIR PROTECTION IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE OF PEOPLE IN THE EFFICACY OF COURTS AND TO ENSURE UNSULLIED FLOW OF JUSTICE AT ITS BASE LEVEL. in that situation. and the administration of justice was paralysed.Interpretation of statutes – Expression “including”.Contempt of Subordinate Court – SUPREME COURT POSSESSES SIMILAR INHERENT POWER AS THAT OF HIGH COURT UNDER ART. 129 is not restrictive. However. HIGH COURTS HAVE POWER TO PERSIST FOR THE CONTEMPT OF SUBORDINATE COURT BUT THAT DOES NOT AFFECT OR ABRIDGE THE INHERENT POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 129.---------. but in exceptional cases.” . 32. --------. extraordinary situation may prevail affecting the administration of public justice or where the entire judiciary is affected.” (iv) Relevant extract of Head Note (H) of the above referred AIR:“Constitution of India. as ordinarily matters relating to contempt of Subordinate Court must be dealt with by the High Courts. it has a corresponding duty to protect and safeguard the interest of inferior courts to ensure the flow of the stream of justice in the courts without any interference or attack from any quarter. the High Court would protect the Subordinate Court from any onslaught on their independence. instead it is extensive in nature. as a result of which the administration of justice in the country may be paralaysed. THEREFORE. Articles. the Apex Court must intervene to ensure smooth functioning of Courts. assault and handcuffing of the Chief Judicial Magistrate by police created a situation where functioning of the Subordinate Courts all over the country was adversely affected.Art. THE SUBORDINATE AND INFERIOR COURTS DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE POWER UNDER THE LAW TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. 129. Article 129 declares the Supreme Court a Court of record and it further provides that the Supreme Court shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The instant case is of exceptional nature. in that situation. Since the Supreme Court has power of judicial superintendence and control over all the Courts and Tribunals functioning in the entire territory of the country. the Supreme Court may directly take cognizance of contempt of subordinate Courts. as the incident of arrest. 215 ----------.NO DOUBT. therefore.

The Inspector S. Inspector of Police.On 25th September.The Delhi Judicial Service Association. Singh.L.-----------. Nadiad and tied him with a thick rope like an animal and made a public exhibition of it by sending him in the same condition to the Hospital for medical examination on an alleged charge of having consumed liquor in breach of the prohibition law enforced in the State of Gujarat.----------“ (vii) Relevant extract of para 3 of the above referred judgment:“In petition No. 6 of 1989 filed by the president.10. senior Punshi Judge of the Allahabad High Court (as he then was) to inquire into the incident and to submit report to the court (ix) Relevant extract of para 14 of the above referred judgment:- “Mr. J. R. Sharma got the Chief Judicial Magistrate photographed in handcuffs with rope tied around his body along with the constables which were published in the newspapers all over the country. 518 of 1989 alongwith contempt petition No.:.M. District Kheda in the State of Gujarat. Chief Judicial Magistrate. This Court’s jurisdiction under Art 129 is confined to the contempt of itself only and it has no jurisdiction to indict a person for contempt of an inferior court subordinate to the High Court. a horrendous incident took place in the town of Nadiad.--------“ . Nadiad.-----------“ (viii) Relevant extract of para 6 of the above referred judgment:- “Since.9. which exhibited the berserk behavior of police undermining the dignity and independence of judiciary. the Court appointed Justice R.S. the All India Judges Association. Patel. This led to tremors in the Bench and the Bar throughout the whole country. On 29. Sharma. Bar Counsel of Uttar Pradesh. all India Judges Association. Sorabji Learned Attorney General (as he then was) urged that power to punish contempt is a special jurisction which is inherent in a Court of record. notices for contempt were issued by this court on 4. A superior Court of Record has inherent power to punish for contempt of itself and it necessarily includes and arres with it the power to punish for contempt committed in respect of subordinate or inferior Court.----------Shri Soli J. this court took cognizance of the matter by issuing notices to the State of Gujarat and other police officers.(v) Para 1 of the above referred judgment:“K. arrested. 1989. there was serious dispute between the parties with regard to the entire incident. assaulted and handcuffed N. S.1989. Nariman contended that this court has no jurisdiction or power to indict the Police Officers even if they are found to be guilty as their conduct does not amount to contempt of THIS COURT. F. (vi) Relevant extract of para 2 of the above referred judgment:“This incident undermined the dignity of Courts in the Country.1989 to seven police officials. Sahai. 32 of the Constitution of India for saving the dignity and honour of the judiciary. Judicial Service of Gujarat any many others approached the Apex Court by means of telegrams and petitions under Art. with 25 years of service posted at the police Station. He urged that Arts 129 and 215 demarcate the respective areas of jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts respectively.N.R.

10 which relates to the power of High Court to punish for contempt of Subordinate Courts. ---------. but we find no provision therein curtailing the Supreme Court. S. and in relation to a Union territory. in relation to a Union Territory. 15 on the other hand expressly refers to this Court’s power for taking action for contempt of subordinate courts. on a motion made by any officer as may be specified by the Government. or (b) any other person. 14. (3) x x x x (1) In the case of a criminal contempt other than a contempt referred to in S. THE HIGH COURT MAY TAKE ACTION ON A REFERENCE MADE TO IT BY THE SUBORDINATE COURT or on a motion made by the Advocate –General.. the Supreme Court or the High Court may (xi) Relevant extract of para 27 of the above referred judgment:“Under sub-sec. extraordinary situation may prevail affecting the administration of public justice or where the entire judiciary is affected. 15 of the Act reads as under :“15. by notification in the official Gazette. the Supreme Court may directly take cognizance of contempt of subordinate Courts. specific in this behalf or any other person with consent in writing of such of law Officer.S. the High Court would protect the Subordinate Court from any onslaught on their independence. but in exceptional cases. with the consent in writing of the Advocate General (or) (c) in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi. We would like strike a note caution that this court will spraining (xiii) Relevant extract of para 40 of the above referred judgment”- .(x) Relevant extract of para 26 of the above referred judgment:“---------The Contempt of Courts Act.SUB-SECTION (2) PROVIDES THAT IN CASE OF ANY CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF SUBORDINATE COURT. (2) In the case of any criminal contempt of Subordinate Court. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases take action on its own motion or a motion made by:(a) the Advocate General. (xii) Relevant extract of para 37 of the above referred judgment:“-----------Ordinarily. such law Officer as the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette. -----we have scanned the provisions of the 1971 Act. -------. the High Court may take action ON A REFERENCE MADE TO IT BY THE SUBORDINATE COURT or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or. specify in this behalf. 1971 was enacted to define and limit the powers of Courts in punishing contempts of Courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto.’s power with regard to contempt to subordinate courts. ---------. by Such Officer as the Central Government may.--------.S. (1) the Supreme Court and High Court both have power to take cognizance of criminal contempt and it provides three modes for taking cognizance.

Patel and at present criminal cases are pending in the court of Chief judicial Magistrate Nadiad.H. The police over powered and arrested him and a panchnama was prepared and he was taken to the Hospital for medical examination and the report of Medical examination indicates that he had consumed liquor. he entered the chamber of police inspector Sharma at the police station and assaulted him. R. CJM. Patel. -------During the pendency of the contempt proceeding before the court the police continued the investigation and submitted charge sheet in both the cases against N. Sub inspector Nadiad shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of five months and will pay a Rupee 2000/---------.” . the then police inspector Nadiad shall under do simple inprisment for a period of six months and he shall pay fine of Rupees 2000/. These proceeding are short to be quashed.” (xvii) Relevant extract of paras 52-53 of the above referred judgment:“The question arises what punishment should awarded to the contemners found guilty of contempt.” (xv) Relevant extract of para 47 of the above referred judgment:“This takes us to the petition filed by N. K.---------The commission has recorded detailed finding that the object was to wreck vengeance and to humiliate the CJM who had been policing the police by his judicial orders.” (xiv) Relevant extract of para 42 of the above referred judgment”“-------.“In the instant case.------.L. Patel for questing the criminal cases initiated against him on the basis of to first Information Reports made by Police Inspector S. Sharma. Sharma.L. These very facts have been inquired into by the commissioner and found to be false.-----In the circumstance. Patel are liable to be quashed.---------having regard to the facts and circumstance and individual part played by each of the aforesaid contemners we hold them guilty of contempt and award punishment as under:S. arrested handcuffed by Police Inspector Sharma and other police officers. The commission’s as well as our finding clearly demonstrate that the allegations contented in the two FIRs are false. proceedings against N. R.” (xvi) Relevant extract of para 48 of the above referred Judgment:“-----------The gravamen of the charge in the two case registered against N. Patel with a view to humiliate and teach halation as the police was annoyed with his judicial orders.L. Sadia..--------. The police officers were not content with this. Patel is that he had consumed liquor without a pass or permit and under influence of liquor. The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person WHICH WOULD TEND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE or which would lower the authority of Court. We have recorded findings that police inspector Sharma and other police officers manipulated records and manufactured the case against N.L. L. was assaulted. they tied his with thick rope round his arms and body as if NL Patel was a wild animal.

Respondents advocates.D. Kaushik & Ors. for himself & 11 others.1991) (Available) (Referred by Sh Vinod Gaur) (i) Relevant extracts of the Head Note of the above referred DLT :- “Constitution of India. one would not expect even from street hooligans such a conduct. WHO ARE OFFICERS OF THE COURT.Contemners expressed regrets –And the apology bonafide-Whether the act of the contemners tantamounts to an attempt to erode the majesty of the Court ? (Yes). Mital.P. he will be called upon to appear in Court to receive the sentence.Art.. Held that having considered all relevant aspects and authorities.B. Wad. we are of the opinion that in the present case the contemners deserve the punishment of sentence. “Court of its own motion Vs. proceeded for contempt of Court. In case any of them repeats any act which tantamounts to contempt of Court or undermining the judiciary. B. Therefore. 46 (1992) DLT 35” (Full Court) (19. It cannot be imagined that any contempt worse than the present one is possible. C. -------------------- . J Held that what these contemners have done. taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration.6. 215. IT IS COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT THE CONTEMPT IS NOT COMMITTED BY LAY CONTEMNERS BUT BY THE ADVOCATES. But if they maintain orderly.C.Court of Record-Evolve its own procedure. “Per S.Aided and abetted by large number of advocates invaded the High Court and prevented the Judges from discharging their judicial function-Full Bench initiated proceedings. If anything. Held that we must realize that they are members of the noble profession and in their misguided zeal. At the same time we must also keep in mind that simply accepting the apology and discharging the rule may not appear to be warranted in the circumstances of the gross contempt. Simply because they are officers of the Court and right has been given to them to practice in Court do not mean that they have to be dealt with leniency. we do not propose to award the sentence at present and defer it as we would like to further watch their conduct and behaviour for a period of one year from today. ventured upon the defiant course for which they have offered apology. J & three Others. then the rule shall stand discharged on the expiry of the period.12. good and disciplined behaviour and do not indulge themselves in the repetition of such act within the stipulated period. they deserved severe punishment and not mere reprimand or even suspension of sentences.J. including the outrageous incident and unqualified apology. Per D. Wadhwa. The contempt committed by the contemners is gravest. I do not find any extenuating circumstances in the present case for me to take a lenient view. Per G.

K.K.” S. J. admitted to the privilege of representing needy litigant AND BOUND BY HIGH STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS.---.” (v) Relevant extract of para 32 of the above referred judgment :- “Now the question arises whether the apology tendered by the contemnors should be accepted or not. It is necessary to adopt the course with a view to uphold the honour and dignity of the institution. WHO ARE THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. It goes without saying that they are guilty of the grossest possible contempt of this court. faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a large extent. a group of lawyers. If lawyers fail in their duty. --. They must discharge their duties with dignity.B. Sabharwal. ACCORDINGLY.” (iv) Relevant extract of para 22 of the above referred judgment :- “This is not a case of spontaneous emotional outburst of a litigant disappointed by an unfavourable verdict. Bearing in mind the outrageous conduct of the contemners. I am in complete agreement with Wad J. THIS COURT HAS TO PERFORM THE PAINFUL DUTY OF DIRECTING IMPOSITION OF IMPRISONMENT AND FINE ON THE CONTEMNERS. It may be noticed that the apology has not been tendered by any of the . the populist line of showing over indulgence and magnanimity would not subserve the ends of justice but would amount to giving a licence to contemners to repeat such incidents.On the other hand we have here. J. Wad. ----------------------Result-Sentence deferred “Gokal Chand Mital. Held that having regard to the totality of the circumstances. the gross contempt which they committed and the fact that the acts were preconceived. They are expected to abide by the rule of law and not violate by participating in violent acts.) (iii) Relevant extract of para 12 of the above referred judgment :- “Of all the unpleasant duties which the court is required to perform. Kirpal. (for himself and for 11 other Judges) (ii) Relevant extract of para 6 of the above referred judgment :- “------. Bahri & Arun Kumar J. In fact. P. OBSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. decorum and discipline. (For himself and on behalf of B.Per Y. the most painful duty is to proceed against the advocates. they are part and parcel of the Administration of justice -----. It is always easy to show magnanimity and to pursue populist line of showing uncalled for indulgence rather than to adhere to the nail studded path of duty. this Court cannot adopt an attitude of unwarranted leniency at the cost of principle. CJ. the Officers of the Court for contempt of court.--.N. A very civilized behavour and attitude is expected from the members of the Bar.

therefore. THE APOLOGY SHOULD HAVE COME AT FIRST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY. we are of the opinion that in the present case the contemnors deserve the punishment of sentence. Shareef & Anr.ABSTENTION FROM WORK WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CLIENT WOULD AMOUNT TO BREACH OF CONTRACT WITH THE CLIENT. nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea. Where there is deliberate failure to attend the court. (AIR 1979 Delhi 202 at page 216) after reviewing the case law the Full Bench of this Court held that THE APOLOGY MUST COME AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AND IT SHOULD BE IN WRITING. They had no factual defence and. It cannot be imagined that any contempt worse than the present one is possible.---. 1955 (1) SCR 757 at page 764.---. IF THERE WAS GENUINE REPENTANCE. the Supreme Court has warned that IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE IF ITS “With regard to apology in proceedings for contempt of Court.” .” (vii) Relevant extract of para 38 of the above referred judgment :- “---The right to practice and exclusive privilege of audience given by section 29 and section 30 of the ct cannot be unreasonably utilized to the detriment of the society. we are not satisfied that we should accept the apology on the facts of the present case AND PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF EXTREME GRAVITY OF CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY A GROUP OF LAWYERS in a predetermined manner. ---. who are officers of the Court. COMMITTED BY THE CONTEMNORS IS GRAVEST.In AIR 1980 SC 946 (referred to above) the Court has held that WHERE THE CONDUCT IS REPREHENSIBLE. it would be contempt of court because that would amount to interfering with course of justice.. Vs.) (x) Para 43 of the above referred judgment :THE CONTEMPT “Having considered all relevant aspects and authorities. THE APOLOGY SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. GROSS CONTEMPT GOES UNPUNISHED. Vishwanath.Y. but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.” (viii) Relevant extract of para 40 of the above referred judgment :- “In Kuldeep Rastogi Vs. It is compounded by the fact that the contempt is not committed by lay contemnors but by the advocates. it is well settled that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence.” (ix) Para 41 of the above referred judgment :----In AIR 1985 SC 1726.” (M.” (vi) Para 37 of the above referred judgment :- “Even if it is assumed that the apology is sincere.contemnors immediately after notice was served on them.---. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors.

J : (xii) Relevant extract of para 47 of the above referred judgment :- “----Mind you. Here we are dealing with advocates well versed in law who. S/s.K. ---. Jatan Singh and P. we direct that contemnors. Kaushik Rajiv Khosla. ----There was vulgar and disgusting display of hooliganism. the punishment to the contemnors in the present case must be an quintessence for the others so that it creates an awe not only in the mind of contemnors alone but in the mind of other also deter them from committing such an act again. Rathee. they were students. R. The apology which these contemnors tendered is no apology either in law or on the facts of the case.P.” (xiii) Relevant extract of para 48 of the above referred judgment :“----Contempt in this case is serious enough to merit imprisonment and fine.D. They are also officers of the court. I would unhesitatingly reject the apology. Vats. the County Judge : “THE LAW SHOULD NOT BE SEEN TO SIT BY LIMPLY.N. R.J. viz. Sharma. HOPE.S. quotes with approval the following memorable aphorism of his Honour Judge Curtis-Releigh. by fiction of law are officers of the Court.----Lawyers belong to a noble and learned profession. 2000/. WHILE THOSE WHO DEFY IT GO FREE. There cannot be any soft peddling on this issue. They are the vital link between the court and the members of the public. L. I would have even thought of going to the extent of injecting these contemnors from appearing in the High Court and or other Courts and Tribunals throughout the Territory of Delhi over which this court has superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution for a certain period . Wadhwa.In my view. J. B. THIS WAS INDULGED IN BY THE VERY PERSONS WHO THEMSELVES SUPPOSED TO UPHOLD THE MAJESTY OF LAW AND THE COURTS. never heard or seen before. D.each.(xi) Relevant extract of para 45 of the above referred judgment :- “----Since we have held that the apology is not bonafide and not acceptable. Judgal Wadhwa.” (xv) Relevant extract of para 52 of the above referred judgment :AND THOSE WHO SEEK ITS PROTECTION LOSE “Then the question arises : What are the parameters of the punishment to be awarded in such a case ? -----. should undergo simple imprisonment for one month and shall pay a fine of Rs.” (xiv) Para 50 of the above referred judgment :- “In this very judgment Edmund Davies.” Sunanda Bhandare. IF LAWYERS THEMSELVES BRING DOWN THE PRESTIGE AND . (xvi) Relevant extract of para 59 of the above referred judgment :- “Now coming to the question of sentence.

IT WILL IMPAIR THE MAJESTY OF THE COURTS OF LAW IRREPARABLY. AND PUNISH THE SAME AS CONTEMPT OF ITSELF. that THE HIGH COURT WILL TAKE COGNIZANCE OF EVERY CRIMINAL AND COMPLIMENTARY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY ANYONE. Y. the gross contempt which they committed and the fact that the acts were preconceived. If the dignity of the court is not safe in the hands of the lawyers. AT ALL TIMES.---. It reads :“AN ADVOCATE SHALL. RELATED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAW. 1961.” (xviii) Para 69 of the above referred judgment :“Indeed. this court has to perform the painful duty of directing imposing of imprisonment and fine on the . IN ANY FORUM. Here. it may be useful to extract the relevant portion.K.” (xvii) Relevant extract of para 60 of the above referred judgment :“Thus. COMPORT HIMSELF IN A MANNER BEFITTING HIS STATUS AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. Sabharwal. and the same majority of members of the bar.---. in the prevailing conditions to infuse confidence in the minds of the[public. BEARING IN MIND THAT WHAT MAY BE LAWFUL AND MORAL FOR A PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEMBERS OF THE BAR. ----.IMAGE OF THE COURT. it is not save anywhere. SOFT ATTITUDE TOWARDS YOUR OWN COMMUNITY ENCOURAGES INDISCIPLINE AND LEADS TO FURTHER EROSION OF STANDARDS.” Accordingly. J. It is high time. THOSE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM NEITHER DESERVED SYMPATHY NOR COMPASSION. THE POPULIST LINE OF SHOWING OVER INDULGENCE AND MAGNANIMITY WOULD NOT SUB-SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE BUT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING A LICENCE TO CONTEMNERS TO REPEAT SUCH INCIDENTS. what is expected of an advocate is beautifully stated in the preamble to Chapter II laying down standards of professional conduct and etiquette in Part VI of Rules framed by the Bar Council of India in the exercise of its rule making powers under the Advocates Act. A PRIVILEGED MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY.In recent times there has been a sharp fall in ethical standards at all levels. --.” (xix) Relevant extract of para 75 of the above referred judgment :- “----. contemners.---. AND A GENTLEMAN. if anything as lawyers the responsibility on the contemnors was much greater. (xx) Relevant extract of para 84 of the above referred judgment :- “------Bearing in mind outrageous conduct of the contemners. the subordinate judiciary. OR FOR A MEMBERS OF THE BAR IN HIS NONPROFESSIONAL CAPACITY MAY STILL BE IMPROPER FOR AN ADVOCATE.

P.” (iii) Para 42 of the above referred judgment :- “There is an abundance of empirical decisions upon particular instances of conduct which has been held to constitute contempt of Court.Contempt of Courts Act. it is stated : “The law should not be seen to sit by limply. the High Court held that the contemner.” (vi) Para 46 of the above referred judgment :- “In Morris Vs. sentenced the contemner to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. the High Court taking note of the defiant attitude of the contemner who even did not think it necessary to apologize but tried to justify the aspersions. Hence the present appeal. 161 (2009) DLT 130” (SC) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred RCJ :- “Constitution of India. Lord Denning. Those who strike at it strike at the very foundations of our society.” (iv) Para 43 of the above referred judgment :- “Lord Russell of Killowen. 1970 1 All. L. not to guilt.” (ii) Para 11 of the above referred judgment :- “Finally. ex parte A. 1963 (1) Q.C.” In the same case. Registrar.K. M.K. Articles 129 and 215. Delhi High Court. Pritam Lal is guilty of criminal contempt of not only scandalizing the Court and lowering its authority but also substantially interfering with the due course of justice..” (vii) Para 48 of the above referred judgment :- “In Jennison Vs.” . or to lower his authority. 696 after making reference to Reg. Anand v. 73 said.The power of the Supreme Court and the High Court being the Courts of Record as embodied in Articles 129 and 215 respectively cannot be restricted and trammeled by any ordinary legislation including the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and their inherent power is elastic. has laid down the Law of Contempt in 1900 (2) Q. 1079 at page 1081. Coming to the question of sentence. Jabalpur (SC) 1992 (2) RCJ 16” ? : 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 529” referred to by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its above referred judgment reported as “R.J. 1972 (1) All.R. E. High Court of M.B.G.Contempt proceedings-Inherent powers of Supreme Court and High Court. Lord Justice Salmon spoke : The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our courts the power effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented. The Crown Office. We shall now refer to a few. 161 (2009) DLT 130 (SC)” Note: The above referred judgment has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “R. is a Contempt of Court.” (v) Para 45 of the above referred judgment :- “Lord Justice Donovanin Attorney General Vs. unfettered and not subjected to any limit. and those who seek its protection lose hope. Anand Vs. Odham’s Press Ltd. while those who defy it go free. 1957 (1) Q.” This makes it clear that an intention to interfere with the proper administration of justice is an essential ingredient of the offence of contempt of Court and it is enough if the action complained of is inherently likely so to interfere. Vs. Delhi High Court. 36 at 40 as follows :“Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a Judge of the Court into contempt. ER 997 at page 1006.7.B. Mr. said : “The course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with.----.B. Baker.R. Butterworth. “Pritam Pal Vs. Registrar. 1971. “Whether or not there was an intention to interfere with the administration of justice is relevant to penalty.

Bihar Vs. and to keep the streams of justice pure. . The public have an interest. Sanghi Vs.000/-. If timely action is taken by the Bar Councils. not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression “Contempt of Court” may seem to suggest. an abiding and a real interest. High Court of Punjab and Haryana. it becomes the duty of the Court. no doubt. and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice. intimidatory.” (xii) Relevant extract of Para 57 of the above referred judgment :- “-----It is highly painful to note that the appellant/contemnor who is none other than an Advocate practicing in the same highest Court of the state after having failed to wrench a decision in his favour in his own cause which he prosecuted as party in person has escalatingly scandalized the Court by making libelous allegations which are scurrilous.” (xiii) Para 59 of the above referred judgment :- “To punish an Advocate for Contempt of Court. J. he expressed his painful thought as follows : “When a member of the bar is required to be punished for use of contemptuous language it is highly painful.” (xi) Para 56 of the above referred judgment :- “We are in full agreement with the above view. the learned Judge concurred with the conclusion of Agarwal. because. The High Court holding that the remarks made on the learned Sub-Judge are disparaging in character and derogatory to the dignity of the judiciary found the appellant guilty of Section 2 (c ) (i) of the Contempt of Courts Act.---. highly offensive. In that case.but painful duties have to be performed to uphold the honour and dignity of the individual Judge and his office and the prestige of the institution. unless justice is so administered.---. must be regarded as an extreme measure. it is entrusted with the power to commit for Contempt of Court. but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented. 1980 (3) SCC 311 citing those two decisions in the cases of offut and Jennison (supra) stated thus : “…it may be necessary to punish as a contempt. M. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and so. Khair Industries.” (x) Para 55 of the above referred judgment :- “After having made the above observation.P. a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. 1991(3) SCC 600. J speaking for the Bench in Advocate General. dismissing the appeal and while doing so. there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. a practicing advocate having failed to persuade the learned Subordinate Judge to grant an ad-interim injunction pending filing of a counter by the opposite party.(viii) Para 49 of the above referred judgment :- “Chinnappa Reddy. prejudiced.B. Courts are generally slow in using their contempt jurisdiction against erring members of the profession in the hope that the concerned Bar Council will chasten its member for failure to maintain proper ethical norms. vicious. but to preserve the proceedings of the Courts from being deflected or interfered with.it pleases none. malicious and beyond condonable limit.” (ix) Relevant extract of Para 54 of the above referred judgment :- “Reference may be made to recent decision of this Court in M. offered an unqualified apology. The appellant therein though denied to have made the remarks however. made certain derogatory remarks against the learned Judg3e who instead of succumbing to such unprofessional conduct made a record of the derogatory remarks and forwarded the same to the High Court through the District Judge to initiate proceedings for Contempt of Court against the appellant. the decline in the ethical values can be easily arrested. But the High Court without accepting the apology punished the appellant therein with a fine of Rs. 1. obstructed or interfered with. the appellant. serene and undefiled.

10. Bhattacharjee (Retd. “Modern Food Industries (I) Ltd & Another Vs. V.” 8. Sachidanand Dass & Another. having regard to the sentencing policy that punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence.though painful.S. Prasannan. But on the other hand. 25) (14. 1994 (1) Scale 344” (Contempt for non-compliance with Court’s orders) 10. (4) SCC 465 (21. Anil Kumar Verma. “National Textile Corporation Vs. 12. 11. 1995 Supp. No one can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt.Fraud on Court-FORGED AND FABRICATED DOCUMENT FILED IN COURT WITH OBLIQUE . (1993) 2 SCC 533” (4. 1971.” (xv) Para 62 of the above referred judgment :- “Therefore. 1994 (6) SC 584”(4.A.1994):Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. B.” 13. “Major Genl.. Sundaram & Ors. Before this Court also . His present conduct has aggravated rather than mitigating his offence. Sundram Ors.) And Another Vs. to punish the contemner in order to preserve its dignity. 2(c ) – Criminal Contempt.” (xiv) Para 61 of the above referred judgment :- “Coming to the question of sentence.9.M.T. having admonished payment of fine was set aside. J. he should have stopped and not retained a defiant and aggressive posture‘Lawyers were created for the Course. “Chandra Shashi Vs.1993) Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. C. come what may. he has exhibited a dogged determination to pursue the matter. the appellant has neither expressed any contrition nor has he any repentance for the vicious allegations made against the learned Judges of the High Court. if his act or conduct in relation to Court or Court proceedings interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice.N.11.1994) :(i) Index-A of the Head Note of the above referred SCC at page-422:“Contempt of Courts Act.1994) :“Section 12 – Conviction of the advocate for raising the pitch of his voice unusually high and using derogatory language against the Magistrate-Held-When the advocate was warned of his unruly behaviour. 1994 (1) Scale 71” (19. 9. A reading of his memorandum of grounds and the written and signed arguments show that he has ventured into another bout of allegations against the High Court Judges and persisted in his campaign of vilification.2.1992) :Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. we hold that the sentence of 2 months imprisonment in no way calls for interference and accordingly the sentence is confirmed. (1995) 1 Supreme Court cases 421”: “1995 Rajdhani Law Reporter Page 1” (Vol.1. not Courts for the lawyers’ –Belated apology not accepted and the appellant was rather admonished for his conduct-However. “K. it appears from the order of the High Court that the appellant had adopted a defiant attitude and tried to justify the aspersions made by him even without thinking it necessary to apologize. Russel Estate Corporation And Another. “National Textile Corporation v. Mohammed Ali Vs.

MOTIVE OF DECEIVING OR DEFRAUDING THE COURT-HELD. the same would definitely hinder.e. The word ‘interfere’ means in the context of the subject. 1971 ----. 1971. If recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive. as this expression has been defined in section 2 of the contempt of courts Act. As to whether filing of a forged document with intention to defraud amounts to contempt of court. meaning of. a mere sentence of fine would not meet the ends of justice in the circumstances--------. NOT ACCEPTABLE –“TWO WEEKS” IMPRISONMENT AWARDED TO CONTEMNOR WITH A VIEW THAT IT SHOULD SERVE AS DETERRENT AND EYE-OPENER. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one however high he may be. any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty. RESULTS IN INTERFERENCE WITH ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT-words and phrases. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working. Held from the facts it is clear that the respondent contemnor had filed a forged and fabricated document in court TO RESIST THE PRAYER OF HIS WIFE to get the matrimonial proceedings transferred on the ground of her poverty i. THOSE WHO INDULGE IN IMMORAL ACTS LIKE PERJURY.“Interfere”.” (ii) Relevant extract of Index –B of the above referred SCC at page-422:“Contempt of Courts Act. the same is required to be examined as a matter of first principle. it was done with an oblique motive. there being no decision of the Supreme Court (or for that matter of any High Court). Obstruction of justice is to interpose obstacles or impediments or to hinder. Any one who takes recourse to fraud. . if he violates courts order BUT ALSO TO KEEP THE STREAM OF JUSTICE CLEAR AND PURE so that purity of court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the state and the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples. hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do. or if anything is done with oblique motive. impede or in any manner interrupt or prevent the administration of justice. PREVARICATION AND MOTIVATED FALSEHOODS HAVE TO BE APPROPRIATED DEALT WITH. the same interferes with the administration of justice. without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approached it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. APOLOGY NOT OUTCOME OF REAL REMORSE OR CONTRITION BUT TENDERED AS A WEAPON OF DEFENCE AND THEREFORE. deflects the course of judicial proceedings.HELD.

In the case and hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court. SUCH PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROPERLY DEALT WITH.” (vi) (Truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there or (“Yato Dharamstato Jai”) (It is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of Relevant portion of para 12 of the above referred judgment:“---------.eso t. A longer period of incarceration could have been awarded because of the gravity of contumacious act fabrication of document to defeat just cause of an adversary and thereby seriously affecting the purity of courts proceeding BUT THAT IS NOT NEEDED HERE AS THIS IS THE FIRST OCCASION IN FREE INDIA WHEN THE SUPREME COURT (FOR THAT MATTER MAY BE ANY COURT OF THE COUNTRY) HAS FELT CALLED UPON TO SEND A PERSON LIKE THE CONTEMNOR BEHIND IRON BARS IN EXERCISE OF CONTEMPT JURISDICTION.” (iv) Para 8 of the above referred judgment:“--------------. THE POLLUTERS OF JUDICIAL FIRMAMENT ARE REQUIRED TO BE WELL TAKEN CARE OF TO MAINTAIN THE SUBLIMITY OF COURTS’ ENVIRONMENT. THE CONTEMNOR HAS TO BE AWARDED A SENTENCE OF ‘TWO WEEKS’ IMPRISONMENT. THE PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO TWO WEEKS IN THE HOPE THAT THE INCARCERATION OF THIS CONTEMNOR WILL WORK AS EYE OPENER AND NO COURT WILL HENCEFORTH FEEL CONSTRAINED AND TO DO SO IN ANY OTHER CASE. WHICH REQUIRES SOME WHAT DETERRENT SENTENCE. SUCH A TENDENCY IS REQUIRED TO BE CURBED.” . so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud. People would have faith in courts when they would find that “lR. ------------. HE COMMITS ITS CONTEMPT. NOT ONLY TO PUNISH THEM FOR THE WRONG DONE BUT ALSO TO DETER OTHERS FROM INDULGING IN SIMILAR ACTS WHICH SHAKE THE FAITH OF PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. as it would interfere with administration of justice-----. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea.Therefore. the intention to defraud is writ large. This apart. the same would be contempt. Anil Kumar is. guilty of contempt---. the increasing tendency of taking recourse to objectionable means to get a favourable verdict in the courts has to be viewed gravely to deter the large number of persons approaching courts from doing so. What emerges from this decision is that IF A PERSON DOES ANYTHING TO DEFRAUD THE COURT. THEREFORE. therefore.rs” courts. --------------.

THIS TENDENCY TO OBSTRUCT THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE OR TENDENCY TO UNDERMINE THE DIGNITY OF THE COURT NEEDS TO BE SEVERELY DEALT WITH TO DETER THE PERSONS HAVING SIMILAR PROCLIVITY TO RESORT TO SUCH ACTS OR CONDUCT. Arvind Shukla (1995) Supp. 161 (2009) DLT 130 (SC)” Note: The above referred judgment has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “R. Registrar. Delhi High Court. THEREFORE.” 15.” (ii) Propositions of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred case and as mentioned at page 131 of the above referred SCC :“Held : The contempt of Courts Act deals with any acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witness “in any manner. ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. the words “due course of justice” used in Section 2 (c ) or Section 13 of the Act are of wide import and ARE NOT LIMITED TO ANY PARTICULAR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.1.14. Advocate. (2) SCC 130” : 1994 (4) Scale Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred SCC :- 1088 : 1995 (1) SCJ 310” (23. Delhi High Court. Shradha Kumari Vs. -------Due course of justice means not only any particular proceeding but a broad stream of administration of justice. (i) “Ram Autar Shukla v. ------. Registrar. 161 (2009) DLT 130” (SC) (i) Head Note (A) of the above referred SCC :- . New Delhi (2) Kailash Vasdev. impede or thwart due course of justice or broad stream of administration of Justice would amount to contempt of court -----.1995) :Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 16. ANY OBSTRUCTION CAUSED IN THE PATH OF THOSE SEEKING JUSTICE ARE AN AFFRONT TO THE MAJESTY OF LAW AND. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. THE CONDUCT IS PUNISHABLE AS CONTEMPT OF COURT. Deputy Secretary.1994) “Constitution of India-Art. “IN RE (1) Sanjiv Datta.---. (1995) 3 SCC 619” referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its above referred judgment reported as “R. Anand v.K. (iii) Relevant extract of para 7 of the above referred judgment :- “----It has become increasingly a tendency on the part of the parties EITHER TO PRODUCE FABRICATED EVIDENCE AS A PART OF THE PLEADINGS OR RECORD or to fabricate the court record itself for retarding or obstructing the course of justice or judicial proceedings to gain unfair advantage in the judicial process. hinder.11. Anand Vs. Advocate and (3) Kitty Kumaramangalam (Smt).” The tendency on the part of the contemner in his action or conduct to prevent the course of Justice is the relevant fact. “Prof. Therefore. 129. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad And Others.K.Criminal Contempt –Act or conduct tending to prevent. 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 85” (24.

Arts. contempt notice discharged-Contempt of Courts Act 1971. They do not realize the seriousness of these acts and omissions. Ss. the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings-many times even illegible and without personal check and verification. nor should his conviction affect his service career. being a responsible Govt. Legislature and Judiciary) by respecting each other’s functioning ----.Criminal contempt-Contemptuous statements made against Supreme Court by public officer in his affidavit. S. accepting the explanation of the advocate that the draft affidavit which was corrected or settled by him/her was not the same which was filed in the Court. terrorism and defines –Court can also commit errors but for that law provides internal as well as external cheques –Rule of law must be maintained by the three organs of the State (Executive. our duty to bring it to the notice of the members of the profession that it is in their hands to improve the quality of the service they render both to the litigant-public and to the courts. Officer.Advocate who drafts or settles the document also commits contempt.Criminal contemptIntentionally obstructing course of justice.------.Casual and indifferent attitude of some of the lawyers deprecated-Improvement in quality of service stressed. having regard to explanation submitted by the advocate. and to brighten their image in the society. 2(c ) and 12.Contempt of Supreme Court. the failure to take step to serve the parties. 129 and 142.” (ii) Head Note (B) of the above referred SCC :- “Constitution of India.However. S. sentence of fine of Rs.” (iv) Relevant extract of the Head Note (D) of the above referred SCC :- “Constitution of India ---Contempt of Court -----Court has to function freely and fearlessly undaunted by abuses. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system. 1971. amounted to criminal contempt-Coming from the Executive branch it has the potentiality of subverting the rule of law.Hence.Criminal contempt-Contemptuous statements made against Supreme Court by public officer in his affidavit.” (iii) Relevant extract of Head Note (C ) of the above referred SCC :- “Constitution of India.Held. 12.Contempt of Courts Act. They not only amount to the contempt of the court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. his unconditional apology accepted and contempt notice dischargedContempt of Courts Act.” (v) Head Note (E) of the above referred SCC :- “Legal Profession.However.” . Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from their absence when the matters are called out. etc. we have been coming across several instances which can only be described as unfortunate both for the legal profession and the administration of justice.Arts.” (vi) Para 19 of the above referred judgment :- “Of late. 129 and 142.Advocate who files the affidavit in Court also commits the contempt-However. 12. contemner having committed the offence not for his personal gain or benefit. in response to the contempt notice issued by the Court. that he had no opportunity to peruse the affidavit before filing the same and the fact that his conduct as practising lawyer in the Court had been fair.Public official filing affidavit in Supreme Court criticizing its order and casting aspersions and accusations calculated to malign the Court and undermine its authority.“A Constitution of India. 2000 and in default simple imprisonment for one week imposed. It becomes.Unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor not acceptable as his statements were intentional and deliberate knowing well their repercussions. therefore. the non-payment of court fees and process fess. no departmental proceedings need be initiated against him. the failure to remove office objections.Nature and importance of – Role of lawyers. 1971. attribution of notice.Arts. 129 and 142.

Not only obstructs but perverts Course of justice-deponent is guilty of criminal contempt.” 17. effective and credible. 2(C ) –Criminal Contempt –filing false affidavit in court. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in public life. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and a responsible citizen. it is not only the profession which will suffer but also the administration of justice as a whole. ANY CONDUCT WHICH HAS THE TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OR THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTS TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. If the profession is to survive. “Dhananjay Sharma Vs. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the courts the unpleasant duty. The casualness and indifference with which some members practice the profession are certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige either of the profession or of the institution they are serving. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the FILING OF FALSE EVIDENCE commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the act. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1795” (2. We say no more.1995) :(i) Head Note (A) of the above referred judgment :“(A) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilized society. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence. obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. No service will be too small in making the system efficient. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from out side. S. They took their profession seriously and practiced it with dignity. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. deference and devotion.(vii) Para 20 of the above referred judgment :- “The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. the judicial system has to be vitalized. The swearing of false affidavit in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstructions in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede. Filing of false affidavit for making a false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and NO COURT CAN IGNORE SUCH CONDUCT which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial . the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The regard for the legal and judicial systems in this country is in no small measure due to the tireless role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. The society has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour.5. State of Haryana and Others. If people lose confidence in the profession on account of the deviant ways of some of its members.

Puri. respondent No. 4 Sham Lal Goel and respondent No. Their action was deliberate and an attempt to over reach the due process of law without compunction. required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court’s environment. deflects the course of judicial proceedings. During the pendency of the proceeding in this court. Speaking for the Bench observed : (at P. 5 Rajinder Singh SHO ‘tutored Sushil Kumar Taxi Driver and forced him to make a false statement and file a false affidavit in this court and to falsely assert that he had never been waylaid by the Haryana Police --. Their action is an affront to the Majesty of Law.was false. Polluters of judicial firmament are.” (ii) Relevant portion of para 40 of the above referred judgment :“THE STREAM OF JUSTICE HAS TO BE KEPT CLEAN AND PURE AND ANY ONE SPOILING ITS PURITY MUST BE DEALT WITH STERNLY SO THAT THE MASSAGE PERCOLATES LOUD AND CLEAR THAT NO ONE CAN BE PERMITTED TO UNDERMINE THE DIGNITY OF THE COURT AND INTERFERE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Brother Hansaria.------. 3 to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for committing contempt of court by filing false affidavits denying the allegations made in the writ petition and in the affidavit of Shri S. 4995 of AIR) “The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State.” . This action was found to be an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice. In Chandra Shashi V.institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. the same interferes with the administration of justice. J.” (iii) Relevant portion of para 41 of the above referred judgment:“The actions of respondents 3 to 5 in filing false affidavit and denying that the detenu and Sushil Kumar had been whisked away and detained illegally in their custody between 15th January 1994 is not only reprehensible and condemnable but also requires to be dealt with rather sternly. as already observed. or if any thing is done with oblique motive. so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. SUCH PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROPERLY DEALT WITH not only to punish them for the wrong done.C. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. ---. therefore.” (iv) Relevant portion of para 45 of the above referred judgment :“We sentence respondent No. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 : (1994 AIR SCW 4994) the respondents produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.

He made an averment in the counter affidavit dated October 30. 2 (b) .Section 2 (b) defines “contempt of court” to men any civil or criminal contempt. 129. (70 of 1971). State of Haryana & Others. Thereby he further committed contempt of the judicial process.High ranking police officer guilty of committing contempt of proceedings of Supreme Court. he committed criminal contempt of judicial proceedings of this court. 3 to 5 do deserve the punishment awarded to them to serve as a deterrent to others in future.1993 that they were not in wrongful detention nor are they taken into custody which was later found to be false. respondent No. – Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. with his connivance caused two minor boys’ wrongful detention. (i) “Afzal And Another Vs.Criminal contempt-Superintendent of Police in charge of criminal administration.(v) Relevant portion of para 62 of the above referred judgment:“----.” 18. FORGED BY KRISHAN KUMAR IN THE PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE Order.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 31 of the above referred judgment:“----------. But when he perceived adverse atmosphere to him. The Court expects candour and frankness from the parties to the litigation before it. HE COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF THE COURT BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS. he is required to make truthful statements before the Court. perceiving adverse atmosphere to him. We cannot allow the court proceedings to be trifled with.Not making candid admission nor tendering unqualified apology.He is guilty of committing contempt of judicial process. “Criminal contempt” defined in section 2 (c ) means interference with the administration justice in any other manner. Being a responsible officer. AIR 1996 SC 2326” :Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR:“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). S. he fabricated further false evidence and sought to use an affidavit evidence to show that Krishan Kumar had forged his signature without his knowledge and filed the fabricated document. filed fabricated counter-affidavit to obtain favourable order. HE FIRST USED FABRICATED COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT. Thereby. respondent No. In the facts and circumstances of the case. first. 3 to the main writ petition and in-charge of the criminal administration. S. Art. but he made obviously false statements.Later.Contempt of Courts Acts. It is seen that Ahlawat. FROM STAGE TO STAGE. A FALSE OR A MISLEADING OR A WRONG STATEMENT DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY MADE BY A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING TO OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE ORDER WOULD PREJUDICE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.” (ii) Head Note (C) of the above referred AIR:“Constitution of India. HE HAS NO REGARD FOR TRUTH. fabricating further false evidence to show that his subordinate had forged his signature without his knowledge and filed fabricated document..” . 12.

Appeals.Appeal before Supreme Court from any order or decision of High Court.Held. 136 can be invoked – Constitution of India. it must be in the nature of punishment for contempt.Words ‘any order’ must be read with ‘decision’ so as to exclude any interlocutory order of High Court from the scope of appeal – Unless by the order High Court imposes punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. even against an order dropping/refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. Allibhoy and Another. A FALSE OR MISLEADING OR A WRONG STATEMENT DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY MADE BY A PERSON TO OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE ORDER IS CONTEMPT. 1971. then an appeal shall lie under sub-section (1) of section 19 even against any interlocutory order passed in a proceeding for contempt by the High Court which shall lead to a ridiculous result. no appeal will lie against it. If the expression “Any order” is read independently of the ‘decision’. appeal will not lie under S. section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Art. 136 and 215 – Appeal –Nature of right of –Words and phrases –“Any order.However.---. It is well settled that an appeal is a creature of a statute. 19 against an interlocutory order of High Court dropping or refusing to initiate contempt proceeding.Note:.(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order OR decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt------On a plain reading.” Note : The above quoted rulling is also most important for appeal to explain the meaning of the expression ‘pay or tender’ used in section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act.As per para 31 of the above referred judgment. THEY HAVE BEEN PUT IN AN ALTERNATIVE FORM saying ‘order’ or ‘decision’.1996) (i) Head Note (A) of the above referred SCC :- “Contempt of Courts Act. “ANY ORDER” IS NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE EXPRESSION ‘DECISION’. IN EITHER CASE. Mahboob S. Unless a statute provides for an appeal and specifies the order against which an appeal can be filed. “State of Maharashtra Vs.S. Art.” (ii) Relevant extract of 3 of the above referred judgment :- “----. (1996) 4 SCC 411” (10. (iii) Head Note (B) of the above referred SCC :- .4. Section 19 of the Act says : “19. 19.The words “any order” has to be read with the expression ‘decision’ used in the said sub-section which the High Court passes in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 19. no appeal can be filed or entertained as a matter of right or course.

It is for the court. 129 – Contempt . State of Assam and another. deliberately forwarded inaccurate report to mislead court and thus interfered with course of justice – Apology rejected – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months. Superintendent of Police.K.“Contempt of Court-Contempt proceeding-Nature of-Whether to punish the contemner or discharge him. The allegation against the contemner is that a shocking case of police brutality leading to the heath of an undertrial prisoner was sought to be covered up by him by an untrue and misleading report sent to this Court followed by a false affidavit. he is simply assisting the court so that the dignity and the majesty of the court is maintained and upheld.1996) (For filing false proceeding in court) (i) Head Note of the above referred judgment:“Constitution of India. he not bringing true facts to notice of Court – He ignoring injuries noted in record. (iii) Relevant extract of para 27 of the above referred judgement:“This goes to show that the contemner was trying to highlight the fact that Nurul Haque was a veteran dacoit and possibly deserved the treatment that he got at the hand of the police.------.-----. Sinha Casshyap.Contemner.” 20. Hailakandi to show cause why he should not be held guilty to Contempt of Court. The emphasis that he was a verna dacoit was also obviously with a view to create prejudice. the proceeding is primarily between the court and the person who is alleged to have committed the contempt of court.The report from the very beginning had tried to mislead the court as to the cause death of Nurul Haque and the alleged events that lead to his apprehension by the police. The person who informs the court or brings to the notice of the court that anyone has committed contempt of such court is not in the position of a prosecutor. held. has to be decided by the court having regard to the facts and circumstancesPerson who brings to the notice of the court the commission of contempt by anyone only assists the court in maintaining dignity and majesty of the court. Far from trying to halp the court to do justice. (iv) Relevant extract of para 4 of the above referred judgment :- “It is well known that Contempt proceeding is not a dispute between two parties. Hailakandi Bar Association vs.5. AIR 1996 SCC 1925 (9.” .Contempt of Supreme Court – Apology – Police Officer asked by Supreme Court to submit report about death of undertrial prisoner submitting false report–When subsequently called upon to file affidavit. his report has tried to mislead the court and prevent the court and finding out the truth about the allegations made by the Bar Association of Hailakandia. (ii) Para 1 of the above referred judgment:“This case arises out of a notice issued to A. “The Secretary. Art. which initiates the proceeding to decide whether the person against whom such proceeding has been initiated should be punished or discharged taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

(iv) Para 28 of the above referred judgment:“We. The contempt rule is disposed of finally as above. A.S. 2(b).1996) :(i) Relevant portion of Head Note (a) of the above referred judgment :“(A) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). 2(C) Criminal Contempt-Eviction vacation of premises – false affidavits given by tenant before Supreme Court from time to time that he had already vacated premises though he had not done so-tenant is guilty of criminal contempt of court as by filing affidavit he had not only deliberately attempted to impede administration of justice but also succeeded in his attempt in delaying delivery of possession. we sentence the contemner A. Having regard to the gravity of the case. S.1996) :- Note: The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. we may profitably referred to the judgment of this court in Dhananjay Sharma V. in which one of us (Justice Dr. 21. 22. If any party gives an undertaking to the Court to vacate the premises from which he is liable to be evicted under the orders of the Court and there is a clear and deliberate breach thereof. K Sinha Cashyap to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months. S. AIR 1997 SC 113” (11. therefore. 1971. it amounts to Civil Contempt. the respondent has committed criminal contempt.No undertaking given by tenant for vacating premises----. State of Haryana (1995) 3 SCC 757 : (1995) AIR SCW 2815). 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as “the publication (whether by words.9.S. “Section 2 ( C) of the Contempt of Courts Act. (2) . AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2174” (27. 129 of the Constitution read with S. spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) Scandalise or tend to scandalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court.” (ii) Head Note (B) of the above referred judgment :“(B) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). “J. Ganpat Duggar and others. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Anand) observed P. Parihar Vs. hold that the contemner deliberately forwarded an inaccurate report with a view to misleading this Court and thereby interfered with the due course of justice by attempting to obstruct this court from reaching a correct conclusion.Civil Contempt.9.----. 2828 of AIR) .” (iii) Para 13 of the above referred judgment :“To seek an answer to the other question as to whether by making false statement before this court in the affidavits filed. We hold him guilty of contempt under Art. Surjit Singh Arora. we cannot accept his apology and hereby reject it. In the facts and circumstances of the case. “Rita Markandey V.

2 to be more careful in future. Held: We are of the view that an attempt has been made by the respondent to over reach the court and the respondents have played fraud upon the court as well as upon the opposite party and is thus clearly guilty of contempt. 2 (c ). The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the Majesty of Law be made a mockery of by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses.” (ii) Relevant extract of Head Note of the above referred AD:- “Contempt of Courts Act. ANYONE WHO MAKES AN ATTEMPT TO IMPEDE OR UNDERMINE OR OBSTRUCT THE FREE FLOW OF THE UNSOILED STREAM OF JUSTICE BY RESORTING TO THE FILING OF FALSE EVIDENCE. Satish Khosla v. 1971 – Secs. COMMITS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF THE COURT AND RENDERS HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT. 261/97.” 23. we do not purpose to take action against the respondent for contempt except to issue a warning to respondent no. while. it can only be if we non suit the respondents in suit no. 1971 – Sections 2 (c). . M/s Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd.prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) interfere or tend to interfere with. XXXIX rule 1 & 2 – Ad-interim injunction – Ex-parte – Non-disclosure of dismissal of such application in earlier suit – Amounts to fraud upon the Court – Guilty of Contempt. and another. we direct the dismissal of the suit (being suit no. therefore. 71 (1998) DLT 1: “1998 1 AD (Delhi) 927” : “1998 (44) DRJ 109” (DB) (12. obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. 15 & 18 – Criminal Contempt – Code of Civil Procedure. 15 & 18 – Criminal Contempt – Abuse of process of the court – No interim injunction in earlier suit granted – Same relief sought in subsequent suits – No copy of earlier plaint and documents filed – Played fraud to gain advantage – Attempt to over reach the court – Guilty of contempt. RESPONDENTS CAN NOT BE HEARD IN THE CASE UNLESS IT PURGES IT SELF OF THE CONTEMPT SO COMMITTED and in our view. 261/97) suit it self. ANY CONDUCT WHICH HAS THE TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OR THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTS TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.1997):- (i) Head Note (ii) of the above referred DLT:- “Contempt of Courts Act. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the party concerned in perverting the course of justice.12. 1908 0 Or. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede. THUS. or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner.

the respondent is guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party and such acts had been done only in order to gain advantage on the other side and to get a stay in the second suit. While. however. it is mentioned that it had filed an earlier suit for injunction. We are of the view that an attempt has been made by the respondent to over – reach the court and the respondents have played fraud upon the court as well as on the opposite parte and is thus clearly guilty of contempt. Held: In our view. nor it was disclosed to the Court that injunction has not been granted in its favour by the Court and the relief claimed in the application in the . A party must come to the Court with clean hands and must disclose all the relevant facts which may result in appreciating the rival contentions of the parties. the respondent has not been able to get an injunction.Held: In our view.Not come with clean hands – Over-reached the court – Necessary to punish as a contempt – Conduct abuses and mockery of judicial process – LAWYER SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO MOVE FOR – Played fraud upon court – CANNOT BE HEARD UNLESS IT PURGES ITSELF OF THE CONTEMPT – Warned to be more careful in future – Suit dismissed – Appeal allowed – Contempt – petition disposed of. RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE HEARD IN THE CASE UNLESS IT PURGES ITSELF OF THE CONTEMPT SO COMMITTED and in our view. 2 to be more careful in future we direct the dismissal of the suit (being suit no. must produce all the documents which are relevant to the litigation and he must also disclose to the Court about the pendency of any earlier litigation between the parities and the result thereof. 3064/96 had been first listed before the Court on 17 th December. we do not purpose to take action against the respondent for contempt for except to issue a warning to respondent no. 1997 in spite of three hearings having taken place before the Court. it did not disclose to the Court either in the plaint or in the application as to what had transpired in the Court on the dates when the said suit was fixed. It was only after 20th January. the arguments are wholly fallacious. by withholding the plaint of the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing that in the earlier suit. 1996. after suit No. In the present case. 1971 Section 2 (c ) (iii) – Criminal contempt – Civil suit for specific performance of agreement – Relief of stay not granted – Another suit filed – Concealed rejection of grant of relief in earlier suit – Sought stay for not disturbing or interfering with the quiet and peaceful possession. therefore. deliberate attempt to hamper and obstruct due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice and fraud upon court – Suppressed material facts. 261/97) it self. it can only be if we non-suit the respondents in suit no. 261/97.---------.” (iii) Head note of the above referred DRJ:- “Contempt of Courts Act. 1997 when the case was adjourned to May 1997 that the respondent filed the second suit and though in one of the paragraphs. In our view. who approaches the court. no stay had been granted to it till 20th January. a litigant. use and occupation of – Granted – Appealed against – Contempt petition for criminal proceedings for filing proceeding and application intentionally and deliberately – Alleged : Abuse of process of law.

there is a big lawn. it was obligatory upon the respondent to disclose to the Court that in the application filed in the earlier suit.Within the Sports Complex. may be Hon’ble the Single Judge was persuaded not to grant any ex-parte stay in favour of the respondent. We are of the view that an attempt has been made by the respondent to over-reach the Court and the respondents have played fraud upon the Court as well as upon the opposite party and is thus clearly guilty of contempt. we dismiss Suit No. 261/97) itself.earlier suit was almost similar to the relief which had been claimed in the subsequent suit. 261/97 and dispose of the contempt petition in the above terms. One of such cottages being cottage No. While. in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to register the agreement of lease. 1997 when the second suit came up for hearing before it. 3064/96. the respondent is guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party and such acts had been done only order to gain advantage on the other side to get a stay in the second suit. if these facts were before the Court on February 6. 7. we do not propose to take action against the respondent for contempt except to issue a warning to respondent No. In our view. 6 is at the back of the complex. ---------. While. But it may be necessary to punish as a contempt. 6 situated within the complex of Shanti Sports Club. therefore. IT MAY BE THAT CERTAIN MINOR ABUSES OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT MAY BE SUITABLY DEALT WITH AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. (iv) Relevant extract of para 2 of the above referred judgment:- “That the appellant is the owner of the premises being cottage no. Vasant Kunj. it appears to us that the plaintiff could not claim an injunction which had already been claimed in suit no. therefore. namely. This in our view is clearly over-reaching the Court. BY STRIKING OUT PLEADINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER 6 RULE 16 OR IN SOME OTHER MANNER. The dispute between the parities is about the letting out and used and enjoyment of the said lawn by the occupants of cottage No.” (v) Relevant extract of para 3 of the above referred judgment:- . Respondents cannot be heard in the case unless it purges itself of the contempt so committed and in our view it can only be if we non-suit the respondents in Suit No. We are. by withholding the plaint of the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing that in the earlier suit the. the Court had not granted the said relief. a similar relief had been claimed. In our view. we direct the dismissal of suit (being Suit no. there are a few residential cottages. 261/97. the respondent. Between Cottage no. 2 to be more careful. 6. In our opinion. Moreover. respondent has not been able to get the injunction. of the opinion that the respondent has not come to the Court with clean hands and has also suppressed material facts from the Court with a view to gain advantage in the second suit. New Delhi. therefore allowing this appeal. a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends it pernicious influence beyond to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. 6 and Cottage no.

1997. ----------.” (x) Para 13 of the above referred judgment:- . 261/97 and I. 364/96. Shaw and his family members. 2 and is family have been able to have free and unobstructed access to the premises and enjoy its quite and peaceful possession. there was hardly any moment when respondent no.” (vi) Relevant extract of para 4 of the above referred judgment:- “It appears that the lawn between Cottage Nos. the appellant has filed this appeal and has also filed a Contempt petition for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately filed the proceedings and applications being Suit Nos. employees and servants from in any manner disturbing or interfering with the quit and peaceful possession. 1996. 6 & 7 was being given on higher for marriages and private parties by the appellant which allegedly caused disturbance to the Managing Director of the respondent and a suit being suit no. Aggrieved by the said order. 1997 the Hon’ble Single Judge passed the order of injunction in favour of the respondent No.“By a lease deed entered into between the parties on 2nd September. use and occupation of the demised premises being cottage No.” (ix) Relevant extract of para 8 of the above referred judgment:- “On 6th February. 6 and its appurtenant lawn ---.A. Cottage No. However. Ex –parte was not granted in favour of the respondent No. the said respondents had also filed an application for the grant of an injunction restraining the appellant. 1996. 1 and against the appellant ---. It was alleged in the plaint in the said suit that the appellant had represented to the respondents that the lawn between Cottages 6 and 7 would always remain vacant and was meant to be used for the families of the occupants of the said Cottages and their guests. 1124/97 which amounted to abuse of the process of the Court and an attempt to cercumvant the order of the court passed in Suit No.. his agents. 3064/96 was thereupon filed by the respondents on or about 11th December. due to the said lawn being given on higher for marriages another parties.” (viii) Relevant extract of para 7 of the above referred judgment:- “On or about 4th February. respondents filed the suit being Suit No. 261/97 for specific performance of the agreement -----. 6 -----was let to the respondent by the appellant for the resident of its managing director Mr. Alongwith the suit.” (vii) Relevant extract of para 5 of the above referred judgment:- “The said suit came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Single Judge on 17 th December 1996 ------. 1 & 2 ----in the said suit no stay had been granted in favour of the respondents. Christopher J.

Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. therefore. A litigant who approaches the Court. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.P. the plaintiff/respondent had tried to get an advantage from the Court and was. it could be said that the respondent had not concealed any material fact from the Court ? But not mentioning anything about the Court having not granted any stay in similar circumstances in favour of the respondent in the earlier suit. present case :“The High Court in our view. the respondent seeking the same relief of temporary injunction as had been sought for in Suit No. Jagannath and Others. it was not permissible to the respondent to file the subsequent suit and seek the same relief which had not been granted to it in earlier suit. 261/97. AIR 1994 SC 853 was held that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties.” (xii) Para 15 of the above referred judgment:- “In S. Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court-----. the Court still granted stay in favour the respondent. One who comes to the Court. HE CAN BE SUMMARILY THROWN OUT AT ANY STAGE OF THE LITIGATION. “It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. 3064/96. fell into patent error.” (xi) Para 14 of the above referred judgment:- “Was it not obligatory on the part of the respondent to disclose to the Court that in an earlier suit filed by it. 3604/96 nor the court had an opportunity to go through the allegations made in the said plaint. it appears to us that the respondent had not only concealed material facts from the Court but had also tried to over-reach the Court. must come with clean hands. We. the plaintiff had not even filed the plaint of the earlier suit being Suit No. 261/97. of the opinion that by withholding the plaint and the application in the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing to the Court about the proceedings in the earlier suit and the stay having not been granted to it. is bound to produce all the documents executed by which are relevant to the litigation. the Court had not granted any stay in its favour and if on such a disclosure having been made. We do not aggrieve with the High Court that “THERE IS NO LEGAL DUTY CASTE The following observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are relevant for purposes of .“It is apparent that in the application in Suit No. guilty of playing fraud of the court as well as on the respondent.” (xiii) Relevant extract of para 16 of the above referred judgment:- “We are informed that in Suit No. therefore. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case. Being unsuccessful in obtaining stay in Suit No. 3064/96.

It may be that certain minor abuses of the process of the court may be suitably dealt with as between the parties. by striking out pleadings under the provisions of order 6.” -----.------. But it may be necessary to punish as a contempt. (xv) Para 18 of the above referred judgment:- “In our view. to defeat by one’s oversubtlety (xiv) Para 17 of the above referred judgment:- “As held by the Supreme Court in Advocate-General. 1997 when the second suit came up for hearing before it.----. therefore. every abuse of the process of the Court may not necessarily amount to contempt of Court. Rule 16 or in some other manner. A party must come to the Court with clean hands and must disclose all the relevant facts which may result in appreciating the rival contentions of the parties. We are. must produce all the documents which are relevant to the litigation and he must also disclose to the Court about the pendency of any earlier litigation between the parties and the result thereof. In our view. ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT CALCULATED TO HAMPER THE DUE COURSE OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING OR THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT. the Court had not granted the said relief. One who comes to the Court.UPON THE PLAINTIFF TO COME TO COURT WITH A TRUE CASE AND PROVE IT BY TRUE EVIDENCE. (1980) 3 SCC 311. M/S Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another. to outwit or get the better of. a litigant. THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF PLAYING FRAUD ON THE COURT AS WELL AS ON THE OPPOSITE PARTY and such acts had been done only in order to gain advantage on the other side and to get a stay in the second suit. who approaches the Court. however. it was obligatory upon the respondent to disclose to the Court that in the application filed in the earlier suit. In our view.” . State of Bihar Vs. MAY BE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE WAS PERSUADED NOT TO GRANT ANY EXPARTE STAY IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. a similar relief had been claimed. He courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties.In our opinion.” Note : ‘Over-reach’ means to reach or extent beyond.” The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. must come with clean hands. THIS IN OUR VIEW IS CLEARLY OVER –REACHING THE COURT. by withholding the plaint of the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing that in the earlier suit the respondent has not been able to get the injunction. of the opinion that the respondent has not come to the Court with clean hands and has also suppressed material facts from the Court with a view to gain advantage in the second suit. ----. a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends it pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. if these facts were before the Court on February 6.

the pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this county and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases.1999) :Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. IN OUR VIEW. we direct the dismissal of the suit (being Suit No. Satyapal’s case is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 25. AIR 1999 SC 1300”:- .. AIR 1999 SC 880” (2. 27.---. Chandrakant Ganpat & Others.V. Arivandandam Vs. M/S Ladies Corner & Another. Satyapal and another AIR 1977 SC 2421. we hope will activate this obligation.S. The Bar Council of India. “Ms. AIR 1999 SC 1042 “ (4. 3064/96. 261/97) Itself. Having not succeeded in getting stay in Suit No. “Suo Motu contempt in Re: Nand Lal Balwani. “Indian Airports Employees Union Vs. 261/97. THE LAWYER SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO MOVE AN APPLICATION FOR STAY IN THE SECOND SUIT.2. And remembering that AN ADVOCATE IS AN OFFICER OF JUSTICE he owes it to society NOT TO COLLABORATE IN SHADY ACTIONS.V. Respondents cannot be heard in the case unless it purges itself of the contempt so committed and in our view it can only be if we non-suit the respondents in Suit No.(xvi) Relevant extract of para 19 of the above referred judgment:- “As held by the Supreme Court in T. “It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. While. Arivandandam Vs. we do not propose to take action against the respondent for contempt except to issue a warning to respondent No.1999) :Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. ------. Sophy Kelly and another Vs. “K. Villasa Vs. AIR 1999 SC 2140” (3. Ranjan Chattarjee And Another. T. 2 to be more careful in future.2.2.” (xviii) Relevant extract of para 21 of the above referred judgment:“We are of the view that an attempt has been made by the respondent to over-reach the Court and the respondents have played fraud upon the Court as well as upon the opposite party and is thus clearly guilty of contempt. 26. therefore.1999) :- Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case.” (xvii) Para 20 of the above referred judgment:“We are of the opinion that the above noted passage of the aforesaid judgment in T.” 24. T.

He himself cannot apply. S. Ss. The action of the contemnor advocate is most reprehensible and has been tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and undermine the dignity of the Court and the Majesty of Law. 129Criminal Contempt on face of Court-Advocate shouted slogans in open Court. (1999) 6 SCC 18” (5. 33. Is not entitled to appear and plead on behalf of an accused or a party with permission of court.His action intimidates the Court and causes interference with judicial proceedings-Advocate guilty of gross criminal contempt-Advocate not appearing to be repentantApology tendered. --------. Vs.1999) :Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. 32. is honest and intelligent. ) 19” “Attorney. A lawyer does not enjoy any special immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act where he is found to have committed a gross contempt of Court.1999) :- Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. ---.C. S. AIR 2000 SC 68” (16. State of Bihar. 30.“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). 31. ----.1999) :Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. Art. AIR 1999 SC 3215” (25.2000):“Contempt of Courts Act. Court may grant permission if P. LATTER MAY .C.” 28. Distt. 14. Skipper Construction And Another.A. And hurdled his shoe towards Court. C.1. 2(c ) (iii). WHEN THERE IS INFRACTION OF MAJESTY OF LAW. Kapil Deo Prasad Sah And Others Vs. Union of Indian and others. “Delhi Development Authority Vs.8. “T. “Murray & Co. Contempt law is for inducing confidence in people for due administration of justice. Power of.R. COURT MUST NOT KEEP ANGELIC SILENCE.4. “Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. 1971. 2000 RLR 124(SC)” (25.O. 2000 RLR (N. Permission must be sought by the party himself. and Session Judge.10. not genuine-Sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months and fine. Mathews and anr. V. Ashok Kumar Newatia. AIR 1999 SC 3345” ( 15. Srinivas. It is unfortunate that a person belonging to the Bar should have behave in this manner. “Padmahasini alias Padmapriya Vs.1999) :Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant for the present case. Lawyers are allowed as they are accountable to courts.11. 12–b Constitution of India. 2000/-. Keeping in view of the seriousness of the offence committed by the contemnor deterrent punishment imposed on him so that it serves an example to others and no one indulges in repetition of such acts. Court sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs.” 29.

R. MCD called for explanation of MCD counsel regarding statement attributed to him by newspaper report whereby he highlighted factum of corruption amongst J. 19 & 20 –Limitation for initiation of contempt proceedings is one year and if court does not imitate within one year by asking contemnor to show cause why he should not be punished. People approach Courts with firm hope that truth would ultimately prevail. CONTEMNOR DESERVED PUNISHMENT TO DETER OTHERS and had taken advantage (Rita Markand’s case). Respect for judiciary is bound to strengthen democracy. Tyagi . Mere filing of contempt petition or issuing show cause notice is not initiation. Fabrication on oath in an affidavit is a serious matter calling for severe punishment when there is substantial interference with course of justice. Litigant public ought to be very cautious in making statements lest these become offence under the Act. “P. Ss. Singhal Vs. Practice of filing false affidavit is deprecated and a court would be failing in its duty to maintain majesty of law if it does not give proper punishment. Degeneration of moral conduct makes it difficult to rely on facts in affidavits. 1950. MCD : Corruption. Latter occurs when court applies its mind.Art.. Punishment for contempt is for ensuing rule of law by upholding majesty and dignity of Court.Es of MCD-Writ petition in first instance was filed in Supreme Court and later transferred to this court and renumbered.SUFFER WHEN A PARTY MAKES FALSE DENIALS IN AN AFFIDAVIT AND STATES POSITIVE ASSERTIONS MAKING SAME AS MOTIVATED FALSEHOOD. then matter becomes time barred.B. 84 (2000) DLT 264” (Referred by Sh. Mittal etc. It is criminal contempt and as falsehood had been repeated.2000):Head Note of the above referred RLR :“Contempt of courts act.Before transferring matter Supreme Court made various directions to MCD and other authorities-Instead of complying with directions and checking corruption.” 36. unauthorized .K. If obstruction of justice is allowed. MCD. it would permeate society. unauthorized construction and encroachments : Statement made by MCD Counsel in Court :Explanation sought from him by Chief Law Officer.2. S.C. Matter of statement made by Shri Raman Duggal Advocate. 226 – Issuance of Suo Motu Notice to Commissioner. “Court on its own motion Vs. Amounts to interference with action of person having duty to discharge in court and contempt of court Chief Law Officer. Vinod Gaur) (Not relevant) 35. offer of apology is not genuine. then he has no right of appeal u/s 19 of the Act. By false affidavit justice is defeated as attempt is to delay delivery of possession. D. A complainant is not an aggrieved person and if court does not initiate. Filing false affidavits and fabricated documents are matters of great concern. (i) “Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs.” 34.of the above referred DLT:“Constitution of India. FRAUD AND FALSEHOOD DEFLECT EVEN FLOW OF JUSTICE AND LOWER AUTHORITY OF COURT. 12. 2000 RLR 308 (SC)” (22. 89 (2001) DLT 572” (DB)= 2000 RLR 144” :(i) Relevant extract of Head Note -----.

The Govt. 2 (c ) – Constitution of India . An examination was conducted in the year 1996 but many of the students could not appear in the said examination. a writ petition in the court for a direction that the remaining students who have already studied for the academic session 1994-95. However. ) asked his explanation then they are guilty of contempt of court. 129 – Criminal of High Court in connivance with Secretary of Physical Education Institution got orders of Court forged – Used the forged documents to obtain favourable orders from Govt. LAWYER OWES A DUTY TO UTTER TRUTH IN COURT even if statement is against corruption amongst officers of his client (MCD). AIR 2001 SC 2018” (3. would not get any chance of appearing at any future examination.---. When MCD (the Comm. & C. Yavatmal for the academic year 1994-95 but the institution admitted several students and then persuaded the Government for grant of permission.” (ii) Relevant extract of Head Note of the above referred RLR :- “Advocates Act. explanation of MCD Counsel was sought by Chief Law Officer MCD-This was not expected of Chief Law Officer who is instructed in law and lives by law. This amounts to interference with action of person having duty to discharge in court-IT HAMPERS JUSTICE AND CLEARLY AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT-Counsel is not mouth piece of his clientHis duty is to uphold truth and honesty-In making statement.” 37. MCD counsel has answered call of duty towards court –explanation of the counsel was called to strike fear in him and to render him incapable of performing his duty before court-Chief Law Officer and Commissioner MCD not well advised to adopt this course of action-They have filed affidavits and tendered unconditional apology and stated they have highest esteem for court-Best measure to judge same would be through their actions taken for implementing order passed in CWP No. In view of the dismissal of the special leave petition. Therefore. the so-called students of institution. held are guilty of criminal contempt. the Government did grant the permission for the academic year 1994-95. .L. of Maharashtra did not grant permission to the institution Lokmata Indira Gandhi College of Sports. Against the said order of the High Court a special leave petition was filed in Supreme Court and that special leave petition was also dismissed.O. Question arose whether Secretary and employee of High Court can be held to be guilty of contempt. “In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh. so that the students who have already studied in the institution could appear in the examination.5.2001) (i) Relevant extract of “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). which indicated that while dismissing Court had directed State Govt. This ES/ES/S100245/2001/BNG/CSL writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. At later stage. should be permitted to appear at the examination to be held by the appropriate authority. Art. S. to conduct examination fro those students list of which had been annexed to writ petition. 841/98 and other similar matter. for holding examination for students of institution who were otherwise not eligible – Contemnors.constructions. the employee of High Court who had filed writ petition in connivance with Secretary of institution forged the orders of Supreme Court and sent forged order to state Govt. allegedly because of lack of proper information.

She was the Secretary of the institution. A FALSE or MISLEADING or a wrong statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings TO OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE ORDER would undoubtedly tantamount to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. Megha Rude. The said secretary had been instructing counsel to file petitions even at times by impersonation. examination of students mentioned in the list had to be conducted. we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Mrs. which she had indicated in her latter. that the order of Supreme Court has been forged and fabricated is proved beyond reasonable doubt and there cannot be any dispute about the same. In view of our conclusion on the basis of materials available in the Inquiry proceedings with regard to the role played by Mrs.. (ii) Relevant extracts of para 6 of the above referred judgment:“The law of contempt of Court is essentially meant for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled………. which institution had not been granted permission to present the students by the state of Maharashtra and in her letter. On the aforesaid parameters. To discharge this obligation. Shri Palshikar further states that he handed over the order of the court which he had received from Mr. the Supreme Court has TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE DEVIATION FROM THE PATH OF JUSTICE……. it would be necessary to examine whether it can be said that Mrs.. THAT ITS COURSE IS NOT HINDERED OR OBSTRUCTED IN ANY MANNER……. Dilip Wamanrao……. he was an employee in the High Court of Bombay.. Megha Rude is guilty of gross Criminal Contempt and must be suitably punished for the same. she had requested that examination be conducted. THE EVERY UTILIZATION OF THE FABRICATED ORDER BY THE PERSON CONCERNED WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD HIM/HER GUILTY OF CONTEMPT. to the Director. Along with the said letter.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 7 of the above referred judgment:“So far as Mr. To discharge its obligation as the custodian of the administration of the justice in the Country….. the purported true copy of the order of the Supreme Court has been enclosed. It is further established that the aforesaid forged order of Supreme Court was received by Secretary. since according to the Court’s order. Dilip Wamanrao Gund is concerned. When a person is found to have utilized an order of a court which he or she KNOWS TO BE INCORRECT for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same. Nagpur Bench……. complying with the orders of the Supreme Court for the remaining students. irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication.The material documents were in the hand writing of Mr. Deshpande to Dilip Wamanrao Gund……. Criminal Contempt has been defined in Section 2 (c) to mean interference with the administration of justice IN ANY MANNER. Megha Rude can be held to be guilty of contempt. Shri Dilip Wamanrao .Held.it is inherently deemed to have been entrusted with the power to see the stream of justice in the country remains pure.The Supreme Court is the Highest Court of record and it is charged with the duties and the responsibilities of protecting the dignity of the court.

9.” (iv) Relevant extract of para 8 of the above referred judgment:“Mrs. 1971.subsequently requisitely for three more certified copies of the order and pursuant to such request. causing expressions aspersions on integrity and capability of Hon’ble Judges of this Court: unqualified apology tendered by respondents –journalists : bonafides and genuineness of apologies not doubted –anyone who intends to tarnish image of judiciary should not be allowed to go unpunished ---unconditional apologies tendered by respondents deserve acceptance. Megha Rude and Shri Dilip Wamanrao Gund were fully aware of the original order that had been passed by this court in dismissing the special leave petition and they used the forged order by which they tried to have another examination conducted by the state government at enable the remaining students to appear at the examination…… (v) Para 9 of the above referred judgment:“We therefore hold both Mrs. they are sentenced to imprisonment for six months. 38. Vs. Megha Rude and Mr.Section 2(c ) – Contempt of Court-publication in question ---casting aspersion on competent of judiciary ---publication in question scandalizes judges –it attempts to rob High Court of its owner and prestige –CONTEMNORS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TAMPER WITH STREAM OF JUSTICE WHICH MUST FLOW PURE AN UNHINDERED – contemnors cannot be allowed to commit contempt of court in garb of criticism ----It was not innocent publication – contempt of court committed by contemnors is of grave nature and tends to substantially interfere with due course of justice –apologies of contemnors not accepted.B.Section 2(c ) – Contempt of Court : Article published in scurrilous manner in Journal named “ Wah India” .2001) :(i) Relevant extract of Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT :“Constitution of India. 215 –Contempt of Courts Act. “Rajiv Malhotra Vs. Union of India & Ors.1998…….5. to copies of the orders had been obtained to dispatched to said Shri Dilip Wamanrao Gund on 15. scornfully denigrating judges. The aforesaid facts unequivocally establish the fact that Shri Wamanrao Gund was present in the court when special leave petition was dismissed…… By user of a document which he new to be forged.) (28. 1950 –Art. 215 –Contempt of Courts Act. Dilip Wamanrao Gund to be guilty of contempt having committed criminal contempt as well as under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and for such gross act on their part. 2002 (63) DRJ 243 (DB) .respondents are journalists of standing and repute – respondents expressed feeling of remorse –apologies accepted ---. “Surya Prakash Khatri & Anr.” 39. 92 (2001) DLT 665” (F. 1950 –Art.” (ii) Relevant extract of Head Note (ii) of the above referred DLT :“Constitution of India. 1971. said Shri Wamanrao Gund committed gross contempt of court and as such he is liable to be punished to the same. Smt Madhu Trehan & Ors.

THEY ARE HELD GUILTY OF COMMITTING CONTEMPT OF COURT ----.000/on each. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BY FALSE AFFIDAVIT AND TAKING LIBERTIES WITH TRUTH IN ORDER TO MISLEAD US.” 40. (ii) Relevant portion of para 20 of the above referred judgment:“In view of the foregoing. K. SEHRAWAT HAVE COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF COURT and the same is of such a nature that it tends to substantially interfere with the due course of justice.2001) :“(i) Contempt of Court : Mere statement by contemnor (advocate) before Court that he apologizes is hardly enough to amount to purging himself of contempt: Court must be satisfied of genuineness of apology to hold contemnor has purged himself of contempt : Till such order passed by Court delinquent advocate would continue to be under spell of interdict contained in rule 11 of the rules.S.2001) Note: Limitation of one Year from the date of filing of contempt application or one year from the date of knowledge for filing a contempt application 41. CHAUHAN AND R.(i) Head Note of the above referred DRJ:- “Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 Contempt.Respondent-Advocate continued to appear in all Courts he was earlier appearing even after he was convicted by High Court for Criminal Court without being objected by any Court.Punishment – False affidavit – Petitioner’s building demolished despite greasing palm of officials of MCD – Sought direction against erring officials – Directions issued to MCD restraining unauthorized construction in unauthorized colonies in CW 7441/93 – MCD officials allowed constructions in violation of order – False affidavit furnished that certain properties demolished – Committee of Advocates appointed to report nature of demolitions – Report reveals certain properties were punctured and not completely demolished – Deliberate and willful false statements of JE and Baildar – Disregard of truth – Interference in the course of justice – Guilty of contempt of court – Sentence of one month’s SI with fine of Rs.S.8. “Pallav Sheth vs. 25. Ali & Another. SHRI U.10.This was on account of fact that presiding officers of Court not informed of what happened-This Court directs in future whenever advocate is convicted by High Court for contempt of Court. Shah Vs. ACCORDINGLY. (2001) 7 SCC 549 (10. custodian and others. “Pravin C. Mohd. Registrar of that High Court shall intimate that fact to all courts within its jurisdiction to inform all presiding officer that particular advocate is under spell of interdict contained in Rule 11 of rules until he purges himself of contempt-Respondent can still purge himself of contempt in manner indicated under Rule-11-Unless that process is complete respondent cannot plead in any Court within domain of Kerala High Court including subordinate Courts-Registrar of High Court of Kerala shall intimate all courts about this interdict as against . VII (2001) SLT 153” (9. A.

2002) 43. In the case of Chandra Shashi v. 2(c ) – Criminal contempt – Accused bringing some persons to impersonate as contesting respondents in writ appeal and persuading Court to accept compromise petition signed by them as if contesting parties had settled matter to allow writ appeal filed by accused and withdraw writ petition filed by contesting respondents – Held.2003) (i) Head Note (B) of the above referred Cri. 2(c ). S. “Advocate General. (1995) 1 SCC 421 : (1994 AIR SCW 4994) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down thus:“2.respondent-Contempt of Courts Act. This conduct is having tendency of impeding. 1971-Section 12-Kerala High Court Rules-Rules 11Advocates Act.Person who committed contempt of court cannot have unreserved right to continue to appear and plead and conduct cases in courts without any quaim or remorse: Bar Council cannot overrule such regulation concerning orderly conduct of court proceedings. we would like to remind ourselves to the law as laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. 2004 Cri L. Anil Kumar Verma. accused was guilty of criminal contempt as defined in S. High Court of Karnataka v. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings. the conduct of such person has a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings.7.J. Shahnaz Husain. 1961 –Section 34 (1). obstructing or interference striking a blow on the role of law and NO COURT CAN IGNORE SUCH CONDUCT WHICH HAS THE TENDENCY TO SHAKE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND IN THE JUDICIAL INSTITUTION. 493” (30. . Such persons are required to be property dealt with. “Sudhir Chona vs. forged document or ever makes false statement on oath. before adverting to the evidence. -----. the justice. 2002 (62) DRJ 346 (DB)” (13.:- “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971).3. this type of acts clearly fall within the definition of criminal contempt as defined U/s 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. (ii) Contempt of Court. Chidambara and another.” 42. L.J. If any person tries to either file any false affidavit. or if anything is done with oblique motive. not only to punish them for the wrong done. but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.” (ii) Relevant extract of para 29 of above referred judgment:- “Insofar as accused 1 is concerned. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to file false affidavits by giving false statements or fabricating false evidence ever by impersonation in a court of law and as such.

it becomes difficult to say that the appellant had deliberately stated falsehood to mislead the Court or to simply gain time to the disadvantage of the other party in this matter. ADVERTED TO IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IS NOT MADE ON THE BASIS OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANT and the defence set up by him is on the basis of the stand taken by his bank in the companion suit. there must be a false statement of fact and not a mere pleading made on the basis of facts which are themselves not false. THERE IS NOTHING IN LAW TO PREVENT A PERSON FROM BEING PROCEEDED FOR CONTEMPT. Ramaraj Vs. The written statement had been verified by the appellant stating that what is THE VERIFICATION OF FACTS contained in written statement is based on the information received from the records of the defendants and he believed the same to be true. In order to expose a person to the liability of a prosecution of making false statement. it will not amount to contempt unless it be that the facts as pleaded themselves are false. 2.IS CONTEMPT –But pleading/defence made on basis of facts which are not false-Howsoever the pleading may be an abuse process of court –Does not amount to contempt.2003) (A Three Judge Bench) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred AIR :“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). Merely because an action or defence can be an abuse of process of the Court. WHERE A VERIFICATION IS SPECIFIC AND DELIBERATELY FALSE.Contempt –FALSE VERIFICATION OF STATEMENT OF FACTS. but an inference is drawn thereby stating that the stand of the plaintiff or defendant is one way or the other. the same was shut out on the basis that it is hearsay. AIR 2003 SC 3039” (19. The appellant a Bank Officer was held guilty of contempt of Court on ground of taking up a false defence as pleaded in the written statement and repeating the same in the evidence-inchief. the stand had been accepted. when the appellant tried to explain his case in his evidence. Bombay. If the facts leading to a claim or defence are set out. When in a suit of the appellant’s Bank. BUT AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE THE COURT BY DISGUISING THE NATURE OF CLAIM IS CONTEMPT. but in the suit against appellant’s Bank. A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely. But it must be remembered that the very essence of crimes of this kind is not how such statements may injure this or that party to litigation BUT HOW THEY MAY DECEIVE AND MISLEAD THE COURTS AND THUS PRODUCE MISCHIEVOUS CONSEQUENCES TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE. “S. he comes under the clutches of law.44. S.R. his evidence cannot . An officer of Bank who had no personal knowledge of the transactions in question and was deposing on the basis of material on record. Special Court.8. such stand had been disbelieved. Further. those responsible for its formulation can not be regarded as committing contempt.

unprincipled prosecutor and perfunctory trial and evidence of threatened/terrorized witnesses. 386. 165 of the evidence Act. “Zahira Habibullah H. therefore. the lower Court was not justified in shutting out that part of the evidence. ------.willing to speck truth before the appellate court on basis of affidavit power Under S 391 can be exercise by appellate court----------Re-trial observed to be conducted out side state-------it is no doubt true that the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court and the acquittal has been upheld. 391. “The law should not be seen to sit limply. Hence. (iii) Relevant extract of para 59 of the above referred judgment:“As pithily stated in Jennison vs.” (iv) Relevant extract of para 76 of the above referred judgment:“-----This appears to be a case where the truth has become a casualty in the trial.Object of 391 is to subserve ends of justice and to get at the truth-Best Bakery case with horror and terror – oriented History-Star eye-witness had not stated truthfully before trial court. 165-------. It seems to be nothing but a travesty of truth.” (ii) Relevant extract of Head Note (C ) of the above referred AIR:“Criminal PC (2 of 1974).Presiding judge must not a spectator and a mere recording Machine. interference in appeals is warranted.” COURTS HAVE TO ENSURE THAT ACCUSED PERSONS ARE PUNISHED ---------. S. WHILE THOSE WHO DEFY IT OF FREE and.C.401 –Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. Courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the frame work of law--------.2004) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR:“Criminal P.” . 311-Evidence Act. Sheikh and another vs State of Gujarat and others. IT IS NO ACQUITTAL IN THE EYE OF LAW and no sanctity or credibility can be attached and given to be so called findings. 165 ----------.but should play active role in evidence collecting process – AND ELICIT all relevant materials necessary fro reaching the correct conclusion to find out truth---------Section 311 of the Code and S. S. Baker (1972 (1) All ER 1006). Ss. If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiencies. those who seek its protection lose hope. AIR 2004 SC 3114” (12. (2 of 1974).4. fraud on legal process AND THE RESULTANT DECISIONS OF COURTS-CORAM NON JUDIS AND NON-EST. confer vast and vide powers on residing Officers of Court to elicit all necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process--------. (1 of 1872).” 45. but if the acquittal is unmerited and based on tainted evidence. tailored investigation.be from his knowledge and necessarily has to be hearsay.

or by visible representation. inter alia provides that action for contempt may be taken on court’s own motion or on a motion made by – (a) the Advocate – General. S.“Every High Court besides powers under the act has also the power to punish for contempt as provided in Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Board of Revenue.P.11. such as FROM A PERUSAL OF THE . 15-Cognizance of criminal contempt– PROCEDURE – proceedings before High Court were initiated by respondents for filing contempt petition under S.General –petition held. OTHER THEN A CONTEMPT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 14. Lucknow vs.. AIR 2005 SC 396” (29.2004) (i) Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR:“Contempt of Courts Act. K. with the consent in writing of the advocate general (iii) Para 12 of the above referred judgment:“For determination of the issues involved. spoken or written for by signs. contempt’ is defined in section 2 (c ) of the act. ----. ‘Criminal. would not be maintainable (ii) Para 6 of the above referred judgment:“For determination of the main issue in these appeals---------. THE MANNER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 15 OF THE ACT. inter alia means the publication (whether by words. or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends to scandalizes. This section. Harish Pimpalkhute and another. 15 – petition were vigorously pursued and strenuously argued as private petitions – same were never treated as suo motu petitions – non-compliance of mandatory requirement of obtaining consent of Advocate.TI is one of the salutary principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. U. If the High Court acts on information derived from its own sources. on its own motion. (70 of 1971). Sarkar.-------. Vinay Chandra Mishra ((1981) 1 SCC 436) to the following effect:“Section 15 does not specify the basis or the source of information on which the High Court can act. OR LOWERS OR TENDS TO LOWER THE AUTHORITY OF ANY COURT. it would also be useful to note the observations may in the case of S. We are concerned with criminal contempt. Member. “Bal Thackrey vs. The procedure for initiating a proceeding of contempt when it is committed IN THE FACE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR HIGH COURT has been prescribed in SECTION 14 of the Act.” 46. The Act lays down ‘contempt of Court’ to mean civil contempt or criminal contempt.” (iii) Para 7 of the above referred judgment . IN THE CASE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. It. or (b) any other person.(v) Relevant extract of para 77 of the above referred judgment:“-------. it is necessary to briefly note the object of power of the court to punish a person for contempt.

2007) (i) Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT :- “Constitution of India. a discretion to refused to entertain the petition. action for contempt may be taken by the court on its own motion or on the motion of the attorney General (or Solicitor General) or of any other person with his consent in writing.K. not being the Advocate General can the High Court refused to entertain the same on the ground that it has been made without the consent in writing of the advocate General? It appears to us that the High Court has. it was held that:“54. it can be said to have taken cognizance on its own motion. Mishra (AIR 1971 SC 1132 and AIR 1981 SC 723 respectively) . 215. HE MAY PLACE THE INFORMATION INFORMATION BEFORE BEFORE THE THE ATTORNEY ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERAL AND AND REQUEST TO TAKE ACTION . But when this is not done and a private person desires that such action should be taken.2. There is no difficulty where the court or the attorney General chooses to move in the matter. Gupta and Sarkar vs.” (iv) Para 13 of the above referred judgment:“In P.P. ONE OF THE THREE COURSES IS OPEN TO HIM.J.N. 2339” (9.Section 340 r/w section 195. if the High court is directly moved by a petition by a private person feeling aggrieved. or to take cognizance on its own motion on the basis of the information supplied to it in that petition. He may place the information in his possession before the court and request the court to take action (vide C.Criminal Procedure Code. 1973.RECORDS OF A SUBORDINATE COURT or on reading a report in a newspaper or hearing a public speech. WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY REFERENCE FROM THE SUBORDINATE COURT or the advocate General. OR HE MAY PLACE THE REQUEST HIM TO PERMIT HIM TO MOVE TO THE COURT. were of .” (v) Relevant extract of para 16 of the above referred judgment:“The whole object of prescribing procedural mode of taking cognizance in section 15 is to safe guard the valuable time of the court from being wasted by frivolous contempt petition. Kanwaljit S. But. and rules makes it clear that so far as this Court is Concerned. in such a situation. Duda’s case (AIR 1988 SC 1208). Sareen & ors.. A conjoint perusal of the Act.Recovery suits –Loan agreements not executed on dates recorded thereon. Daphtary vs. O. 47. 1950. “Court on its own Motion v.Stamp papers on which they were engrossed. 138 (2007) DLT 682 : 2007 Cri L.Art.Contempt of Court-Cognizance of abuse of legal process.

“Court on its own Motion v. 1973 – Section 340 r/w Section 195.Act of instituting suits on loan agreements knowing that legal notice of demand sent for return of consideration.1997 – Defendants filed written statement denying execution of loan agreements. P.Cognizance of abuse of legal process-Initiation of proceeding under section 340 Cr. initiation of proceedings under section 340 Cr.7.” (iii) Head Note (iii) of the above referred DLT :“Judicial Administration-Role of Advocates vis-à-vis Courts and administration of justice.C. P. 159 (2009) DLT 362” (DB) (17.2. not in interest of justice.Non-judicial stamp paper on which agreement engrossed is dated 21.1997 and 1. would not serve any useful purpose nor be in interest of justice – Parties requested for quietus in matter.Apology of another Counsel Kiran Singh is bona fide and accepted-Directions issued accordingly. Diwan is Advocate with decades of experience and submits he and plaintiff suffered for their lapsesPlaintiff lent money.7.Show cause notice issued to plaintiff and his Advocates for abuse of legal process in institution and prosecution of suits based on agreements in question.C.Judge and Counsel are two wheels of chariot of justice-Mutual confidence in discharge of duties and cordial relations between Bench and bar Smoothen movement of chariot. apology tendered by him accepted.1997 and notarized on same date. claiming it to have been paid in USA. would not be filed by counsel deliberately.Defendants claimed plaintiff forged and fabricated loan agreement for institution of suit.” (iv) Relevant extract of Head Note (iv) of the above referred DLT :- “Criminal Procedure Code.2009) (i) Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT:- . 195(1)(b)(ii).Dr.It can be filed by counsel either on account of his total forget-fullness with regard to notice sent or his being blissfully ignorant of legal provisions and consequences thereof.” (ii) Head Note (ii) of the above referred DLT :- “Contempt of Court. Swaran Singh Banda. PRACTISING FRAUD AND FALSE AVERMENTS TO KNOWLEDGE OF COUNSEL IN PLAINT.later date.Inquiry under section 340 Cr. witnessing agreement either not executed on dates mentioned or not executed at all APART FROM BEING GROSS VIOLATIONS OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS ALSO AMOUNT TO OBSTRUCTING DUE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTES CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. has lost right to recover same on account of manipulation of documents by defendants-keeping in view age of Counsel and his blemish less tack record. –Contempt of Court----As suo motu notice of contempt initiated and determined.5. P.Making of false statement on oath deliberately also constitutes criminal contempt.C.” 48.Loan agreement was dated 15.DELIBERATE FALSE STATEMENTS ON OATH.Party taking recourse to fraud deflects course of judicial proceedings and same constitutes interference in administration of justice.

. if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive. (iii) Para 4 of the above referred judgment :- Learned Counsel for respondent in appeal has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi Vs.” (iv) Para 5 of the above referred judgment :- . Anil Kumar Verma. deposition before Court and in letter addressed to L & DO regarding property being HUF property and contrary stand before L & DO – These contradictions caused an inordinate delay in trial of suit – It has resulted in unfortunate situation where plaintiff No. 1971 deals with any acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses ‘in any manner’. to explain that the word ‘interfere’ in the context of the criminal contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1971 means any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty. State of Haryana and Ors. (ii) Head Note (ii) of the above referred judgment:- “Contempt of Court – Party taking recourse to fraud deflects course of judicial proceedings and same constitutes interference in administration of justice and liable for contempt of Court in vide Kanwaljit S. Sareen & Ors. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Court on its own motion Vs.. 1 ) is living in Gurudwara – Appellant an advocate though aged one – He is fully familiar with legal pleas and consequences of his conduct – Fit case for issuance of notice for criminal contempt to respondent who has tried to pollute course of justice and interfere with same knowing falsehood of his statements – FACT THAT HE IS AN ADVOCATE MAKES CONDUCT OF RESPONDENT ALL THE MORE DEPLORABLE and mere advanced age of respondent should not defer this court from proceeding further in matter – Appropriate notice to show cause be issued to respondent of being proceeded against and punished for criminal contempt of Court. Sareen case 138 (2007) DLT 682. Arvind Shukla. In Ram Autar Shukla Vs. ANY OBSTRUCTION CAUSED IN THE PATH OF THOSE SEEKING JUSTICE ARE AN AFFRONT TO THE MAJESTY OF LAW AND.“Contempt of court – Contradictory stand taken by contemnor in written statement. Any interference in the course of justice. The polluters of judicial firmament are required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court’s environment. it was observed that the Contempt of Courts Act. THE CONDUCT IS PUNISHABLE AS CONTEMPT OF COURT. A similar view has been expressed in Dhananjay Sharma Vs. THEREFORE. the same would definitely hinder. (1995) Supp (2) SCC 130. Kanwaljit S. (1195) 1 SCC 421. The tendency on the part of the contemnor in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact. Thus. 138 (2007) DLT 682 has observed that a party taking recourse to fraud deflects course of judicial proceedings and same constitutes interference in administration of justice. 1 passed away dent No. hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the Courts from performing the legal duties as they are supposed to do. II (1995) CCR 128 (SC) = AIR 1995 SC 1795 where false affidavits had been filed.

by any person or persons. induced and/or in any manner pressurized to make statements in a particular way by any person or persons.” 49. 15 – false statements before Courts. So far as the question whether she was threatened. and (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmation.” (iv) Para 15 of the above referred judgment:“Above being the position. we are satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice for criminal contempt to the respondent herein who has tried to pollute the course of justice and interfere with the same knowing the falsehood of his statements. who the person/persons is (or) are. Further.00. committed contempt of Supreme Court . THE FACT THAT HE IS AN ADVOCATE MAKES THE CONDUCT OF RESPONDENT ALL THE MORE DEPLORABLE and the mere advanced age of the respondent should not. Vs. (iii) Relevant extract of para 7 of the above referred judgment:“The Inquiry Officer has categorically recorded that Zahira had changed her stands at different stages and has departed from statements made before this court.Witness made statement before National Human Rights Commission and Supreme Court that she was intimidated.Income tax Authorities directed to initiate proceedings requiring her to explain source of acquisition of various assets and expenses met by her during relevant period. State of Gujarat & ors. S. in our considered view.Sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay cost of Rs. Arts. (ii) Relevant extract of para 4 of the above referred judgment:“----------We direct the Register General of this Court to conduct inquiry and submit a report to this court within three months. induced and/or in any manner pressurized to depose/make statement (s) in any particular way. coerced. deter us from proceeding further in the matter. what remains to be done is what is the consequence of . it has been found that Zahira has not been able to explain the assets in her possession -----------. The Registrar General shall indicate in the report (a) if Zahira Habibullah Shekiah was in any manner threaded. “Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & anr. threatened and coerced to make statement in particular way before trial Court-Subsequently disowned it – Inquiry set up to find out truth – Finding by Inquiry Officer that money has exchanged hands which made said witness to state in particular way in trial court – Said witness could not explain her assets sources of bank deposits – Report of Inquiry Officer found acceptable – Said witness thus.“In view of the aforesaid plea and the factual matrix discussed in the appeal. 50. AIR 2006 SC 1367” (8.000. leored. coursed. there is no reason to discard the report given by the Inquiry Officer which is accordingly accepted.3. 129.2006) (i) Head Note (D) of the above referred AIR:“Constitution of India. held. 142 (2) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971).

“COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. The law should not be seen to sit be limply. STATE & ORS. R. Case wherein Mr.and in case of default of payment within two months. she shall further imprisonment of one year------. but a bigger one can break through and get away”. particularly in this Court.--------. Khan and Mr. which may catch small files.” (vi) Para 18 of the above referred judgment:“Zahira has committed contempt of this court.0000/. Increasingly. 50. vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underline existence of Courts of Justice. it has been accepted that discovery.U. Rajiv Dawar. Zahira’s role in the whole case is an eye-opener for all concerned with the administration of criminal justice. the criminal justice system is likely to be affected if persons like Zahira are to be left unpunished.-------. we direct as follows:(1) Zahira is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay costs of Rs.8.K. It is caught.2008) (This judgment is in respect of B. people are believing as observed by SALMON quoted by Diogenes Laertius in “Lives of the Philosophers” laws are like spiders’ webs: if some light or powerless thing falls into them. It has to keep promise to justice and it cannot stay petrified and sit non-challantly. to be just and fair has to be seen devoid of flaw. Anand were the counsel for the state and defence respectively) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT:- .M. but let wasps and hornets break through”. As highlighted at the threshold. obtained) 51.Zahira having made such conflicting statements and the effect for changing her stand from the statements made at different stages.W. 151 (2008) DLT 695 (DB)” “Court On Its Own Motion vs. Backer (1972 (1) All ER 1006).” (ix) Relevant extract of para 41 of the above referred judgment:“In the aforesaid background. (viii) Relevant extract of para 28 of the above referred judgment:“Right from the inception of the judicial system. (v) Relevant extract of para 16 of the above referred judgment:“-----------Serious questions arise as to the role played by witness how changed their versions more frequently than Chameleons. Jonathan Swift. in his “Essay on the Faculties of the Mind” said in similar lines: “Laws are like cobwebs. I. 50. 2007 (1) AD (Delhi) 567” (Not yet (21.” (vii) Para 22 of the above referred judgment:“It was significantly said that law. while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection loose hope (See Jennison v.

Both lawyers Senior Advocate – They have not tendered.206 & 207) (ii) Head Note (vii) of the above referred DLT:“Contempt of court – jurisdiction . It was observed that prima-facie THEIR ACTS AND CONDUCT WERE INTENDED TO SUBVERT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE PENDING BMW CASE AND IN PARTICULAR INFLUENCE THE OUT COME OF THE PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. Sri. proceedings for contempt of Court (as defined in Section 2 (c) of the contempt of Courts Act.K. 1972. 10. Khan prohibited from appearing in this Court or Courts subordinate to it for 4 months – However they are free to discharge their professional duties –Further Full Court recommended to strip them of their designation of Senior Advocate.” (iii) Head Note (xi) of the above referred DLT:“Constitution of India. Even if a different perspective or view than the findings and views expressed by us can be propounded. in exercise of powers conferred by Article 215 of the constitution. 20.Contempt of Court – Punishment –Imposition – Interference with judicial proceedings and administration of justice proved – Collusion between SPP I. Anand.was prima-facie satisfied that these persons ‘HAVE WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY TRIED TO INTERFERE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY THE COURTS’. 8.U. --------. 1972) were initiated against Mr. 1950. Accordingly. 11. (iv) Relevant extract of para 20 of the above referred judgment:“On 7th August.Art. that would not affect the finding on . expressed any contrition or repentance for their conduct – Both R. Anand. Bhagwan Sharma and they were asked show cause why they should not be punished accordingly. 127. Anand in BMW case. 155. with scrupulous care and caution – contempt of court is serious business – no court should want only invoke its contempt jurisdiction only because it is vested with power to do so.to be exercised suo-motu sparingly. 143. Mr.Interference with judicial proceedings and administration of justice – Nexus between Special Public Prosecutor and Defence Lawyer – Sting Operation by NDTV – Role of Defence Lawyer and Special Public Prosecutor in on-going session trial of BMW case -----Complicity between Special Public Prosecutor and Defence Lawyer – both were More than mixed up in BMW case – conduct of both had tendency to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice as influencing a witness to alter his evidence or to decline to testify amounts to interference in administration of justice -------Contempt very much before eyes and within herein – contempt of courts act. 125. 215.respectively. 169. However. -section 2 (C ) (Paras 2. 2000/. Khan and defence lawyer R.K.“Contempt of Court . Anand and I. the court -----. 156. conditional or unconditional. 78. it does not appear to be necessary to deal with the cases cited by Mr. we are doing so because we feel it necessary to clear the air in so far as the rights of litigants and their advocates are concerned. Khan and Mr.U. on a consideration of the material available. 2007 .’ (v) Para 28 of the above referred judgment:“Consequently. both of them liable to pay fine of Rs.

000/.00. he was found guilty of criminal contempt and subsequently interfering. In that case.” (vii) Relevant extract of para 135 of the above referred judgment:“---------. In R. it was held (as in Dhananjay Sharma vs.was imposed on the contemnor. in exercise of powers conferred by Article 215 of the Constitution of India. After being given a full opportunity of representing his case. Magnanimity and latitude should be available to those who are not knowledgeable conversant with the system or commit the offence unwittingly or innocently. V. who would be responsible for his release on bail’.000/.” (viii) Para 241 of the above referred judgment:“In these circumstances. 30. with the administration of justice. Further.” (vi) Relevant extract of para 37 of the above referred judgment:“-----------. This is because of overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence on record beckoning and calling for maintaining the purity of the stream of justice especially WHEN IT IS SOUGHT TO BE POLLUTED BY THOSE HAVING A PIVOTAL ROLE WITHIN THE SYSTEM. In Murray and Co. We may also observe that throughout these prolonged proceedings.” A fine of Rs. the defence lawyer had assured the accused of his release on bail for a sum of Rs. we may refer to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court authored by one of us (Manmohan Sarin. II (1995) CCR 128 (SC) = (1995) 3 SCC 757) that deliberately filing a false affidavit in court or MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT ON OATH would also amount to a contempt of court if it tends to cause obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings or impedes and interferes with the administration of justice. State of Haryana. In that case. 4. 2000/.merits given by us in respect of criminal contempt having been committed by the alleged contemnors. it was noted that the gist of an offence of contempt of court is ‘CONDUCT WHICH MAY LEAD AND IS INTENDED TO LEAD TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WHETHER OR NOT A MISCARRIAGE ACTUALLY OCCURS’. (1980) 3 ALL ER 151. In this context. We agree with this exposition of the law. we feel the adequate punishment would be to prohibit them from appearing before this court and the Courts subordinate to it for a specified period and also to recommend to the Full Court that they should be stripped of their designation as Senior Advocates. there has not even been expression of any slightest remorse or regret on the part of respondent-contemnor and be continues to maintain his high ground.as directed by the Bar Counsel and a plea was made to bring a quietus to the matter.having spoken to ‘the people. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT ABERRATION COMMITTED BY THOSE WHO ARE INTEGRAL PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ARE STERNLY AND FIRMLY DEALT WITH. despite several opportunities being available. Rajiv Dawar. he was debarred from appearing in this Court and the . Machin.) titled Court “On Its Own Motion v. J.00. the contemnor had refunded Rs. 2007 (I) AD (Delhi) 567. This submission was rejected by the Bench holding: “TO OUR MIND.

proceeding with the matter any further. “R. 161 (2009) DLT 130(SC)” (A Three Judge Bench Decision) A. Relevant extracts of the above referred DLT and the judgment pertaining to prohibition for advocate against appearing in Courts (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (V) of the above referred DLT:- “Contempt of Courts Act.” 53. particularly as regard the punishment to be given to Mr. Newatia).. v. “Three Cheers Entertainment (P) LTD & ors. If appellants have been found to be guilty of commission of contempt. be it noted that exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious and use of it rather sparingly after addressing itself to the true effect of the contemptuous conduct. This is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the law Courts to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction the majesty of law. Ashok Ku. 1961. In Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. --------. THEY HAD NOT BEEN ASKED TO PURGE THEIR CONTEMPT. LTD.Courts subordinate to it for a period of two months while permitting him to discharge his professional duties in terms of consolation. 12 – Constitution of India.2008) (i) Head Note (ii) of the above referred SLT:- “Contempt of Court – Matter deserves to be dealt with all seriousness. 1950. We accordingly direct:. Anand Vs.10.” (ii) Relevant extract of para 34 of the above referred judgment:- “--------. (ix) Relevant extract of para 242 of the above referred judgement:“We are of the view that the ratio of the above case would apply to the present situation.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 36 of above referred judgment:- “-----------. Delhi High Court.BMW case. 145.K.Sting operation- . 1971. Sayed Hasibur Rahman & ors.Contempt of Court. Why the extraordinary procedure of asking them to appear on another day for hearing on quantum of sentence was adopted is not understood. v. they should have been punished on the same day.Arts.E.------------------------------------------------------.S. would ever permeate in our society (vide Murray & Co. 215 – Advocates Act.” 52. etc. C. this Court held:“13. Anand and Mr. Contempt of Court is a matter which deserves to be dealt with all seriousness. Khan. 1 (2009) SLT 261” (20.Section 34. II (2001) SLT 819 = (2001) 3 SCC 739.Sections 2 (c ). Registrar. V. Before however. The Court must otherwise come to a conclusion that the contempt complained of TENTAMOUNTS TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE which if allowed.C.

1961. the revocation or suspension of licence of an advocate has not . where he may be enrolled. the power to revoke the licence or to suspend it for a specified term also vests in the same body. Appearance in Court is the dominant. Though by the time the appeals were taken up for hearing the period of four months was over. In a proceeding of contempt the High Court could only impose a punishment as provided under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. though in a given case the High Court could debar the contemnor from appearing in Court till he purged himself of the contempt. In a proceeding of contempt punishment could only be awarded as provided under the Contempt of Courts Act.----- (ii) Para 135 of the above referred judgment :- “We were also addressed on the validity of the High Court’s direction prohibiting the two appellants from appearing before the High Court and the Courts subordinate to it for a period of four months. Anand. Since the authority to grant licence to a law graduate to practice as an advocate vests exclusively in a State Bar Council.No conflict or clash between section 34 of Advocates Act and Art.” (iii) Para 136 of the above referred judgment :- “Mr.Prohibition against appearing in CourtsObservations made in case of Ex. According to him. Mr. if not the sole content of a lawyer’s practice.Two appellants were debarred from appearing before High Court and Courts subordinate to it for a period of 4 months. Rao submitted that a person who is a law graduate becomes entitled to practice the profession of law on the basis of his enrolment with nay of the State Bar Councils established under the Advocates Act. The counsel further submitted that a High Court could frame rules under Section 34 of the Advocates Act laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate would be permitted to practice in the High Court and the Courts Subordinate to it and such rules may contain a provision that an advocate convicted of contempt of Court would be barred from appearing before it or before the subordinate Courts for a specified period. and the bar Council of India. therefore. the punishment awarded to the appellant by the High Court had no legal sanction. Senior Advocate. 145 and section 34 of Act clearly show that there is no absolute right to an Advocate to appear in Court – An Advocate appears in Court subject to conditions laid down by Court.K. Mr. Mr. for his sellout in favour of defence for a very high price. But so far the Delhi High Court has not framed any rules under Section 34 of the Act.Negotiation between SK and Special Public Prosecutor and R. 145 of Constitution – Art. UOI followed. 1971. Altaf Ahmed contended that the High Court’s direction was beyond its competence and authority. Capt. The High Court was bound by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and it was not open to it to innovate any new kind of punishment in exercise of its power under Articles 215 of the Constitution or its inherent powers. He further submitted that professional misconduct is a subject specifically dealt with under the Advocates Act and the authority to take action against a lawyer for any professional misconduct vests exclusively in the State bar Council. Nageshwar Rao learned Senior Advocate assisting the Court as amicus shared the same view. Rao submitted that the direction given by the High Court was beyond its jurisdiction. Further. Harish Uppal Vs.

this Court considered the case of a lawyer who was found guilty of contempt of Court and as a consequence was sought to be debarred from appearing in Courts till he purged himself of contempt. The concerned advocate challenged the order of the State bar Council in appeal before the Bar Council of India. The matter was brought in appeal before this Court and a two Judges’ Bench hearing the appeal framed the question arising for consideration as follows : “When an advocate was punished for contempt of Court can he appear thereafter as a counsel in the courts. Punishment by way of suspension of the licence of an advocate can only be imposed by the Bar Council. therefore. VII (2001) SLT 153 = (2001) 8 SCC 650.” . particularly in a case where the contemnor is convicted of criminal contempt. A complaint was made to the Kerala State Bar Council on which a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the advocate concerned and finally the State Bar Council imposed a punishment on him debarring him from acting or pleading in any Court till he got himself purged of the contempt of Court by an order of the appropriate Court. however. But it cannot assume the authority and the power statutorily vested in the bar Council. unless he purges himself of such contempt? If he cannot. and then again pay the fine and persist with contemptuous conduct. Kerala High Court has framed Rules under Section 34 of the Advocates Act and Rule 11 reads thus :“No advocate who has been found guilty of contempt of Court shall be permitted to appear act or plead in any court unless he has purged himself of the contempt.A. did not stop at Supreme Court Bar Association. Mohd.” (iv) Para 139 of the above referred judgment :- “The matter. In Pravin C Shah Vs. approve the view that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor is sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the contempt.only civil but also penal consequences. We cannot. The bar Council of India allowed the appeal and set aside the interdict imposed on the advocate. & 31 of the judgment as follows : “27. of course. Their must be something to be done to get oneself perjured of the contempt when it is case of criminal contempt. The High Court can. Ali and Anr. K.28. the competent statutory body. notwithstanding his conviction for contempt of Court by the Kerala High Court continued to freely appear before the Courts. hence the relevant statutory provisions in regard to imposition of punishment must be strictly followed. The danger in giving accord to the said view of the Ld Single judge in the aforesaid decision is that if a contemnor is sentenced to a fine he can immediately pay it and continue to commit contempt in the same court. after the charge is established against the advocate concerned in the manner prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. prohibit an advocate convicted of contempt from appearing before it or any court subordinate to it till the contemnor purged himself of the contempt.” (v) Relevant extract of para 140 of the above referred judgment :- “An Advocate. than what is the way he can purge himself of such contempt ?” The Court answered the question in paragraphs 27.

Harish Uppal Vs. It is not enough that he tender and apology. The right of the Advocate to practice envelopes a lot of acts to be performed by him in discharge of his professional duties.The very sight of an advocate. he can give his legal opinion whenever sought for he can draft instruments.” (viii) Para 143 of the above referred judgment :- . Hence courts cannot be and are not divested of control or supervision of conduct in Court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate.” (vi) Relevant extract of para 141 of the above referred judgment :- “More importantly. Next step is to seek pardon from the court concerned ------.But the right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on which the court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power. examined the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott of Court(s). he can work in any office or firm as a legal officer.” “31. -----The first thing to be done in get direction when a contemnor is found guilty of a criminal contempt is to implant or infuse in his on mind real remorse about his conduct ---. VII (2002) SLT 229= (2003) 2 SCC 45. In paragraph 34 of the decision the Court made highly illuminating observations in regard to lawyers’ right to appear before the Court and sounded the note of caution for the lawyers.---. Harish Uppal was later followed in a three Judge Bench decision in Bar Council of India Vs. Capt. The decision in Ex.---.----. A RULE CAN STIPULATE THAT A PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF COURT OR HAS BEHAVED UNPROFESSIONALLY AND IN AN UNBECOMING MANNER WILL NOT HAVETHE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO APPEAR AND PLEAD AND CONDUCT CASES IN COURTS. who is guilty of contempt of court or of unbecoming or unprofessional conduct.“28. another Constitution Bench of this Court in Ex. he can participate in any conference involving legal discussion. he can appear for his clients before an Arbitrator. affidavits or any other document.----. Art. Conduct in Court is a matter concerning the court and hence the bar Council cannot claim that what should happen inside the Court could also be regulated by them in exercise of their disciplinary powers.” (vii) Para 142 of the above referred judgment :- “In both Pravin C. Capt. Capt. Shah and Ex. standing in the Court would erode the dignity of the court ---. Section 30 of the Advocates Act has not been brought in to force and rightly so control of conduct in Court can only be within domain of course. Union of India and Another. The apology tendered should impress the court to be genuine and sincere. One last thing which must be mentioned is that the right of appearance in Courts is still within the control and jurisdiction of Courts. pleadings. Thus Art. Para 34 of the decision need to be reproduced below :“34. III (2004) SLT 464 =(2004) 6 SCC 311. Harish Uppal the earlier Constitution Bench decision was extensively considered. 145 of Constitution of India and section 34 of the Advocates Act clearly show that there is no absolute right to an advocate who appear in a court. The High Court of Kerala.------. 145 of the Constitution of India gives to the Supreme Court and Section 34 of the Advocates Act gives to the high Court powers to frame rules including rules regarding condition on which a person (including an advocate) can practice in the Supreme Court and/or in the High Court and Courts subordinate thereto ----. he can be consulted by his clients.--. Apart from appearing in the Courts.

These things are happening more frequently than we care to acknowledge. or where an advocate is found tampering with the Court’s record . It is already explained in Ex. take the case where an advocate is shown to have accepted money in the name of a Judge or on the pretext of influencing him. but on the contrary shows a tendency to repeat or perpetuate the wrong act(s).” (ix) Para 144 of the above referred judgment :- “We respectfully submit that the decision in Ex-Capt. Further. cardinal to nay Court’s functioning. or where an advocate is found actively taking part in faking Court orders (Fake bail orders are not unknown in several High Courts) or where an advocate has made it into a practice to browbeat and abuse Judges and on that basis has earned the reputation to get a case transferred from an inconvenient Court. the concerned lawyer to carry on his legal practice in other ways as indicated in the decision. for example.” (xi) Para 146 of the above referred judgment :- . Unfortunately these are not from imagination. In such a situation the Court does not only have the right but it also has the obligation cast upon it to protect itself and save the purity of its proceedings from being polluted in any way and to that end bar the male factor from appearing before the Courts for an appropriate period of time. Let us. We may also add that these illustrations are not exhaustive but there may be other ways in which a male factor’s conduct and actions may pose a real and imminent threat to the purity of Court proceedings. Union of India places the issue incorrect perspective and must be followed to answer the question at issue before us. apart from constituting a substantive offence and contempt of Court and professional misconduct.” (x) Para 145 of the above referred judgment :- “Lest we are misunderstood it needs to be made clear that the occasion to take recourse to the extreme step of debarring an advocate from appearing in Court should arise very rarely and only as a measure of last resort in cases where the wrong doer advocate does not at all appear to be genuinely contrite and remorseful for his act/conduct. We may respectfully add that in a given case a direction disallowing an advocate who is convicted of criminal contempt from appearing in Court may not only be a measure to maintain the dignity and though in paragraph 80 of the decision.“In Supreme Court bar Association the direction prohibiting an advocate from appearing in Court for a specified period was viewed as a total and complete denial of his right to practice law and the bar was considered as a punishment for professional misconduct but as a measure necessary to regulate the Court’s proceedings and to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the Courts. Captain Harish Uppal that a direction of this kind by the Court cannot be equated with punishment for professional misconduct. Harish Uppal Vs. or where an advocate is found to be in the habit of sending unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation petitions against judicial officers and judges to the superior Courts. as seen earlier there is an observation that in a given case it might be possible for this Court or the High Court to prevent the contemnor advocate to appear before it till he purge himself of the contempt orderly functioning of the courts but may become necessary for the self protection of the Court and for preservation of the purity of Court proceedings.

“Ideally every High Court should have rules framed under Section 34 of the Advocates Act in order to meet with such eventualities but even in the absence of the Rule the High Court cannot beheld to be helpless against such threats. Or such a notice may be given after the proceedee is held guilty of criminal contempt before dealing with the question of punishment. 2(c ).12.11.That fraud was played upon him by plaintiff in collusion with any .18. He may not even imagine that at the end of the proceeding he might end up being debarred from appearing before the Court. 1 contemnor was also of criminal contempt.Criminal ContemptCONTRADICTORY STANDS TAKEN IN HIS PLEADINGS/ AFFIDAVITS BY DEFENDANT/CONTEMNOR REGARDING OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF SUIT PROPERTY.Sections 2 (a).2009) (Available) (i) Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT :- “Contempt of Courts Act.7.FILING OF FALSE AFFIDAVITS OR STATEMENTS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AS IT TENDS TO OBSTRUCT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICEDefendant/Contemnor filed written statement in suit of plaintiff and made statement on oath before trial court AND ADMITTING HE SOLD SUIT PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF AND HANDED OVER POSSESSION TO HIM. Division Bench also found to be case of criminal contempt and charge framed against defendant No. 1908.14.On receipt of REFERENCE from Court of Civil Judge.” 54. 2(b). 161 (2009) DLT 466” (DB) (20.Order 39 Rule 2A.15.Civil Procedure Code. “In the matter of Contempt Proceedings against Kanwar Singh Saini. 1971. The rules of natural justice. 10. The warning may be given in the initial notice of contempt issued under Section 14 or Section 17 (as the case may be ) of the Contempt of Courts Act. In a matter as fundamental and grave as preserving the purity of judicial proceedings the High Court would be free to exercise the powers vested in it under Section 34 of the Advocates Act notwithstanding the fact that Rules prescribing the manner of exercise of power have not been framed. demand that before passing an order debarring an advocate from appearing in Courts he must be clearly told that his alleged conduct or actions are such that if found guilty he might be debarred from appearing in Courts for a specific period.” (xii) Relevant extract of para 147of the above referred judgment :- “In order to avoid any such controversies in future all the High Courts that have so far not framed rules under Section 34 of the Advocates Act are directed to frame the rules without any further delay. But in the absence of statutory Rules providing for such a course an advocate facing the charge of contempt would normally think of only the punishments specified under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is earnestly hoped that all the High Courts shall frame the rules within four months from today. therefore.-----.But subsequently in his reply to contempt application filed by plaintiff. contemnor took a somersault AND TOOK PLEA THAT HE NEITHER SOLD SUIT PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF NOR HANDED OVER POSSESSION TO HIM.19.Contempt of Court.

10. we have to examine whether the defendant/contemnor has committed “Criminal contempt” or not we are of the view that since no cognizance was taken of “Civil Contempt”. direction. 2(b). powers and authority.Sections 2(a). (b) and (c) “contempt of Court”.To be decided on basis of facts which are brought to notice of High CourtAs per scheme of 1971 Act. 1971. or by visible representations or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which(i) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize. the Division Bench had taken cognizance of “Criminal Contempt” only against the defendant/contemnor for his having taken contradictory stands in his pleadings/affidavits regarding the ownership and possession of the suit property. or tends to interfere with. order.other person in making statement.It was tendered by defendant/contemnor for first time while giving evidence in these proceedings-Defendant/contemnor is guilty of criminal contempt. writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of undertaking given to a Court. as noticed already. 19.Apology tendered by contemnor. in accordance with the same procedure and practice. Under Sections 2 (a). 15. or (ii) Prejudices. We say so because of certain provisions of the Act of 1971 as well as some judicial pronouncements.” (ii) Head Note (ii) of the above referred DLT :- “Fraud. . spoken or written.No evidence in this behalf led by defendant/contemnor-Ipse Dixit of defendant is difficult to be accepted.” Section 10 reads as under :“Section 10. the due course of any judicial proceedings. cases of civil contempt can be heard and decided by Single Judge bench only and criminal contempt petition to be heard and decided only by Bench of not less than 2 Judges. or by signs. Power of High Court to punish contempt of subordinate Courts-Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction.” (iv) Para 22 of the above referred judgment :- “In the present case. or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court. 18. in respect of contempt of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt of itself : Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)”.To be established by adducing cogent evidence. or (iii) Interferes. or obstructs or tends to obstruct.” 2(c ) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words. (iii) Head Note (iii) of the above referred DLT :- “Contempt of Courts Act. “civil contempt” and “criminal contempt”. by this Court that aspect cannot be gone into in the present proceedings even though strongly urged on behalf of the plaintiff. 2(c ). not at all apologetic and not accepted. or interferes or tends to interfere with. the administration of justice in any other manner.Contempt of CourtCivil and Criminal. decree. We reproduce below these definition clauses: “2(a) “contempt of court” means “civil or criminal contempt” 2(b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment. So. 14.

then the matter can be entertained STRAIGHTWAY by a Single Judge Bench. Some of those decisions of the Supreme Court are reported as Murray & Co. Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches(1)Every case of criminal contempt under section 15 shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges. I(2000) SLT 550= 1(2000) CLT 310 (SC)= (2000) 2 SCC 367. Newatia and Anr.” (vi) Para 29 of the above referred judgment :- “Now. Rita Markandey Vs. BUT IT HAS NOW BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT FILING OF FALSE AFFIDAVITS/STATEMENTS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BY ANY PARTY TENDS TO INTERFERE WITH OR OBSTRUCTS OR TENDS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND SO THAT ACT AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. (1996) 6 SCC 14 and Dhananjay Sharma Vs. if the contempt of any court Subordinate to the High Court is alleged to be “CRIMINAL CONTEMPT” THEN THE REFERENCE IS MADE TO IT BY THE SUBORDINATE COURT CONCERNED OR ANY OF THE OTHER AUTHORITIES MENTIONED IN SECTION 15 OF THE ACT 1971----. Vs. Appeals – (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt(a) Where the order or decision is that of a Single judge. However. If the High Court considered on perusal of the facts brought to its notice that contempt of a Subordinate court is made AND THE SAME IS CIVIL IN NATURE. to the Supreme Court : Provided…………………………………………. we proceed to examine if the defendant/contemnor has committed criminal contempt or not. The relevant part of this section for our purpose is as follows : “Section 19. State of . It reads as under :“Section 18. (2) Sub-section (I) shall not apply to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner. (b) Where the order or decision is that of a Bench. Surjit Singh Arora.” (v) Relevant extract of para 23 of the above referred judgment :- “From these provisions of the Act of 1971. it becomes evident that the question whether contempt of any subordinate court is committed or not and whether the alleged contempt is civil or criminal to be decided by the High Court on the basis of facts which are brought to the notice of the High Court.Section 18 also needs to be noticed. Those facts can be brought to the notice of the High Court by any party to the litigation. Ashok Kr. to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court. Section 19 provides as to where would an appeal lie against an order of a Single Judge bench and that of a Division bench. Although Section 2 (c ) does not specifically provide that FILING OF FALSE AFFIDAVITS OR PLEADINGS WHICH ARE DULY VERIFIED IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS amounts to criminal contempt.

Vs. The stage at which he has tendered an apology shows that he was really not apologetic at all since at no earlier point of time he tendered apology.S. ld Counsel submitted. however.” (vii) Para 30 of the above referred judgment :- “In the present case.---.2003 he had admitted that he had already sold the suit property to the plaintiff and so he will not dispossess him . Learned counsel for the plaintiff did not dispute that if any party to a suit has made any admission of fact either in the pleadings or by way of statement on oath. the ipsi dixit of the defendant/contemnor that he had made the admissions regarding sale of property in question to the plaintiff and also handing over of its possession to him were as a result of fraud having been played upon him is difficult to be accepted. In his statement on oath also which admittedly was made by him before the Ld Civil judge in the suit on 29. 36 of its judgment in Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. the defendant/contemnor had filed a written statement in the suit of the plaintiff and had also made a statement on oath before the trial court on 29. However. he did commit criminal contempt for which he deserves to be punished. admissions made in the written statement and in the statement made before the trial court. not inclined to accept the so called apology tendered by the defendant/contemnor for the first item while giving evidence in these proceedings. We impose upon the contemnor punishment of simple imprisonment for four months. that party is not precluded from showing that that admission was got made by the opposite party by indulging in fraud and it is shown that any fraud was played upon the party making any admission of some important fact in dispute then that party would not be bound by that admission.” (ix) Para 32 of the above referred judgment :- “While holding the defendant/contemnor guilty of criminal contempt we straightaway proceed to punish him also in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court in para No.4. Even before this Court. C. subsequently when the plaintiff filed contempt application. . Ltd (Supra).C. in the present case the defendant/contemnor had failed miserably to show that any kind of fraud was played upon him by the plaintiff in collusion with any other person.We are therefore.E. the The defendant/contemnor filed an affidavit in response to the show cause notice and claimed that neither he had sold the suit property to the plaintiff not was he given its possession.4. (viii) Relevant extract of para 31 of the above referred judgment :- “-----In our view.2003 admitting that he had sold the suit property to the plaintiff and had also handed over its position to him. Ltd and Ors. II (1995) CCR 128 (SC) = (1995) 3 SCC 7578. were not made by him voluntarily but were as a result of fraud played upon him by the plaintiff and one Ved Prakash. the contemnor in his reply to that contempt application field before the Reference Court. However. he took a somersault and took the plea that neither he had sold the suit property to the plaintiff nor he had handed over its possession to him. Consequently. ---. which was supported by his affidavit wherein he affirmed the correctness of the assertion made by him in his reply. And even the learned Counsel for the defendant/contemnor did not dispute this proposition.Haryana and Ors. according to the defendant/contemnor.

The Learned Company Judge came to the conclusion that in the light of the prohibitions. This conduct was a consequence of an order passed on 6. Despite specific prohibition. There can be no manner of doubt that the action is willful.11. 1906/2006. “Court on its own motion against Ajay Yadav. Such vakaltnama has been signed even as late as on 23rd April. 165 (2009) DLT 520 (DB)” (6. 1971. After setting forth 26 grounds of challenge. is a blatant attempt to lower the authority of the Court in violation of order dated 6th October.---. Advocate in the present proceedings as to who is to represent the company. Chaudhary.” (iii) Sub para 16 of para 11 of the above referred judgment :- “The action of Shri Ajay Yadav in signing the vakalatnamas purportedly on behalf of the respondent No.---. 2006 passed in CS (OS) o. the respondent has defended his action. As a result a dispute was raised by Mr. 2009 despite the judgment dated 20th April.10. the respondent has tried to justify his conduct.” (v) Para 16 of the above referred judgment :- “We find that the respondent has shown no regret.2009) Head Note of the above referred DLT :- (ii) Relevant extract of para 7 of the above referred judgment :- “ The matter. it was not open to Shri Ajay Yadav to represent the company and this fact had not been informed to the Court by the counsel representing Mr. Mr. 1906/2006 by the company in terms where of the society.” . Ajay Choudhary and other members of their group who were defendant in the suit had been restrained from representing themselves as share holders/representatives of the company till further orders. These acts on the part of Shri Ajay Yadav would clearly fall with the definition of “criminal contempt “ as defined under Sub-clauses 1 and 2 of Sub section of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act. We find this apology s no apology at all. did not rest at this since the learned Company Judge took a serious view of the conduct of Mr. Ajay Yadav. 1. The vakalatnama filed by the counsel on behalf of Shri Ajay Yadav as if he was representing the company was found to be in the teeth of the order of injection and the action of Shri Ajay Yadav singing the vakalatnama was observed to be a blatant attempt to lower the authority of the court in violation of the order dated 6. He has sought to raise preliminary objections that no consent of Advocate General or any State Law Officer has been obtained for initiation of contempt proceedings against him which plea is without any basis in view of the proceedings having been initiated suo moto by the Court.” (vi) Relevant extract of para 19 of the above referred judgment :- “---After having done everything possible to frustrate the orders of the court by acting in an improper and illegal manner.2006 in an interlocutory application filed in CS (OS) No. The conduct of Shri Ajay Yadav was held to be an effort to prejudice due course of judicial proceedings and would fall into the definition of criminal contempt and the matter was thereafter directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench after registering the petition as such.” (iv) Relevant extract of para 13 of the above referred judgment :- “A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent shows that Sh Ajay Yadav has justified his conduct of putting an appearance on behalf of the Company through advocates despite the injunction order. 1906/2006. in the last paragraph it is stated that the respondent has the highest regard for the Court and does not want to lower its dignity or authority willfully or otherwise and that the respondent is prepared to tender unconditional apology in the event of the Court considering the present reply as not being sufficient to drop or discharge the notice. (i). however.55.----. Ajay Yadav. 2009.2006 passed in CS (OS) No. Shri Ajay Yadav has made an effort to prejudice due course of the present judicial proceedings.10.

Civil Contempt – Constitution of – There must exist judgment. any interference in the cause of justice.11.---. unless the context otherwise requires(a) “Contempt of Court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt” (b) “Civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment decree. Vs. In Ram Avtar Shukla Vs. undermining and eroding the authority of the Court and is punishable to protect and safeguard the public faith in the administration of justice. order. 9. (i) “ST. has observed that a party taking recourse to fraud deflects course of judicial proceedings and same constitutes interference in administration of justice.” 56. or writ or process of Court or there should be an undertaking given by defendant to Court---. Shahnaz Husain. this court did not pass any judgment in favour of plaintiff and against defendant not decreed the suit of plaintiff nor given any directions to defendant nor passed an order in favour of plaintiff or against defendant nor issued any writ nor an undertaking of defendant was recorded.In this Act. State of Haryana and Ors. A similar view has been expressed in Dhannjay Sharma Vs. Learned Single Judge of this court in court on its own motion Vs. decree. Thus. 2002 (97) DLT 642 that while civil contempt is an offence of private nature depriving a party of the benefit of the Court order. order. hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the Courts from performing the legal duties as they are supposed to do. where false affidavits had been filed. The polluters of judicial firmament are required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court’s environment.. direction.” (ix) Para 25 of the above referred judgment :- “Despite the conduct of the respondent/contemnor. criminal contempt is contumacious or obstructive conduct or behaviour directed against the court and involves an element of criminality in it. Anil Kumar Verma.(vii) Para 20 of the above referred judgment :- “We may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi Vs. 1971 deals with any acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses ‘ in any manner’.” . (1995) 1 SCC 421 to explain that the word ‘interfere’ in the context of the criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. it was observed that the Contempt of Courts Act. 164 (2009) DLT 473 (9.” (ii) Para 3 of the above referred judgment :- “Section 2 sub section (b) of the Contempt of Court Act defines civil contempt which reads as under :“2. 1971 means any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty. II (1995) CCR 128 (SC) = AIR 1995 SC 1795. Definitions. if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive. any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and therefore. 2. the conduct is punishable as contempt of court. 1971 – Sections 2(b).0000/. (1995) Supp (2) SCC 130. Sareen & Ors. the same would definitely hinder.”s (iii) Relevant extract of para 5 of the above referred judgment :- “In the present case.on the respondent/contemnor and sentence him till the rising of the Court. direction.2009) Relevant extract of Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT :- “Contempt of Courts Act.” (viii) Para 21 of the above referred judgment :- “We deem it appropriate to also refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Sudhir Chona Vs. Ives Laboratories Inc. writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to court. Lotus Herbals UK Ltd . The tendency on the part of the contemnor in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact. Kanwaljit S. Arvind Shukla. we restrain from taking an extreme harsh view and impose fine of Rs. 138 (2007) DLT 682 = II (2007) BC 362. It is despising.

SR Cotton Mills Ltd.” (Head Note B) 2. Delhi vs.) Roshan Sam Joyee vs. AIR 1991 SC 2176” (i) “The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person WHICH WOULD TEND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE or which would lower the authority of Court. B.C-8.D. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO PUNISH AS CONTEMPT.3. THE CONDUCT OF CONTEMNERS WAS SO REPREHENSIBLE AS TO WARRANT CONDEMNATION BY IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE – Supreme Court sentenced – each of the contemners to pay a fine of Rs. (Mrs. A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH ABUSES AND MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. “Dr. “The Advocate General. Tis Hazari Court.” (Para 42) 4.2008 :1.. And other. “It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law.12. THE LAW SHOULD NOT BE SEEN TO SIT BY LIMPLY. State of Gujarat and other. in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage”. WHILE THOSE WHO DEFY IT GO FREE. which are important for the present case and appeal against the order dated 28. 500/-. “Court of its own Motion Vs. State of Bihar v. Relevant extracts of the above referred judgments pertaining to Contempt of Courts Act. AIR 1980 SC 946” (i) “ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT CALCULATED TO HAMPER THE DUE COURSE OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING OR THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT. 46 (1992) DLT 35” (Full Court) (19. AND THOSE WHO SEEK ITS PROTECTION LOSE HOPE. AIR 1990 SC 1881” (MISLEADING A COURT KNOWINGLY AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT) (Head Note A) 3. M/s Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another. Kaushik & Ors. (Head Note A) (ii) “Punishment for contempt of court – Apology – Contemners expressed unconditional apology to High Court – HELD. “Delhi Judicial Service Association.1991) (Available) (i) Relevant extracts of the Head Note of the above referred DLT :- .

Held that having considered all relevant aspects and authorities. J Held that what these contemners have done.K. Wadhwa. one would not expect even from street hooligans such a conduct.Aided and abetted by large number of advocates invaded the High Court and prevented the Judges from discharging their judicial function-Full Bench initiated proceedings. taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration.“Constitution of India.P.B. Per G. Held that we must realize that they are members of the noble profession and in their misguided zeal. WHO ARE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. proceeded for contempt of Court. Wad. the gross contempt which they committed and the fact that the acts were . I do not find any extenuating circumstances in the present case for me to take a lenient view. then the rule shall stand discharged on the expiry of the period. But if they maintain orderly. we are of the opinion that in the present case the contemners deserve the punishment of sentence. IT IS COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT THE CONTEMPT IS NOT COMMITTED BY LAY CONTEMNERS BUT BY THE ADVOCATES. ventured upon the defiant course for which they have offered apology. he will be called upon to appear in Court to receive the sentence.Court of Record-Evolve its own procedure. Bearing in mind the outrageous conduct of the contemners. 215. we do not propose to award the sentence at present and defer it as we would like to further watch their conduct and behaviour for a period of one year from today.Art.Contemners expressed regrets –And the apology bonafide-Whether the act of the contemners tantamounts to an attempt to erode the majesty of the Court ? (Yes). this Court cannot adopt an attitude of unwarranted leniency at the cost of principle. Per D. Mital. J & three Others.Respondents advocates. “Per S. -------------------Per Y. good and disciplined behaviour and do not indulge themselves in the repetition of such act within the stipulated period. If anything. It is always easy to show magnanimity and to pursue populist line of showing uncalled for indulgence rather than to adhere to the nail studded path of duty. Therefore. including the outrageous incident and unqualified apology. C. Simply because they are officers of the Court and right has been given to them to practice in Court do not mean that they have to be dealt with leniency. they deserved severe punishment and not mere reprimand or even suspension of sentences. Held that having regard to the totality of the circumstances. It cannot be imagined that any contempt worse than the present one is possible. At the same time we must also keep in mind that simply accepting the apology and discharging the rule may not appear to be warranted in the circumstances of the gross contempt. The contempt committed by the contemners is gravest. In case any of them repeats any act which tantamounts to contempt of Court or undermining the judiciary. J.J. Sabharwal.C. for himself & 11 others.

They are expected to abide by the rule of law and not violate by participating in violent acts.B. a group of lawyers.” S. A very civilized behavour and attitude is expected from the members of the Bar.) (iii) Relevant extract of para 12 of the above referred judgment :- “Of all the unpleasant duties which the court is required to perform. J. In fact.” (iv) Relevant extract of para 22 of the above referred judgment :- “This is not a case of spontaneous emotional outburst of a litigant disappointed by an unfavourable verdict. --. the Officers of the Court for contempt of court. They must discharge their duties with dignity.On the other hand we have here. It may be noticed that the apology has not been tendered by any of the contemnors immediately after notice was served on them. It is necessary to adopt the course with a view to uphold the honour and dignity of the institution. we are not satisfied that we should accept the apology on the facts of the present case AND PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF . WHO ARE THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. CJ.---. the most painful duty is to proceed against the advocates. ----------------------Result-Sentence deferred “Gokal Chand Mital. the populist line of showing over indulgence and magnanimity would not subserve the ends of justice but would amount to giving a licence to contemners to repeat such incidents. (for himself and for 11 other Judges) (ii) Relevant extract of para 6 of the above referred judgment :- “------.K. IF THERE WAS GENUINE REPENTANCE. Bahri & Arun Kumar J.---. It goes without saying that they are guilty of the grossest possible contempt of this court. They had no factual defence and.preconceived. P. THIS COURT HAS TO PERFORM THE PAINFUL DUTY OF DIRECTING IMPOSITION OF IMPRISONMENT AND FINE ON THE CONTEMNERS. decorum and discipline. (For himself and on behalf of B. faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a large extent. I am in complete agreement with Wad J. Wad. admitted to the privilege of representing needy litigant AND BOUND BY HIGH STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS. they are part and parcel of the Administration of justice -----.” (vi) Para 37 of the above referred judgment :- “Even if it is assumed that the apology is sincere.--. Kirpal. therefore. ACCORDINGLY. OBSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.N.” (v) Relevant extract of para 32 of the above referred judgment :- “Now the question arises whether the apology tendered by the contemnors should be accepted or not. THE APOLOGY SHOULD HAVE COME AT FIRST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY. If lawyers fail in their duty.

Vs. R.K.S.” (viii) Relevant extract of para 40 of the above referred judgment :- “In Kuldeep Rastogi Vs. (AIR 1979 Delhi 202 at page 216) after reviewing the case law the Full Bench of this Court held that THE APOLOGY MUST COME AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AND IT SHOULD BE IN WRITING. 2000/. Jatan Singh and P. Vats. . COMMITTED BY THE CONTEMNORS IS GRAVEST. Kaushik Rajiv Khosla.each.” (xi) Relevant extract of para 45 of the above referred judgment :- “----Since we have held that the apology is not bonafide and not acceptable. the Supreme Court has warned that IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE IF ITS “With regard to apology in proceedings for contempt of Court. 1955 (1) SCR 757 at page 764.D. Shareef & Anr..” (vii) Relevant extract of para 38 of the above referred judgment :- “---The right to practice and exclusive privilege of audience given by section 29 and section 30 of the ct cannot be unreasonably utilized to the detriment of the society.---.---.) (x) Para 43 of the above referred judgment :THE CONTEMPT “Having considered all relevant aspects and authorities. it would be contempt of court because that would amount to interfering with course of justice. we direct that contemnors.N.” (ix) Para 41 of the above referred judgment :----In AIR 1985 SC 1726. R. Where there is deliberate failure to attend the court. Rathee.EXTREME GRAVITY OF CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY A GROUP OF LAWYERS in a predetermined manner. who are officers of the Court. should undergo simple imprisonment for one month and shall pay a fine of Rs. nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea. we are of the opinion that in the present case the contemnors deserve the punishment of sentence. but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.ABSTENTION FROM WORK WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CLIENT WOULD AMOUNT TO BREACH OF CONTRACT WITH THE CLIENT. ---. B. it is well settled that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence.” (M.Y. It cannot be imagined that any contempt worse than the present one is possible. S/s. Vishwanath. Sharma. GROSS CONTEMPT GOES UNPUNISHED.In AIR 1980 SC 946 (referred to above) the Court has held that WHERE THE CONDUCT IS REPREHENSIBLE. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors. It is compounded by the fact that the contempt is not committed by lay contemnors but by the advocates. THE APOLOGY SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. viz. Judgal Wadhwa.

----Lawyers belong to a noble and learned profession. the punishment to the contemnors in the present case must be an quintessence for the others so that it creates an awe not only in the mind of contemnors alone but in the mind of other also deter them from committing such an act again. IF LAWYERS THEMSELVES BRING DOWN THE PRESTIGE AND IMAGE OF THE COURT.” Sunanda Bhandare. I would have even thought of going to the extent of injecting these contemnors from appearing in the High Court and or other Courts and Tribunals throughout the Territory of Delhi over which this court has superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution for a certain period . They are the vital link between the court and the members of the public.In recent times there has been a sharp fall in ethical standards at all levels.” (xiii) Relevant extract of para 48 of the above referred judgment :“----Contempt in this case is serious enough to merit imprisonment and fine. I would unhesitatingly reject the apology. ----There was vulgar and disgusting display of hooliganism. Here we are dealing with advocates well versed in law who.J. quotes with approval the following memorable aphorism of his Honour Judge Curtis-Releigh. by fiction of law are officers of the Court. There cannot be any soft peddling on this issue. The apology which these contemnors tendered is no apology either in law or on the facts of the case. If the dignity of the court is not safe in the hands of the lawyers.D. J. L.---. they were students. J : (xii) Relevant extract of para 47 of the above referred judgment :- “----Mind you. the County Judge : “THE LAW SHOULD NOT BE SEEN TO SIT BY LIMPLY. They are also officers of the court.P.” .” (xiv) Para 50 of the above referred judgment :- “In this very judgment Edmund Davies. Wadhwa. IT WILL IMPAIR THE MAJESTY OF THE COURTS OF LAW IRREPARABLY.In my view.” (xv) Relevant extract of para 52 of the above referred judgment :AND THOSE WHO SEEK ITS PROTECTION LOSE “Then the question arises : What are the parameters of the punishment to be awarded in such a case ? -----. ---. WHILE THOSE WHO DEFY IT GO FREE. HOPE. --. it is not save anywhere. never heard or seen before. THIS WAS INDULGED IN BY THE VERY PERSONS WHO THEMSELVES SUPPOSED TO UPHOLD THE MAJESTY OF LAW AND THE COURTS. SOFT ATTITUDE TOWARDS YOUR OWN COMMUNITY ENCOURAGES INDISCIPLINE AND LEADS TO FURTHER EROSION OF STANDARDS. (xvi) Relevant extract of para 59 of the above referred judgment :- “Now coming to the question of sentence.

AND A GENTLEMAN.---.. it may be useful to extract the relevant portion. THOSE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM NEITHER DESERVED SYMPATHY NOR COMPASSION. Jabalpur. RELATED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAW. High Court of M. this court has to perform the painful duty of directing imposing of imprisonment and fine on the judgment has been relied upon by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “R. J. “Pritam Pal Vs.P. 1961. A PRIVILEGED MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY. (xx) Relevant extract of para 84 of the above referred judgment :- “------Bearing in mind outrageous conduct of the contemners. AND PUNISH THE SAME AS CONTEMPT OF ITSELF.K. contemners. 161 (2009) DLT 130 (SC)” (i) Para 59 of the above referred judgment :- . the subordinate judiciary. AT ALL TIMES. ----. It reads :“AN ADVOCATE SHALL. IN ANY FORUM. if anything as lawyers the responsibility on the contemnors was much greater. and the same majority of members of the bar. COMPORT HIMSELF IN A MANNER BEFITTING HIS STATUS AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT.K. Y.---. the gross contempt which they committed and the fact that the acts were preconceived. OR FOR A MEMBERS OF THE BAR IN HIS NONPROFESSIONAL CAPACITY MAY STILL BE IMPROPER FOR AN ADVOCATE. Sabharwal.” (xviii) Para 69 of the above referred judgment :“Indeed.(xvii) Relevant extract of para 60 of the above referred judgment :“Thus. Anand Vs. BEARING IN MIND THAT WHAT MAY BE LAWFUL AND MORAL FOR A PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEMBERS OF THE BAR. 1993 Supp.” (xix) Relevant extract of para 75 of the above referred judgment :- “----. Registrar. (1) SCC 529” This Accordingly.” 5. It is high time. THE POPULIST LINE OF SHOWING OVER INDULGENCE AND MAGNANIMITY WOULD NOT SUB-SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE BUT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING A LICENCE TO CONTEMNERS TO REPEAT SUCH INCIDENTS. that THE HIGH COURT WILL TAKE COGNIZANCE OF EVERY CRIMINAL AND COMPLIMENTARY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY ANYONE. Delhi High Court. what is expected of an advocate is beautifully stated in the preamble to Chapter II laying down standards of professional conduct and etiquette in Part VI of Rules framed by the Bar Council of India in the exercise of its rule making powers under the Advocates Act. Here. in the prevailing conditions to infuse confidence in the minds of the[public.

Fraud on Court-FORGED AND FABRICATED DOCUMENT FILED IN COURT WITH OBLIQUE MOTIVE OF DECEIVING OR DEFRAUDING THE COURT-HELD.11. it becomes the duty of the Court.1994) :(i) Index-A of the Head Note of the above referred SCC at page-422:“Contempt of Courts Act. 1994 (6) SC 584”(4. NOT ACCEPTABLE –“TWO WEEKS” IMPRISONMENT AWARDED TO CONTEMNOR WITH A VIEW THAT IT SHOULD SERVE AS DETERRENT AND EYE-OPENER. meaning of.1994) :‘Lawyers were created for the Courts. “Chandra Shashi Vs. 1971 ----.S. Anil Kumar Verma.10. RESULTS IN INTERFERENCE WITH ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT-words and phrases.T. NO ONE CAN CLAIM IMMUNITY FROM THE OPERATION OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT. Mohammed Ali Vs. “K.” (ii) Para 62 of the above referred judgment :- “THEREFORE.” 7. J.” (ii) Relevant extract of Index –B of the above referred SCC at page-422:“Contempt of Courts Act.“Interfere”.“To punish an Advocate for Contempt of Court. we hold that the sentence of 2 months imprisonment in no way calls for interference and accordingly the sentence is confirmed. 25) (14. it was done with an oblique motive. serene and undefiled. if his act or conduct in relation to Court or Court proceedings interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice. C. 2(c ) – Criminal Contempt. . Held from the facts it is clear that the respondent contemnor had filed a forged and fabricated document in court TO RESIST THE PRAYER OF HIS WIFE to get the matrimonial proceedings transferred on the ground of her poverty i. not Courts for the lawyers’ –BELATED APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED. though painful. Prasannan. a mere sentence of fine would not meet the ends of justice in the circumstances--------. to punish the contemner in order to preserve its dignity.” 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE SENTENCING POLICY THAT PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE. (1995) 1 Supreme Court cases 421”: “1995 Rajdhani Law Reporter Page 1” (Vol. but to preserve the proceedings of the Courts from being deflected or interfered with. must be regarded as an extreme measure. APOLOGY NOT OUTCOME OF REAL REMORSE OR CONTRITION BUT TENDERED AS A WEAPON OF DEFENCE AND THEREFORE. 1971.N.HELD.e.A. and to keep the streams of justice pure. no doubt.

the same interferes with the administration of justice. THE POLLUTERS OF JUDICIAL FIRMAMENT ARE REQUIRED TO BE WELL TAKEN CARE OF TO MAINTAIN THE SUBLIMITY OF COURTS’ ENVIRONMENT. the increasing tendency of taking recourse to objectionable means to get a favourable verdict in the courts has to be viewed gravely to deter the large number of persons approaching courts from doing so. so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. THOSE WHO INDULGE IN IMMORAL ACTS LIKE PERJURY. Therefore. therefore. ------------. SUCH PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROPERLY DEALT WITH. This apart. if he violates courts order BUT ALSO TO KEEP THE STREAM OF JUSTICE CLEAR AND PURE so that purity of court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the state and the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples. deflects the course of judicial proceedings. there being no decision of the Supreme Court (or for that matter of any High Court). impede or in any manner interrupt or prevent the administration of justice. If recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive. the same would definitely hinder. --------------. NOT ONLY TO PUNISH THEM FOR THE WRONG DONE BUT ALSO TO DETER OTHERS FROM INDULGING IN SIMILAR ACTS WHICH SHAKE THE FAITH OF PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. the same would be contempt. In the case and hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court. . hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. or if anything is done with oblique motive. without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approached it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one however high he may be. Any one who takes recourse to fraud. if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud. 1971. The word ‘interfere’ means in the context of the subject. WHICH REQUIRES SOME WHAT DETERRENT SENTENCE. any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty. the same is required to be examined as a matter of first principle. guilty of contempt---. as it would interfere with administration of justice-----. Obstruction of justice is to interpose obstacles or impediments or to hinder. PREVARICATION AND MOTIVATED FALSEHOODS HAVE TO BE APPROPRIATED DEALT WITH. SUCH A TENDENCY IS REQUIRED TO BE CURBED. as this expression has been defined in section 2 of the contempt of courts Act.As to whether filing of a forged document with intention to defraud amounts to contempt of court. the intention to defraud is writ large. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working. Anil Kumar is.

A longer period of incarceration could have been awarded because of the gravity of contumacious act fabrication of document to defeat just cause of an adversary and thereby seriously affecting the purity of courts proceeding BUT THAT IS NOT NEEDED HERE AS THIS IS THE FIRST OCCASION IN FREE INDIA WHEN THE SUPREME COURT (FOR THAT MATTER MAY BE ANY COURT OF THE COUNTRY) HAS FELT CALLED UPON TO SEND A PERSON LIKE THE CONTEMNOR BEHIND IRON BARS IN EXERCISE OF CONTEMPT JURISDICTION.11.THEREFORE. -------. THE PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO TWO WEEKS IN THE HOPE THAT THE INCARCERATION OF THIS CONTEMNOR WILL WORK AS EYE OPENER AND NO COURT WILL HENCEFORTH FEEL CONSTRAINED AND TO DO SO IN ANY OTHER CASE. ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.eso t. ANY OBSTRUCTION CAUSED IN THE PATH OF THOSE SEEKING JUSTICE ARE AN AFFRONT TO THE MAJESTY OF LAW AND.” (vi) (Truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there or (“Yato Dharamstato Jai”) (It is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of Relevant portion of para 12 of the above referred judgment:“---------.” (Head Note A of SCC) (ii) “It has become increasingly a tendency on the part of the parties EITHER TO PRODUCE FABRICATED EVIDENCE AS A PART OF THE PLEADINGS OR RECORD or to fabricate the court record itself for retarding or obstructing the course of justice or judicial proceedings to gain unfair advantage in the judicial process. THIS TENDENCY TO OBSTRUCT THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE OR TENDENCY TO UNDERMINE THE DIGNITY OF THE COURT NEEDS TO BE SEVERELY DEALT . What emerges from this decision is that IF A PERSON DOES ANYTHING TO DEFRAUD THE COURT.” (iv) Para 8 of the above referred judgment:“--------------.” 8. the words “due course of justice” used in Section 2 (c ) or Section 13 of the Act are of wide import and ARE NOT LIMITED TO ANY PARTICULAR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. (2) SCC 130” : 1994 (4) Scale 1088 : 1995 (1) SCJ 310” (23. HE COMMITS ITS CONTEMPT. THE CONDUCT IS PUNISHABLE AS CONTEMPT OF COURT. THE CONTEMNOR HAS TO BE AWARDED A SENTENCE OF ‘TWO WEEKS’ IMPRISONMENT.Due course of justice means not only any particular proceeding but a broad stream of administration of justice.1994) (i) “------. Therefore. THEREFORE. Arvind Shukla (1995) Supp. “Ram Autar Shukla v.rs” courts. People would have faith in courts when they would find that “lR.

------.5.WITH TO DETER THE PERSONS HAVING SIMILAR PROCLIVITY TO RESORT TO SUCH ACTS OR CONDUCT. State of Haryana and Others.K. Advocate. the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. Anand Vs. Delhi High Court.” (para 7) 9. Registrar.1995) :(i) “ANY CONDUCT WHICH HAS THE TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH THE OF JUSTICE OR THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTS TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and a responsible citizen. ------. Advocate and (3) Kitty Kumaramangalam (Smt). New Delhi (2) Kailash Vasdev.” (Head Note A) (ii) “THE STREAM OF JUSTICE HAS TO BE KEPT CLEAN AND PURE AND ANY ONE SPOILING ITS PURITY MUST BE DEALT WITH STERNLY SO THAT THE MASSAGE PERCOLATES LOUD AND CLEAR THAT NO ONE CAN BE PERMITTED . Deputy Secretary. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence. The swearing of false affidavit in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstructions in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the FILING OF FALSE EVIDENCE commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do. the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law.” (Para 20) 10. 161 (2009) DLT 130 (SC)” (i) “The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. (1995) 3 SCC 619” This judgment has been relied upon by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “R. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. “IN RE (1) Sanjiv Datta. “Dhananjay Sharma Vs. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilized society. obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. Filing of false affidavit or making a false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and NO COURT CAN IGNORE SUCH CONDUCT which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1795” (2.

to obtain a favourable order. S.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 31 of the above referred judgment:- “Criminal contempt” defined in section 2 (c ) means interference with the administration of justice in any other manner. but he made obviously false statements. perceiving adverse atmosphere to him. Mahboob S. HE HAS NO REGARD FOR TRUTH. Allibhoy and Another. State of Haryana & Others.” (Para 40) 11. Being a responsible officer. caused two minor boys’ wrongful detention.” (Para 31) 12. respondent No. – SENTENCED TO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS.1993 that they were not in wrongful detention nor are they taken into custody which was later found to be false. fabricating further false evidence to show that his subordinate had forged his signature without his knowledge and filed fabricated document – He is guilty of committing contempt of judicial process. first. “A FALSE OR A MISLEADING OR A WRONG STATEMENT DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY MADE BY A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE ORDER WOULD PREJUDICE OR INTERFERE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. he fabricated further false evidence -------. Thereby he further committed contempt of the judicial process. filed fabricated counter-affidavit to obtain favourable order – Later. AIR 1996 SC 2326” :Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR:- “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971).1996) .Not making candid admission nor tendering unqualified apology. S. Art. 129 – Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). (1996) 4 SCC 411” (10. he committed criminal contempt of judicial proceedings of this court. (ii) Head Note (C ) of the above referred AIR:- “Constitution of India. “State of Maharashtra Vs. 12 High ranking police officer guilty of committing contempt of proceedings of Supreme Court. FROM STAGE TO STAGE. (i) “Afzal And Another Vs. with his connivance.TO UNDERMINE THE DIGNITY OF THE COURT AND INTERFERE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 2 (b) – Criminal contempt – SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE IN CHARGE OF CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION. HE COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF THE COURT BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS. He first used fabricated counter affidavit ------. Thereby. 3 to the main writ petition and in-charge of the criminal administration. It is seen that Ahlawat.4. He made an averment in the counter affidavit dated October 30. But when he perceived adverse atmosphere to him. he is required to make truthful statements before the Court.

Held. IN EITHER CASE.The words “any order” has to be read with the expression ‘decision’ used in the said sub-section which the High Court passes in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Appeals. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Art. It is well settled that an appeal is a creature of a statute.S.Appeal before Supreme Court from any order or decision of High Court.---.However. it must be in the nature of punishment for contempt. even against an order dropping/refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. (iii) Head Note (B) of the above referred SCC :- “Contempt of Court-Contempt proceeding-Nature of-Whether to punish the contemner or discharge him. has to be decided by the court having regard to the facts and circumstancesPerson who brings to the notice of the court the commission of contempt by anyone only assists the court in maintaining dignity and majesty of the court. no appeal will lie against it. Unless a statute provides for an appeal and specifies the order against which an appeal can be filed. 136 can be invoked – Constitution of India.(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order OR decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt------On a plain reading.(i) Head Note (A) of the above referred SCC :- “Contempt of Courts Act.Words ‘any order’ must be read with ‘decision’ so as to exclude any interlocutory order of High Court from the scope of appeal – Unless by the order High Court imposes punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Section 19 of the Act says : “19. 136 and 215 – Appeal –Nature of right of –Words and phrases –“Any order. THEY HAVE BEEN PUT IN AN ALTERNATIVE FORM saying ‘order’ or ‘decision’. “ANY ORDER” IS NOT INDEPENDENT OF THE EXPRESSION ‘DECISION’. appeal will not lie under S. the proceeding is primarily between the court and the person who is alleged to have committed the contempt of court.” Note : The above quoted rulling is also most important for appeal to explain the meaning of the expression ‘pay or tender’ used in section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act. 19. 1971.” (ii) Relevant extract of 3 of the above referred judgment :- “----. The person who informs the court or brings to the notice of the court that anyone . If the expression “Any order” is read independently of the ‘decision’. no appeal can be filed or entertained as a matter of right or course. Art. section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 19 against an interlocutory order of High Court dropping or refusing to initiate contempt proceeding. (iv) Relevant extract of para 4 of the above referred judgment :- “It is well known that Contempt proceeding is not a dispute between two parties. then an appeal shall lie under sub-section (1) of section 19 even against any interlocutory order passed in a proceeding for contempt by the High Court which shall lead to a ridiculous result.

ANY CONDUCT WHICH HAS THE TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OR THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTS TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the party concerned in perverting the course of justice.1996) :(i) Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR:“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971).------. ANYONE WHO MAKES AN ATTEMPT TO IMPEDE OR UNDERMINE OR OBSTRUCT THE FREE FLOW OF THE UNSOILED STREAM OF JUSTICE BY RESORTING TO THE FILING OF FALSE EVIDENCE. obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. COMMITS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF THE COURT AND RENDERS HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT. he is simply assisting the court so that the dignity and the majesty of the court is maintained and upheld.Contempt of Supreme Court – Apology – Police Officer asked by Supreme Court to submit report about death of undertrial prisoner submitting false report–When subsequently called upon to file affidavit. 2(C) Criminal Contempt-Eviction vacation of premises – false affidavits given by tenant before Supreme Court from time to time that he had already vacated premises though he had not done so-tenant is guilty of criminal contempt of court as by filing affidavit he had not only deliberately attempted to impede administration of justice but also succeeded in his attempt in delaying delivery of possession. Surjit Singh Arora. State of Assam and another. 129 – Contempt .” . The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede. Art. “Rita Markandey V. held.” 13. THUS. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2174” (27. which initiates the proceeding to decide whether the person against whom such proceeding has been initiated should be punished or discharged taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 14.” (ii) Relevant extract of para 13 of the above referred judgment:“---------. deliberately forwarded inaccurate report to mislead court and thus interfered with course of justice – Apology rejected – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 months.5.has committed contempt of such court is not in the position of a prosecutor. HE NOT BRINGING TRUE FACTS TO NOTICE OF COURT – He ignoring injuries noted in record.1996) (For filing false proceeding in court) (i) Head Note of the above referred judgment:“Constitution of India. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the Majesty of Law be made a mockery of by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses.Contemner. S. Hailakandi Bar Association vs. AIR 1996 SCC 1925 (9. It is for the court. “The secretary.9.

is bound to produce all the documents executed by which are relevant to the litigation.1997):(i) Relevant extract of Head Note of the above referred AD:- “Contempt of Courts Act. 261/97. the plaintiff had not even filed the plaint of the earlier suit being Suit No.P. 1971 – Secs.15. 261/97) ITSELF. therefore. the respondent is guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party and such acts had been done only in order to gain advantage on the other side and to get a stay in the second suit. 1908 0 Or. therefore. 71 (1998) DLT 1: “1998 1 AD (Delhi) 927” : “1998 (44) DRJ 109” (DB) (12.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 16 of the above referred judgment:- “We are informed that in Suit No. the respondent has not been able to get an injunction. Satish Khosla v. of the opinion that by withholding the plaint and the application in the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing to the Court about the proceedings in the earlier suit and the stay having not been granted to it.12. by withholding the plaint of the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing that in the earlier suit. . Held: In our view. we do not purpose to take action against the respondent for contempt for except to issue a warning to respondent no. We are of the view that an attempt has been made by the respondent to over – reach the court and the respondents have played fraud upon the court as well as on the opposite parte and is thus clearly guilty of contempt. We are.” (ii) Para 15 of the above referred judgment:- “In S. and another. A litigant who approaches the Court. “It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. 15 & 18 – Criminal Contempt – Code of Civil Procedure. 261/97. 2 to be more careful in future WE DIRECT THE DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT (BEING SUIT NO. RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE HEARD IN THE CASE UNLESS IT PURGES ITSELF OF THE CONTEMPT SO COMMITTED and in our view. the plaintiff/respondent had tried to get an advantage from the Court and was. therefore. HE CAN BE SUMMARILY THROWN OUT AT ANY STAGE OF THE LITIGATION. One who comes to the Court. must come with clean hands. ---------. it can only be if we non-suit the respondents in suit no. Jagannath and Others. While. M/s Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. 2 (c ). 3604/96 nor the court had an opportunity to go through the allegations made in the said plaint. AIR 1994 SC 853 was held that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. XXXIX rule 1 & 2 – Ad-interim injunction – Ex-parte – Non-disclosure of dismissal of such application in earlier suit – Amounts to fraud upon the Court – Guilty of Contempt.

In our view. Rule 16 or in some other manner.V. MAY BE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE WAS PERSUADED NOT TO GRANT ANY EX-PARTE STAY IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. A party must come to the Court with clean hands and must disclose all the relevant facts which may result in appreciating the rival contentions of the parties. One who comes to the Court. of the opinion that the respondent has not come to the Court with clean hands and has also suppressed material facts from the Court with a view to gain advantage in the second suit. who approaches the Court. In our view. ------. the pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious . must come with clean hands. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. by striking out pleadings under the provisions of order 6. has no right to approach the court. a litigant. T. ----.” -----. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are relevant for purposes of present case:“The High Court in our view.guilty of playing fraud of the court as well as on the respondent. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case. (v) Relevant extract of para 19 of the above referred judgment:- “As held by the Supreme Court in T.” Note : ‘Over-reach’ means to reach or extent beyond. THIS IN OUR VIEW IS CLEARLY OVER –REACHING THE COURT. it was obligatory upon the respondent to disclose to the Court that in the application filed in the earlier suit. ----. Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court-----. We have no hasitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood. But it may be necessary to punish as a contempt. therefore. to defeat by one’s oversubtlety (iv) Para 17 of the above referred judgment:- “---------. 1997 when the second suit came up for hearing before it. the Court had not granted the said relief. Satyapal and another AIR 1977 SC 2421.” THE PRINCIPLE OF “FINALITY OF LITIGATION” CANNOT BE PRESSED TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH AN ABSURDITY THAT IT BECOMES AN ENGINE OF FRAUD IN THE HANDS OF DISHONEST LITIGANTS. a similar relief had been claimed. if these facts were before the Court on February 6.In our opinion. --------. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. Arivandandam Vs. We do not agree with the High Court that “THERE IS NO LEGAL DUTY CASTE UPON THE PLAINTIFF TO COME TO COURT WITH A TRUE CASE AND PROVE IT BY TRUE EVIDENCE. fell into patent error. must produce all the documents which are relevant to the litigation and he must also disclose to the Court about the pendency of any earlier litigation between the parties and the result thereof. It may be that certain minor abuses of the process of the court may be suitably dealt with as between the parties. a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends it pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. however. to outwit or get the better of. We are.

Satyapal’s case is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.V.” 16. 14.” (ii) Relevant extract of para 7 of the above referred judgment:- ‘---------. Arivandandam Vs. freedom of speech and expression is “life blood of democracy. A lawyer does not enjoy any special immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act where he is found to have committed a gross contempt of Court.cases. which have been tendency to scandalize the court or bring it to ridicule – Court expressed its displeasure about distorted writings about court’s order permitting increase in height of Dam made by a literary figure and about actions of one of the party to proceedings – However keeping in view the importance of the issue of resettlement and Rehabilitation – No contempt proceedings were initiated.” 17. Ss. But this freedom is subject to certain qualifications. And remembering that AN ADVOCATE IS AN OFFICER OF JUSTICE he owes it to society NOT TO COLLABORATE IN SHADY ACTIONS. AIR 1999 SC 3345” Head Note of the above referred AIR:- “Constitution of India. 12–b Constitution of India. Keeping in view of the seriousness of the offence committed by the contemnor deterrent punishment imposed on him SO THAT IT SERVES AS EXAMPLE TO OTHERS and no one indulges in repetition of such acts. T. Court sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs.--. The Bar Council of India. The action of the contemnor advocate is most reprehensible and has been tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and undermine the dignity of the Court and the Majesty of Law. COURTS ARE NOT UNDULY . Advocate shouted slogans in open court and hurled his shoe towards the court ------. ---. In deed. Union of India and others. “It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. IN OUR VIEW. --------. AIR 1999 SC 1300”:Relevant extract of Head Note of the above referred AIR:“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). Art. (i) “Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. we hope will activate this obligation.” (vi) Para 20 of the above referred judgment:- “We are of the opinion that the above noted passage of the aforesaid judgment in T. It is unfortunate that a person belonging to the Bar should have behaved in this manner. Having not succeeded in getting stay in Suit No. 129Criminal Contempt on face of Court-------. 3064/96. 19 (1) (a) – freedom of speech – Right of criticizing judgment of court – Cannot be exercised with malice or by attempting to impair administration of justice – no one can be permitted to distort orders of Court and deliberately give a slant to its proceedings. --------. Art. 2000/-. THE LAWYER SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO MOVE AN APPLICATION FOR STAY IN THE SECOND SUIT. (i) “Suo Motu contempt in Re: Nand Lal Balwani. ----.

If obstruction of justice is allowed. D. Mittal etc. Contempt law is for inducing confidence in people for due administration of justice.2000):“Contempt of Courts Act. CONTEMENOR DESERVED PUNISHMENT TO DETER OTHERS and had taken advantage (Rita Markand’s case). (iii) Para 4 of the above referred judgment:- . On 19. By false affidavit justice is defeated as attempt is to delay delivery of possession. it would permeate society. (i) “Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. -----------.” 18. 2000 RLR 124(SC)” (25. Punishment for contempt is for ensuing rule of law by upholding majesty and dignity of Court. “Murray & Co.K. 1971. Fabrication on oath in an affidavit is a serious matter calling for severe punishment when there is substantial interference with course of justice. OFFER OF APOLOGY IS NOT GENUINE.K.2. Mohiley. FAIRLY AND WITHOUT ANY MALICE.1986 Shri A. --------. PRACTICE OF FILING FALSE AFFIDAVIT IS DEPRECATED AND A COURT WOULD BE FAILING IN ITS DUTY TO MAINTAIN MAJESTY OF LAW IF IT DOES NOT GIVE PROPER PUNISHMENT.2000):Head Note of the above referred RLR:“Contempt of courts act. Ashok Kumar Newatia. 2000 RLR 308 (SC)” (22. 12. 2 (c) (iii) WHEN THERE IS INFRACTION OF MAJESTY OF LAW. Litigant public ought to be very cautious in making statements lest these become offence under the Act.” 19. Filing false affidavits and fabricated documents are matters of great concern.12. Vs.SENSITIVE TO FAIR COMMENT OR EVEN OUTSPOKEN COMMENTS BEING MADE REGARDING THEIR JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS MADE OBJECTIVELY. People approach Courts with firm hope that truth would ultimately prevail. Ss.. then matter becomes time barred. It is criminal contempt and AS FALSEHOOD HAD BEEN REPEATED. A COMPLAINANT IS NOT AN AGGRIEVED PERSON and if court does not initiate. LATTER MAY SUFFER WHEN A PARTY MAKES FALSE DENIALS IN AN AFFIDAVIT AND STATES POSITIVE ASSERTIONS MAKING SAME AS MOTIVATED FALSEHOOD. the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents gave in the taking in the following terms--------. S. 19 & 20 –Limitation for initiation of contempt proceedings is one year and if court does not initiate within one year by asking contemnor to show cause why he should not be punished. COURT MUST NOT KEEP ANGELIC SILENCE. ------. FRAUD AND FALSEHOOD DEFLECT EVEN FLOW OF JUSTICE AND LOWER AUTHORITY OF COURT.1. but no one can be permitted to distort orders of the court and deliberately give a slant to its proceedings ---. then he has no right of appeal u/s 19 of the Act.” (ii) Relevant extract of para 3 of the above referred judgment:- “----------.

The appellant moved an application before the court seeking initiation of proceedings U/s 12 of the Act against the respondents.L.1987.” 21.1. “Court on its own motion Vs.“According to the appellant. 226 – Issuance of Suo Motu Notice to Commissioner. Criminal Contempt has been defined in Section 2 (c) to mean interference with the administration of justice IN ANY MANNER.5. ) asked his explanation then they are guilty of contempt of court.e. 20471 of 1988. S. 1950. When MCD (the Comm.1. Advocate General has very fairly conceded that in view of the matter having being heard on several dates the noticed to so cause to the opposite parties as to why they should not be punished disobeying order of this court dated 19. The Ld.of the above referred DLT:“Constitution of India. On 15. Manifestly the application would become no maintainable after 11. 129 – ---.---. 89 (2001) DLT 572” (DB)= 2000 RLR 144” :(i) Relevant extract of Head Note -----.1987. i. LAWYER OWES A DUTY TO UTTER TRUTH IN COURT even if statement is against corruption amongst officers of his client (MCD). MCD ---------: Counsel is not mouth piece of his client-His duty is to uphold truth and honesty-----------.” (ii) Relevant extracts of para 6 of the above referred judgment:“----------. WHEN A PERSON IS FOUND TO HAVE UTILIZED AN ORDER OF A COURT WHICH HE OR SHE KNOWS TO BE INCORRECT FOR CONFERRING BENEFIT ON PERSONS WHO ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME. 2 (c) – Constitution of India.1987 the court passed the following order:“Issue show cause notice to opposite parties as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for defiance of order dated 19. A FALSE or MISLEADING or a wrong statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings TO OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE ORDER would undoubtedly tantamount to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. the employees of the respondent’s demolished the appellant’s constructions on 11.2.1987.1986 passed by this court in civil writ petition No.1986 can be issue 20.12. the alleged contemners appeared before the court and filed their reply on 16.P.1988.” (ii) Relevant extract of Head Note of the above referred RLR :- “Advocates Act. THE VERY UTILIZATION OF THE FABRICATED ORDER BY THE PERSON .” (iv) Para 5 of the above referred judgment:- “The respondents. When the matter came up for hearing before the court it passed the following order:“Apparently till now show cause has been issued to the opposite parties as to why proceedings be not initiated.12.12. Jaiswal v. AIR 2001 SC 2018” (3.1. & C.Art. Nagar Mahapalika. O. Art. Matter of statement made by Shri Raman Duggal Advocate.2001) (i) Relevant extract of the above referred AIR:“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). List it for orders on 4.O. “In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh.

Rude is guilty of gross criminal contempt and must be suitably punished for the same. In view of our conclusion on the basis of materials available in the inquiry proceedings with regard to the role played by Mrs. (i) “Rajiv Malhotra Vs. irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication. we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Mrs. 1971 Contempt. 2002 (63) DRJ 243 (DB) Head Note of the above referred DRJ:- “Contempt of Courts Act.S. -------. 92 (2001) DLT 665” (F. Dilip Wamanrao Gund to be guilty of contempt having committed criminal contempt as well as under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and for such gross act on their part.000/on each. 22. Smt Madhu Trehan & Ors. therefore hold both Mrs. CHAUHAN AND R.) (28. 1950 –Art. 25.” 23. “Surya Prakash Khatri & Anr. (ii) Relevant portion of para 20 of the above referred judgment:“In view of the foregoing. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BY FALSE AFFIDAVIT AND TAKING LIBERTIES WITH TRUTH IN ORDER TO MISLEAD US. Vs.B. they are sentenced to imprisonment for six months.Punishment – False affidavit – Petitioner’s building demolished despite greasing palm of officials of MCD – Sought direction against erring officials – Directions issued to MCD restraining unauthorized construction in unauthorized colonies in CW 7441/93 – MCD officials allowed constructions in violation of order – False affidavit furnished that certain properties demolished – Committee of Advocates appointed to report nature of demolitions – Report reveals certain properties were punctured and not completely demolished – Deliberate and willful false statements of JE and Baildar – Disregard of truth – Interference in the course of justice – Guilty of contempt of court – Sentence of one month’s SI with fine of Rs.2001) :(i) Relevant extract of Head Note (ii) of the above referred DLT :“Constitution of India. SHRI U.5. Union of India & Ors. 215 –Contempt of Courts Act. On the aforesaid parameters it would be necessary to examine whether it can be said that Mrs. 1971.” (iii) Para 9 of the above referred judgment. SEHRAWAT HAVE COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF COURT and the same is of such a nature that it tends to substantially interfere with the .Section 2(c) – Contempt of Court-publication in question ---casting aspersion on competent of judiciary ---publication in question scandalizes judges –it attempts to rob High Court of its owner and prestige –CONTEMNORS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TAMPER WITH STREAM OF JUSTICE WHICH MUST FLOW PURE AN UNHINDERED – contemnors cannot be allowed to commit contempt of court in garb of criticism ----.- “We.CONCERNED WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD HIM/HER GUILTY OF CONTEMPT. Megha Rude can be held to be guilty of contempt. Megha Rude and Mr.S. Megha Rude.

“S.:- “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). Mohd. Ali & Another.due course of justice.” 24.8.2003) (A Three Judge Bench) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred AIR :“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). Special Court.Ss. ----------. 2(c ). 2.CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR. If any person tries to either file any false affidavit. obstructing or interference striking a blow on the rule of law and NO COURT CAN IGNORE SUCH CONDUCT WHICH HAS THE TENDENCY TO SHAKE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND IN THE JUDICIAL INSTITUTION. besides impairing the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the institution of the courts. forged document or ever makes false statement on oath.7. The very sight of an advocate. 2. “Pravin C. . 2004 Cri L. 12 -------. ACT OR PLEAD IN COURT UNLESS HE HAS PURGED HIMSELF OF THE CONTEMPT --------. accused was guilty of criminal contempt as defined in S. This conduct is having tendency of impeding. THEY ARE HELD GUILTY OF COMMITTING CONTEMPT OF COURT ----.J.2003) (i) Head Note (B) of the above referred Cri.IS CONTEMPT –But pleading/defence made on basis of facts which are not false-Howsoever the pleading may be an abuse process of court –Does not amount to contempt. S. A.R. K. Shah Vs. AIR 2001 SC 3041 : VII (2001) SLT 153” (9.Contempt –FALSE VERIFICATION OF STATEMENT OF FACTS.10. AIR 2003 SC 3039” (19. -----. “Advocate General. 493” (30. L. Bombay. would erode the dignity of the court and even erode the majesty of it.” 26. S. High Court of Karnataka v. ACCORDINGLY. unaffected by the contemptuous behavior he hurled at the court. standing in the court and arguing a case or cross-examining a witness on the same day. ---------. Ramaraj Vs. who was found guilty of contempt of court on the previous hour.” 25. the conduct of such person has a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings. 2(c ) – Criminal contempt – Accused bringing some persons to impersonate as contesting respondents in writ appeal and persuading Court to accept compromise petition signed by them as if contesting parties had settled matter to allow writ appeal filed by accused and withdraw writ petition filed by contesting respondents – Held.J. Chidambara and another.2001) :(i) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred AIR:- “Contempt of Court Act (70 of 1971).ADVOCATE FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT.

it becomes difficult to say that the appellant had deliberately stated falsehood to mislead the Court or to simply gain time to the disadvantage of the other party in this matter. In order to expose a person to the liability of a prosecution of making false statement.” 27. but in the suit against appellant’s Bank. it will not amount to contempt unless it be that the facts as pleaded themselves are false. ADVERTED TO IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IS NOT MADE ON THE BASIS OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANT and the defence set up by him is on the basis of the stand taken by his bank in the companion suit. the same was shut out on the basis that it is hearsay. when the appellant tried to explain his case in his evidence. but an inference is drawn thereby stating that the stand of the plaintiff or defendant is one way or the other. those responsible for its formulation can not be regarded as committing contempt. The appellant a Bank Officer was held guilty of contempt of Court on ground of taking up a false defence as pleaded in the written statement and repeating the same in the evidence-inchief. such stand had been disbelieved.4. his evidence cannot be from his knowledge and necessarily has to be hearsay. If the facts leading to a claim or defence are set out. The written statement had been verified by the appellant stating that what is THE VERIFICATION OF FACTS contained in written statement is based on the information received from the records of the defendants and he believed the same to be true.2004) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (C) of the above referred AIR:- . Merely because an action or defence can be an abuse of process of the Court. AIR 2004 SC 3114” (12.WHERE A VERIFICATION IS SPECIFIC AND DELIBERATELY FALSE. Further. When in a suit of the appellant’s Bank. THERE IS NOTHING IN LAW TO PREVENT A PERSON FROM BEING PROCEEDED FOR CONTEMPT. the lower Court was not justified in shutting out that part of the evidence. there must be a false statement of fact and not a mere pleading made on the basis of facts which are themselves not false. A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely. “Zahira Habibullah H. But it must be remembered that the very essence of crimes of this kind is not how such statements may injure this or that party to litigation BUT HOW THEY MAY DECEIVE AND MISLEAD THE COURTS AND THUS PRODUCE MISCHIEVOUS CONSEQUENCES TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE. An officer of Bank who had no personal knowledge of the transactions in question and was deposing on the basis of material on record. he comes under the clutches of law. Hence. BUT AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE THE COURT BY DISGUISING THE NATURE OF CLAIM IS CONTEMPT. Sheikh and another vs State of Gujarat and others. the stand had been accepted.

(70 of 1971). 165 -------. tailored investigation. “The law should not be seen to sit limply.2004) (i) Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR:“Contempt of Courts Act. It seems to be nothing but a travesty of truth.11. OTHER THEN A CONTEMPT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 14. or by visible representation. Harish Pimpalkhute and another. interference in appeals is warranted. The procedure for initiating a proceeding of contempt when it is committed IN THE FACE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR HIGH COURT has been prescribed in SECTION 14 of the Act. 401 – Evidence Act (1 of 1872) S. WHILE THOSE WHO DEFY IT GO FREE and. THE MANNER OF TAKING . Ss. fraud on legal process AND THE RESULTANT DECISIONS OF COURTS-CORAM NON JUDIS AND NON-EST.“Criminal PC (2 of 1974).power Under S 391 can be exercised by appellate court ---------. --------. but if the acquittal is unmerited and based on tainted evidence. “Bal Thackrey vs. IN THE CASE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. it is no doubt true that the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court and the acquittal has been upheld.Re-trial observed to be conducted out side state ------The primary object of S.- “---------. (ii) Relevant extract of para 59 of the above referred judgment:“As pithily stated in Jennison vs. or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends to scandalizes. spoken or written for by signs.” COURTS HAVE TO ENSURE THAT ACCUSED PERSONS ARE PUNISHED ---” 28. would not be maintainable (ii) Para 7 of the above referred judgment . 386. S. those who seek its protection lose hope.willing to speck truth before the appellate court on basis of affidavit . 391 is the prevention of guilty man’s escape through some careless or ignorant proceedings before a court or vindication of an innocent person wrongfully accused. therefore. It.Object of 391 is to sub serve ends of justice and to get at the truth-Best Bakery case with horror and terror –oriented History-Star eye-witness had not stated truthfully before trial court. contempt’ is defined in section 2 (c ) of the act. 391. inter alia means the publication (whether by words. Baker (1972 (1) All ER 1006).General –petition held. OR LOWERS OR TENDS TO LOWER THE AUTHORITY OF ANY COURT. 15 – petition were vigorously pursued and strenuously argued as private petitions – same were never treated as suo motu petitions – non-compliance of mandatory requirement of obtaining consent of Advocate. AIR 2005 SC 396” (29. unprincipled prosecutor and perfunctory trial and evidence of threatened/terrorized witnesses. IT IS NO ACQUITTAL IN THE EYE OF LAW and no sanctity or credibility can be attached and given to the so called findings. Criminal. 15-Cognizance of criminal contempt– PROCEDURE – proceedings before High Court were initiated by respondents for filing contempt petition under S.

such as FROM A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS OF A SUBORDINATE COURT or on reading a report in a newspaper or hearing a public speech. or (d) any other person. OR HE MAY PLACE THE REQUEST HIM TO PERMIT HIM TO MOVE TO THE COURT. Board of Revenue. Sarkar. Daphtary vs. WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY REFERENCE FROM THE SUBORDINATE COURT or the advocate General. Duda’s case (AIR 1988 SC 1208). This section. in such a situation. Gupta and Sarkar vs. Mishra (AIR 1971 SC 1132 and AIR 1981 SC 723 respectively) . it would also be useful to note the observations may in the case of S.P. and rules makes it clear that so far as this Court is Concerned. it can be said to have taken cognizance on its own motion. There is no difficulty where the court or the attorney General chooses to move in the matter. not being the Advocate General can the High Court refuse to entertain the same on the ground that it has been made without the consent in writing of the advocate General? It appears to us that the High Court has..” “In P. U.P. action for contempt may be taken by the court on its own motion or on the motion of the attorney General (or Solicitor General) or of any other person with his consent in writing. Lucknow vs. a discretion to refuse to entertain the petition. inter alia provides that action for contempt may be taken on court’s own motion or on a motion made by – (c) the Advocate – General. HE MAY PLACE THE INFORMATION INFORMATION BEFORE BEFORE THE THE ATTORNEY ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERAL AND AND REQUEST TO TAKE ACTION .N. with the consent in writing of the advocate general (iii) Para 12 of the above referred judgment:“For determination of the issues involved. ONE OF THE THREE COURSES IS OPEN TO HIM.COGNIZANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 15 OF THE ACT. But when this is not done and a private person desires that such action should be taken. A conjoint perusal of the Act. But. it was held that:- . O. Member.” (iv) Para 13 of the above referred judgment:“54. He may place the information in his possession before the court and request the court to take action (vide C. or to take cognizance on its own motion on the basis of the information supplied to it in that petition. K. If the High Court acts on information derived from its own sources. if the High court is directly moved by a petition by a private person feeling aggrieved.K. Vinay Chandra Mishra ((1981) 1 SCC 436) to the following effect:“Section 15 does not specify the basis or the source of information on which the High Court can act. on its own motion.

Show cause notice issued to plaintiff and his Advocates for abuse of legal process in institution and prosecution of suits based on agreements in question.7. practising fraud and making of averments which were false to the knowledge of the counsel in the plaint.” (ii) Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT:- “Constitution of India. 29.Loan agreement was dated 15. 2 (c ) – Criminal Contempt – Interference by Advocate in due course of administration of justice The judge and counsel are two wheels of the chariot of justice.DELIBERATE FALSE STATEMENTS ON OATH. --------.Art. Sareen & ors.2007) (i) Head Note (A) of the above referred Cri. witnessing agreement either not executed on dates mentioned or not executed at all APART FROM BEING GROSS VIOLATIONS OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS ALSO AMOUNT TO OBSTRUCTING DUE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION . apart from being gross violations of code of conduct or professional ethics. such conduct on the part of the counsel cannot be condoned or simply excused or washed away. 1950. THE COUNSEL HAVE AN OVERALL OBLIGATION OF ASSISTING THE COURTS IN A JUST AND PROPER MANNER. If the notice issued by the counsel runs contrary to the averment in the plaint.7.Section 340 r/w section 195.Non-judicial stamp paper on which agreement engrossed is dated 21. The responsibility of the members of the Bar for keeping the stream of justice pure and unsullied is far greater. “Court on its own Motion v.Stamp papers on which they were engrossed.J.Recovery suits –Loan agreements not executed on dates recorded thereon. Kanwaljit S. J.2. IN THE JUST AND PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 2339” : 138 (2007) DLT 682 : (9.AS RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. were of later date. While the direction of the movement is controlled by the judge holding rains. in the present state of circumstances would also amount to obstructing the due course of administration of justice and interfering with the same and thus constitute criminal contempt.. 2007 Cri L.5.1997 – Defendants filed written statement denying execution of loan agreements. 1973.:- “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971).(v) Relevant extract of para 16 of eth above referred judgment:“The whole object of prescribing procedural mode of taking cognizance in section 15 is to safe guard the valuable time of the court from being wasted by frivolous contempt petition.Contempt of Court-Cognizance of abuse of legal process.1997 and 1. the movement it self is facilitated by the counsel and litigants. without which the chariots the justice may not move and may ever collapse. Deliberately making false statements on oath. PRACTISING FRAUD AND FALSE AVERMENTS TO KNOWLEDGE OF COUNSEL IN PLAINT. witnessing agreements which were either not executed on the dates mentioned thereon or were not executed at all.1997 and notarized on same date.Defendants claimed plaintiff forged and fabricated loan agreement for institution of suit. S. 215. L.Criminal Procedure Code.

Apology of another Counsel Kiran Singh is bona fide and accepted-Directions issued accordingly.Dr. Similar is the position with regard to the agreement dated 15. would not be filed by counsel deliberately. would not serve any useful purpose nor be in interest of justice – Parties requested for quietus in matter. Kiran Singh are on the basis of loan advanced under agreements dated 15. (v) Para 12 of the above referred judgment:- “The suits instituted by the plaintiff and signed through counsel.C. The consideration under the agreement.” (iii) Relevant extract of Head Note (iv) of the above referred DLT:- “Criminal Procedure Code. THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL RUNS CONTRARY TO THE AVERMENTS IN THE PLAINT.5.4.C. has lost right to recover same on account of manipulation of documents by defendants-keeping in view age of Counsel and his blemishless track record.It can be filed by counsel either on account of his total forget-fullness with regard to notice sent or his being blissfully ignorant of legal provisions and consequences thereof. Vohra.1997 not being repaid.Act of instituting suits on loan agreements knowing that legal notice of demand sent for return of consideration.C. . which belie the dates given on the agreement. Diwan is Advocate with decades of experience and submits he and plaintiff suffered for their lapsesPlaintiff lent money.000 was paid in USA to the representative of the defendant. Dr.7. WHO HAD HIMSELF SERVED A NOTICE DATED 1.7.1998 regarding payment the amount equivalent to Rs. $ 35.7.Inquiry under section 340 Cr.S. The said averments WERE OBVIOUSLY FALSE TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF the plaintiff and HIS COUNSEL.5. P.1987 and 15. filed a suit based on the loan agreements dated 1. 16 lakhs was paid on 1. D. P.1997 and that the amount was paid at New Delhi.OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTES CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.C.” (iv) Relevant extract of the para 10 of the above referred judgment:- “It would be seen from the foregoing that apart from the false deposition with regard to the dates on which the lone agreement were executed. P. –Contempt of Court----As suo motu notice of contempt initiated and determined. Vohra and Ms. rather money was claimed to be paid under the agreements in Delhi. 195(1)(b)(ii).1997.1997 and 1. Dollar in America.1997. 1973 – Section 340 r/w Section 195. as admitted by the plaintiff.5. as they claimed that the money had been paid in USA. 16 lakhs in U.1997. The stamp papers bear the date 21.C. apology tendered by him accepted. plaintiff’s counsel. initiation of proceedings under section 340 Cr.7. claiming it to have been paid in USA. Dr. D.Cognizance of abuse of legal process-Initiation of proceeding under section 340 Cr. The agreements did not disclose any such thing. wherein it was alleged that the sum of Rs. not in interest of justice.

(viii) Relevant extract of 20 of the above referred judgment:“Having noticed the explanations tendered an apology offered.” (ix) Relevant extract of para 21 of the above referred judgment:- “Coming to the role of Advocates and counsel vis-à-vis the courts and administration of justice. ------. (vii) Para 14 of the above referred judgment:- “Mr. reported in 1994 (2) SCC 204 : (AIR 1994) SC 1654) emphasized upon the role of counsel : (Para 6) “The relationship between the lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence. A junior advocate of the plaintiff has signed the agreement as witness without the agreements having been executed in her presence. No.P. while prayer for withdrawal.C. Neeraj Kishan Kaul. ---------. Making of a false statement on oath deliberately also constitutes criminal contempt. WHICH RUN CONTRARY TOTE NOTICE GIVEN BY HIM. … which is pending. Vs.C. 62/1999) has been made by the plaintiff in the reply to the application under S. Cr.2. The Supreme Court in State of U. the plaintiff and the defendants both desired a quietus to be applied to the matter. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BAR FOR KEEPING STREAM OF JUSTICE PURE OR UNSULLIED IS FAR GREATER THEN THAT OF THE LITIGANTS. 340. in the second suit (S. The lawyer in turn is not an agent of his client but his dignified. The client engages the lawyer for person reasons --------.J.P. Senior Advocate who had been appointed Amicus Curiae. Ashok Kumar Newatia reported as (2000) 2 SCC 367 : 2000 Cri L. P. Being a responsible a the court and an . which form the basis for proceeding for contempt as also in relation to the application moved under S. HE SUBMITTED THAT A MATURED AND EXPERIENCED ADVOCATE WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE HAS INSTITUTED SUITS BASED ON AVERMENTS. The suits were instituted on the basis of loan agreements where under monies were not paid and the said loan agreements were not executed on the dates thereof. let us notice the legal position in this regard. During the advanced stage of hearing of contempt proceedings. P.2003. and ors. -----. statements and documents on record. 1394. 1357/1999) has already been permitted to be withdrawn dive order dated 20. U. succinctly brought forth the facts from the averments in the pleadings. State Law Officers Association. It is now fairly well settled that A PARTY TAKING RECOURSE TO FRAUD deflects the course of judicial proceeding and the same constitute interference in the administration of justice. IN ESSENCE. 340 Cr. Reference may be made to Murray and Company v.(vi) Para 13 of the above referred judgment:- “One of the suits (suit no. responsible spokesman.

It can only be filed by a counsel either on account of his total forget fullness with regard to the notice sent or his being blissfully ignorant of the legal provisions and consequences thereof. the apology tendered by him is accepted. as costs to the Advocates Welfare Fund. he should be permitted to tender unconditional apology. --------. The notice issued by the counsel runs contrary to the averments in the plaint. but one actuated either by extreme for getfulness or blissful ignorance of the provisions of law.important adjunct of the administration of justice. the responsibility of the members of the Bar for keeping the stream of justice pure and unsullied is far greater. 15. Such conduct on the part of the counsel cannot be condoned or simply excused or washed away. He shall also render pro bono service for a period of six months for at least two hours.within two weeks from today. I am of the view that the act of instituting suits on loan agreements knowing fully well that a legal notice of demand has been sent asking for return of consideration.” (xiii) Para 25 of the above referred judgment. the lawyer also ows a duty to the court as well as the opposite side. as discussed therein be fore. Vohra initially sought to urge that these were lapses falling short of contempt which could be corrected by striking out the pleadings. as also the age of the counsel and his blemishless track record so far. As noticed by this court. prayed that if the court was not inclined to accept the same. Dr. He demeans himself if he acts merely as a mouth piece of his client. this court is unable to appreciate this submission and rejects the same (xii) Relevant extract of para 24 of the above referred judgment:- “Considering that ever of the outset Dr. this court is inclined to considered the apology has tendered. practising fraud and making of averments which were false of the knowledge of counsel in the plaint. -----. . It could not be deliberate or intentional act. claiming it to have been paid in USA. However. Vohra had.- “In these circumstances. Dewan C Vohra is a counsel with decades of experience. He submits that he and the plaintiff have suffered for their lapses. while making the submission. Dr. he is directed to pay a sum of Rs. (xi) Para 23 of the above referred judgment:- “-------.000/. considering that this could not have been a deliberate or intentional act. would not file by a counsel deliberately. witnessing agreements which were either not executed on the dates mentioned thereon or were not executed at all apart from being gross violations of the code of conduct or professional ethics. at any of the Delhi Legal Service Centers under the supervision and direction of the Member Secretary. in the present state of circumstances would also amount to obstructing the due course of administration of justice and interfering with the same and thus constitutes criminal contempt.’ (x) Para 22 of the above referred judgment:- “Having noticed the legal position regarding deliberately making false statements on oath. twice a week. He has to be fair to ensure that justice is done.

(xiv) Para 26 of the above referred judgment:- “As regards Kiran Singh. Any interference in the course of justice. “Court on its own Motion v. 159 (2009) DLT 362” (DB) (17. she is a young budding advocate and she has faced this ordeal at the beginning of her profession itself. It appears that the experience for her has indeed been a humbling one. She has recognized that this is a humbling experience and she would exercise extreme care in future and discharge her functions with responsibility.Delhi Legal Services Authority or such other suitable word as may be assigned by the Member Secretary. is a bona fide one and is accepted. (iii) Relevant extract of para 4 of the above referred judgment :- “-----------------. deposition before Court and in letter addressed to L & DO regarding property being HUF property and contrary stand before L & DO ---------– Appellant an advocate though aged one – He is fully familiar with legal pleas and consequences of his conduct – Fit case for issuance of notice for criminal contempt to respondent who has tried to pollute course of justice and interfere with same knowing falsehood of his statements – FACT THAT HE IS AN ADVOCATE MAKES CONDUCT OF RESPONDENT ALL THE MORE DEPLORABLE and mere advanced age of respondent should not deter this court from proceeding further in matter – Appropriate notice to show cause be issued to respondent of being proceeded against and punished for criminal contempt of Court. twice a week. Swaran Singh Banda. She was inexperienced and claims to have signed the agreements as witness not eh asking of the senior counsel for his clients. She is directed to do pro bono work and render services under the supervision of the Member Secretary. (ii) Head Note (ii) of the above referred judgment:- “Contempt of Court – Party taking recourse to fraud deflects course of judicial proceedings and same constitutes interference in administration of justice and liable for contempt of Court in vide Kanwaljit S. ANY OBSTRUCTION CAUSED IN THE PATH OF THOSE SEEKING JUSTICE ARE . Delhi High Court legal Service Authority for a period of six months. Her apology. which was tendered at the outset.2.” 30. The tendency on the part of the contemnor in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact.2009) (i) Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT:- “Contempt of court – Contradictory stand taken by contemnor in written statement. for two hours. Sareen case 138 (2007) DLT 682.

129.Witness made statement before National Human Rights Commission and Supreme Court that she was intimidated.2008)(Delhi High Court) (This judgment is in respect of B.U. Khan and Mr. obtained) Note: Observations made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above referred judgment have been quoted by it in its following judgment reported as COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. Anand were the counsel for the state and defence respectively) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT:“Contempt of Court . 50.” (ii) Relevant extract of para 28 of the above referred judgment:“Right from the inception of the judicial system. 2007 (1) AD (Delhi) 567” (Not yet (21.000. Rajiv Dawar. 151 (2008) DLT 695 (DB)” 33. held.W.” 32. 151 (2008) DLT 695 (DB)” “Court On Its Own Motion vs.Sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay cost of Rs. STATE & ORS. AIR 2006 SC 1367” (8. S.2006) (i) Head Note (D) of the above referred AIR:“Constitution of India.” 31. Case wherein Mr. “COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. 142 (2) Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). --------.K. “Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & anr. Vs.-------. THE CONDUCT IS PUNISHABLE AS CONTEMPT OF COURT. vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying existence of Courts of Justice. Arts.Interference with judicial proceedings and administration of justice – Nexus between Special Public Prosecutor and Defence Lawyer –-----Complicity between Special Public Prosecutor and Defence Lawyer – both were More than mixed up in BMW case – conduct of both had tendency to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice as influencing a witness to alter his evidence or to decline to testify amounts to interference in administration of justice -------Contempt very much before eyes and within hearing – . STATE & ORS. I.8. THEREFORE.00-------. 15 – false statements before Courts.AN AFFRONT TO THE MAJESTY OF LAW AND.M. R. committed contempt of Supreme Court . threatened and coerced to make statement in particular way before trial Court-Subsequently disowned it – Inquiry set up to find out truth – Finding by Inquiry Officer that money has exchanged hands which made said witness to state in particular way in trial court – Said witness could not explain her assets sources of bank deposits – Report of Inquiry Officer found acceptable – Said witness thus. State of Gujarat & ors. it has been accepted that discovery.3.

conditional or unconditional. 125. 169. (iii) Relevant extract of para 20 of the above referred judgment:“On 7th August. It was observed that prima-facie THEIR ACTS AND CONDUCT WERE INTENDED TO SUBVERT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE PENDING BMW CASE AND IN PARTICULAR INFLUENCE THE OUT COME OF THE PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. Anand in BMW case.” (vi) Para 241 of the above referred judgment:- . it was noted that the gist of an offence of contempt of court is ‘CONDUCT WHICH MAY LEAD AND IS INTENDED TO LEAD TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WHETHER OR NOT A MISCARRIAGE ACTUALLY OCCURS’.Contempt of Court – Punishment –Imposition – Interference with judicial proceedings and administration of justice proved – Collusion between SPP I. This is because of overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence on record beckoning and calling for maintaining the purity of the stream of justice especially WHEN IT IS SOUGHT TO BE POLLUTED BY THOSE HAVING A PIVOTAL ROLE WITHIN THE SYSTEM.K. 215. it does not appear to be necessary to deal with the cases cited by Mr. 1972. We agree with this exposition of the law.Art.respectively. 11.” (v) Relevant extract of para 37 of the above referred judgment:“-----------.K.U. However.206 & 207) (ii) Head Note (xi) of the above referred DLT:“Constitution of India. Machin. Anand and I. 143. 156. that would not affect the finding on merits given by us in respect of criminal contempt having been committed by the alleged contemnors. on a consideration of the material available. 155. In R. 2000/. the court -----. V. -section 2 (C ) (Paras 2. 127. Khan and defence lawyer R.Both lawyers Senior Advocate – They have not tendered. 8. Even if a different perspective or view than the findings and views expressed by us can be propounded. expressed any contrition or repentance for their conduct – Both R.contempt of courts act. 78. we are doing so because we feel it necessary to clear the air in so far as the rights of litigants and their advocates are concerned. 2007 . both of them liable to pay fine of Rs. Anand. 1950. (1980) 3 ALL ER 151. Khan prohibited from appearing in this Court or Courts subordinate to it for 4 months – However they are free to discharge their professional duties –Further Full Court recommended to strip them of their designation of Senior Advocate. 20.U.was prima-facie satisfied that these persons ‘HAVE WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY TRIED TO INTERFERE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY THE COURTS’.” (iv) Para 28 of the above referred judgment:- “Consequently. 10. ---------.

J. 1961.K.S.) titled “Court on Its Own Motion v.” (ii) Relevant extract of para 36 of above referred judgment:- “-----------.Contempt of Court. Registrar.2008) (i) Head Note (ii) of the above referred SLT:- “Contempt of Court – Matter deserves to be dealt with all seriousness. for . Relevant extracts of the above referred DLT and the judgment pertaining to prohibition for advocate against appearing in Courts (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (V) of the above referred DLT:- “Contempt of Courts Act.as directed by the Bar Counsel and a plea was made to bring a quietus to the matter.” 34. THEY HAD NOT BEEN ASKED TO PURGE THEIR CONTEMPT. In that case. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT ABERRATION COMMITTED BY THOSE WHO ARE INTEGRAL PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ARE STERNLY AND FIRMLY DEALT WITH. LTD.C. Anand Vs. Why the extraordinary procedure of asking them to appear on another day for hearing on quantum of sentence was adopted is not understood. v. 12 – Constitution of India.Arts. with the administration of justice.having spoken to ‘the people.10. Magnanimity and latitude should be available to those who are not knowledgeable conversant with the system or commit the offence unwittingly or innocently.000/. In that case. This submission was rejected by the Bench holding: “TO OUR MIND. 1 (2009) SLT 261” (20. they should have been punished on the same day. 2007 (I) AD (Delhi) 567. 1971. Delhi High Court. the contemnor had refunded Rs.Section 34.000/. Senior Advocate. In this context. 145.K. 215 – Advocates Act.” 35.Sections 2 (c ). --------. C. 30. we feel the adequate punishment would be to prohibit them from appearing before this court and the Courts subordinate to it for a specified period and also to recommend to the Full Court that they should be stripped of their designation as Senior Advocates.“In these circumstances. Anand. 161 (2009) DLT 130(SC)” (A Three Judge Bench Decision) A.BMW case.E. 1950. we may refer to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court authored by one of us (Manmohan Sarin. “R. Rajiv Dawar. If appellants have been found to be guilty of commission of contempt. After being given a full opportunity of representing his case. who would be responsible for his release on bail’.00. 4. “Three Cheers Entertainment (P) LTD & ors. --------. he was found guilty of criminal contempt and subsequently interfering.00. the defence lawyer had assured the accused of his release on bail for a sum of Rs.Sting operationNegotiation between SK and Special Public Prosecutor and R.

In paragraph 34 of the decision the Court made highly illuminating observations in regard to lawyers’ right to appear before the Court and sounded the note of caution for the lawyers.--------.” (iv) Para 143 of the above referred judgment :- “----------. Harish Uppal Vs. standing in the Court would erode the dignity of the court ---.No conflict or clash between section 34 of Advocates Act and Art.Two appellants were debarred from appearing before High Court and Courts subordinate to it for a period of 4 months. Art.The very sight of an advocate. ----. 145 of Constitution of India and section 34 of the Advocates Act clearly show that there is no absolute right to an advocate who appear in a court. Union of India and Another.Prohibition against appearing in CourtsObservations made in case of Ex.---. One last thing which must be mentioned is that the right of appearance in Courts is still within the control and jurisdiction of Courts. Hence courts cannot be and are not divested of control or supervision of conduct in Court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate. examined the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott of Court(s)..----(ii) Para 135 of the above referred judgment :- “We were also addressed on the validity of the High Court’s direction prohibiting the two appellants from appearing before the High Court and the Courts subordinate to it for a period of four months. A RULE CAN STIPULATE THAT A PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF COURT OR HAS BEHAVED UNPROFESSIONALLY AND IN AN UNBECOMING MANNER WILL NOT HAVETHE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO APPEAR AND PLEAD AND CONDUCT CASES IN COURTS. In a proceeding of contempt punishment could only be awarded as provided under the Contempt of Courts Act. UOI followed. VII (2002) SLT 229= (2003) 2 SCC 45. Though by the time the appeals were taken up for hearing the period of four months was over. who is guilty of contempt of court or of unbecoming or unprofessional conduct. Capt. Capt.----. THOUGH IN A GIVEN CASE THE HIGH COURT COULD DEBAR THE CONTEMNOR FROM APPEARING IN COURT TILL HE PURGED HIMSELF OF THE CONTEMPT. 145 of Constitution – ART..--. Conduct in Court is a matter concerning the court and hence the bar Council cannot claim that what should happen inside the Court could also be regulated by them in exercise of their disciplinary powers. Harish Uppal Vs.his sellout in favour of defence for a very high price. We may respectfully add that in a given case. another Constitution Bench of this Court in Ex.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 141 of the above referred judgment :- “More importantly. Para 34 of the decision need to be reproduced below :“34. 145 AND SECTION 34 OF ACT CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO AN ADVOCATE TO APPEAR IN COURT – An Advocate appears in Court subject to conditions laid down by Court.But the right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on which the court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power. a direction disallowing an advocate who is convicted of criminal contempt from appearing in Court may not only be a measure to . Altaf Ahmed contended that the High Court’s direction was beyond its competence and authority. Mr.

not at all apologetic and not accepted. 10. 161 (2009) DLT 466” (DB) (20. 1 contemnor was also of criminal contempt.Sections 2 (a).---------.Order 39 Rule 2A. 1908.On receipt of REFERENCE from Court of Civil Judge.But subsequently in his reply to contempt application filed by plaintiff. but on the contrary shows a tendency to repeat or perpetuate the wrong act(s).11. (v) Para 145 of the above referred judgment :- “Lest we are misunderstood it needs to be made clear that the occasion to take recourse to the extreme step of debarring an advocate from appearing in Court should arise very rarely and only as a measure of last resort in cases where the wrong doer advocate does not at all appear to be genuinely contrite and remorseful for his act/conduct.That fraud was played upon him by plaintiff in collusion with any other person in making statement.14.Apology tendered by contemnor.It was tendered by defendant/contemnor for first time while giving evidence in these proceedings-Defendant/contemnor is guilty of criminal contempt. 2(b).Criminal ContemptCONTRADICTORY STANDS TAKEN IN HIS PLEADINGS/ AFFIDAVITS BY DEFENDANT/CONTEMNOR REGARDING OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF SUIT PROPERTY.To be established by adducing cogent evidence.No evidence in this behalf led by defendant/contemnor-Ipse Dixit of defendant is difficult to be accepted.” (ii) Head Note (ii) of the above referred DLT :- “Fraud.7.maintain the dignity and though in paragraph 80 of the decision.2009) (Available) (i) Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT :- “Contempt of Courts Act. “In the matter of Contempt Proceedings against Kanwar Singh Saini. 2(c ).15. (iii) Head Note (iii) of the above referred DLT :- .” 36.19. contemnor took a somersault AND TOOK PLEA THAT HE NEITHER SOLD SUIT PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF NOR HANDED OVER POSSESSION TO HIM. as seen earlier there is an observation that in a given case it might be possible for this Court or the High Court to prevent the contemnor advocate to appear before it till he purge himself of the contempt orderly functioning of the courts but may become necessary for the self protection of the Court and for preservation of the purity of Court proceedings. 1971.FILING OF FALSE AFFIDAVITS OR STATEMENTS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AS IT TENDS TO OBSTRUCT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICEDefendant/Contemnor filed written statement in suit of plaintiff and made statement on oath before trial court AND ADMITTING HE SOLD SUIT PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF AND HANDED OVER POSSESSION TO HIM.12.Civil Procedure Code.18. Division Bench also found to be case of criminal contempt and charge framed against defendant No.Contempt of Court.

Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches(1)Every case of criminal contempt under section 15 shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges. or by signs. 1971. or (v) Prejudices. or obstructs or tends to obstruct. 14. 18. 2(b). the due course of any judicial proceedings. We say so because of certain provisions of the Act of 1971 as well as some judicial pronouncements.Sections 2(a). Section 18 also needs to be noticed.” (iv) Para 22 of the above referred judgment :- “In the present case. Section 19 provides as to where would an appeal lie against an order of a Single Judge bench and that of a Division bench. (2) Sub-section (I) shall not apply to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner. 19. we have to examine whether the defendant/contemnor has committed “Criminal contempt” or not we are of the view that since no cognizance was taken of “Civil Contempt”. cases of civil contempt can be heard and decided by Single Judge bench only and criminal contempt petition to be heard and decided only by Bench of not less than 2 Judges. We reproduce below these definition clauses: “2(a) “contempt of court” means “civil or criminal contempt” 2(b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment. or by visible representations or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which(iv) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize. or tends to interfere with. So. 2(c ).Contempt of CourtCivil and Criminal. writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of undertaking given to a Court.” Section 10 reads as under :“Section 10.“Contempt of Courts Act. It reads as under :“Section 18. spoken or written. as noticed already. or (vi) Interferes. by this Court that aspect cannot be gone into in the present proceedings even though strongly urged on behalf of the plaintiff. or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court. 15. order. “civil contempt” and “criminal contempt”. the Division Bench had taken cognizance of “Criminal Contempt” only against the defendant/contemnor for his having taken contradictory stands in his pleadings/affidavits regarding the ownership and possession of the suit property. Under Sections 2 (a). (b) and (c) “contempt of Court”. in respect of contempt of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt of itself : Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)”. decree.” 2(c ) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words. the administration of justice in any other manner.To be decided on basis of facts which are brought to notice of High CourtAs per scheme of 1971 Act. powers and authority. Power of High Court to punish contempt of subordinate Courts-Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction. in accordance with the same procedure and practice. Appeals – . 10. The relevant part of this section for our purpose is as follows : “Section 19. direction. or interferes or tends to interfere with.

then the matter can be entertained STRAIGHTWAY by a Single Judge Bench. (1996) 6 SCC 14 and Dhananjay Sharma Vs.” (vii) Para 30 of the above referred judgment :- “In the present case.” (v) Relevant extract of para 23 of the above referred judgment :- “From these provisions of the Act of 1971. Surjit Singh Arora.2003 admitting that he had sold the suit property to the plaintiff and had also handed over its position to him.” (vi) Para 29 of the above referred judgment :- “Now. subsequently when the plaintiff filed contempt application. Those facts can be brought to the notice of the High Court by any party to the litigation. Although Section 2 (c ) does not specifically provide that FILING OF FALSE AFFIDAVITS OR PLEADINGS WHICH ARE DULY VERIFIED IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS amounts to criminal contempt. In his statement on oath also which admittedly was made by him before the Ld Civil judge in the suit on 29.4. If the High Court considered on perusal of the facts brought to its notice that contempt of a Subordinate court is made AND THE SAME IS CIVIL IN NATURE. BUT IT HAS NOW BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT FILING OF FALSE AFFIDAVITS/STATEMENTS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BY ANY PARTY TENDS TO INTERFERE WITH OR OBSTRUCTS OR TENDS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND SO THAT ACT AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. Rita Markandey Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. . II (1995) CCR 128 (SC) = (1995) 3 SCC 7578. if the contempt of any court Subordinate to the High Court is alleged to be “CRIMINAL CONTEMPT” THEN THE REFERENCE IS MADE TO IT BY THE SUBORDINATE COURT CONCERNED OR ANY OF THE OTHER AUTHORITIES MENTIONED IN SECTION 15 OF THE ACT 1971----. it becomes evident that the question whether contempt of any subordinate court is committed or not and whether the alleged contempt is civil or criminal to be decided by the High Court on the basis of facts which are brought to the notice of the High Court. we proceed to examine if the defendant/contemnor has committed criminal contempt or not. Newatia and Anr. Vs. the defendant/contemnor had filed a written statement in the suit of the plaintiff and had also made a statement on oath before the trial court on 29. Ashok Kr.(2) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt(a) Where the order or decision is that of a Single judge. to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court. Some of those decisions of the Supreme Court are reported as Murray & Co. (b) Where the order or decision is that of a Bench. However. to the Supreme Court : Provided………………………………………….2003 he had admitted that he had already sold the suit property to the plaintiff and so he will not dispossess him . I(2000) SLT 550= 1(2000) CLT 310 (SC)= (2000) 2 SCC 367.4. However. And even the learned Counsel for the defendant/contemnor did not dispute this proposition.

the contemnor in his reply to that contempt application field before the Reference Court, which was supported by his affidavit wherein he affirmed the correctness of the assertion made by him in his reply, he took a somersault and took the plea that neither he had sold the suit property to the plaintiff nor he had handed over its possession to him. Even before this Court, the The defendant/contemnor filed an affidavit in response to the show cause notice and claimed that neither he had sold the suit property to the plaintiff not was he given its possession. admissions made in the written statement and in the statement made before the trial court, however, according to the defendant/contemnor, were not made by him voluntarily but were as a result of fraud played upon him by the plaintiff and one Ved Prakash. Learned counsel for the plaintiff did not dispute that if any party to a suit has made any admission of fact either in the pleadings or by way of statement on oath, that party is not precluded from showing that that admission was got made by the opposite party by indulging in fraud and it is shown that any fraud was played upon the party making any admission of some important fact in dispute then that party would not be bound by that admission. However, ld Counsel submitted, in the present case the defendant/contemnor had failed miserably to show that any kind of fraud was played upon him by the plaintiff in collusion with any other person. (viii) Relevant extract of para 31 of the above referred judgment :-

“-----In our view, the ipsi dixit of the defendant/contemnor that he had made the admissions regarding sale of property in question to the plaintiff and also handing over of its possession to him were as a result of fraud having been played upon him is difficult to be accepted. ---. Consequently, he did commit criminal contempt for which he deserves to be punished. The stage at which he has tendered an apology shows that he was really not apologetic at all since at no earlier point of time he tendered apology.---- We are therefore, not inclined to accept the so called apology tendered by the defendant/contemnor for the first itm e while giving evidence in these proceedings.” (ix) Para 32 of the above referred judgment :-

“While holding the defendant/contemnor guilty of criminal contempt we straightaway proceed to punish him also in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court in para No. 36 of its judgment in Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd (Supra). We impose upon the contemnor punishment of simple imprisonment for four months.

37. (i).

“Court on its own motion against Ajay Yadav, 165 (2009) DLT 520 (DB)” (6.11.2009) Head Note of the above referred DLT :-

(ii)

Relevant extract of para 7 of the above referred judgment :-

“ The matter, however, did not rest at this since the learned Company Judge took a serious view of the conduct of Mr. Ajay Yadav. This conduct was a consequence of an order passed on 6.10.2006 in an interlocutory application filed in CS (OS) No. 1906/2006 by the company in terms where of the society, Mr. Ajay Choudhary and other members of their group who were defendant in the suit had been restrained from representing themselves as share holders/representatives of the company till further orders.----. The Learned Company Judge came to the conclusion that in the light of the prohibitions, it was not open to Shri Ajay Yadav to represent the company and this fact had not been informed to the Court by the counsel representing Mr. Ajay Yadav. The vakalatnama filed by the counsel on behalf of Shri Ajay Yadav as if he was representing the company was found to be in the teeth of the order of injection and the action of Shri Ajay Yadav singing the vakalatnama was observed to be a blatant attempt to lower the authority of the court in violation of the order dated 6.10.2006 passed in CS (OS) No. 1906/2006. The conduct of Shri Ajay Yadav was held to be an effort to prejudice due course of judicial proceedings and would fall into the definition of criminal contempt and the matter was thereafter directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench after registering the petition as such.” (iii) Sub para 16 of para 11 of the above referred judgment :-

“The action of Shri Ajay Yadav in signing the vakalatnamas purportedly on behalf of the respondent No. 1, is a blatant attempt to lower the authority of the Court in violation of order dated 6th October, 2006 passed in CS (OS) o. 1906/2006. As a result a dispute was raised by Mr. Chaudhary, Advocate in the present proceedings as to who is to represent the company. Such vakaltnama has been signed even as late as on 23rd April, 2009 despite the judgment dated 20th April, 2009. Despite specific prohibition, Shri Ajay Yadav has made an effort to prejudice due course of the present judicial proceedings. There can be no manner of doubt that the action is willful. These acts on the part of Shri Ajay Yadav would clearly fall with the definition of “criminal contempt “ as defined under Sub-clauses 1 and 2 of Sub section of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.” (iv) Relevant extract of para 13 of the above referred judgment :-

“A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent shows that Sh Ajay Yadav has justified his conduct of putting an appearance on behalf of the Company through advocates despite the injunction order. He has sought to raise preliminary objections that no consent of Advocate General or any State Law Officer has been obtained for initiation of contempt proceedings against him which plea is without any basis in view of the proceedings having been initiated suo moto by the Court.---.” (v) Para 16 of the above referred judgment :-

“We find that the respondent has shown no regret. After setting forth 26 grounds of challenge, in the last paragraph it is stated that the respondent has the highest regard for the Court and does not want to lower its dignity or authority willfully or otherwise and that the respondent is prepared to tender unconditional apology in the event of the Court considering the present reply as not being sufficient to drop or discharge the notice. We find this apology s no apology at all. the respondent has defended his action.” (vi) Relevant extract of para 19 of the above referred judgment :-

“---After having done everything possible to frustrate the orders of the court by acting in an improper and illegal manner, the respondent has tried to justify his conduct.---.” (vii) Para 20 of the above referred judgment :-

“We may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 to explain that the word ‘interfere’ in the context of the criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 means any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty. Thus, if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the Courts from performing the legal duties as they are supposed to do. The polluters of judicial firmament are required to be well taken care of to

maintain the sublimity of Court’s environment. A similar view has been expressed in Dhannjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., II (1995) CCR 128 (SC) = AIR 1995 SC 1795, where false affidavits had been filed. In Ram Avtar Shukla Vs. Arvind Shukla, (1995) Supp (2) SCC 130, it was observed that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with any acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses ‘ in any manner’. The tendency on the part of the contemnor in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact. any interference in the cause of justice, any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and therefore, the conduct is punishable as contempt of court. Learned Single Judge of this court in court on its own motion Vs. Kanwaljit S. Sareen & Ors. 138 (2007) DLT 682 = II (2007) BC 362, has observed that a party taking recourse to fraud deflects course of judicial proceedings and same constitutes interference in administration of justice.” (viii) Para 21 of the above referred judgment :-

“We deem it appropriate to also refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Sudhir Chona Vs. Shahnaz Husain, 2002 (97) DLT 642 that while civil contempt is an offence of private nature depriving a party of the benefit of the Court order, criminal contempt is contumacious or obstructive conduct or behaviour directed against the court and involves an element of criminality in it. It is despising, undermining and eroding the authority of the Court and is punishable to protect and safeguard the public faith in the administration of justice.” (ix) Para 25 of the above referred judgment :-

“Despite the conduct of the respondent/contemnor, we restrain from taking an extreme harsh view and impose fine of Rs. 2,0000/- on the respondent/contemnor and sentence him till the rising of the Court.” 38. (i) “ST. Ives Laboratories Inc. Vs. Lotus Herbals UK Ltd , 164 (2009) DLT 473 (9.11.2009) Relevant extract of Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT :-

“Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 2(b), 9- Civil Contempt – Constitution of – There must exist judgment, decree, direction, order, or writ or process of Court or there should be an undertaking given by defendant to Court---.” (ii) Para 3 of the above referred judgment :-

“Section 2 sub section (b) of the Contempt of Court Act defines civil contempt which reads as under :“2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires(a) “Contempt of Court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt” (b) “Civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to court.”s (iii) Relevant extract of para 5 of the above referred judgment :-

“In the present case, this court did not pass any judgment in favour of plaintiff and against defendant not decreed the suit of plaintiff nor given any directions to defendant nor passed an order in favour of plaintiff or against defendant nor issued any writ nor an undertaking of defendant was recorded.---.”

L.D. Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt. (Not relevant) I. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (3) of CCA Note :This section deals with ‘Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt’ (Irrelevant) E. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (7) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Publication of information relating to proceedings in Camera not contempt except in certain cases’. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (4) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings not contempt (Irrelevant) F. 1976 Cr. G.. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (5) of CCA Note : This section deals with fair criticism of judicial act.J. (Not relevant) J. Abraham George. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (8) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘other defenses not affected’. not contempt and this section 5 reads as under :“5. (Irrelevant) H. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (9) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt’ (Not relevant) K.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. 158 (161). Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (10) of CCA(Most important) . Advocate General Vs. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (6) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Complaint against Presiding Officers of Subordinate Courts when not contempt’. Comments Judgments are open to criticism that must be done without casting aspersions on the judges and the courts and without adverse comments amounting to scandalizing the courts.

High Court ca take cognizance o petition filed by aggrieved party in view of R. it is only the High Court that take action against the contemner vide AIR 1957 Hyd.) (viii) The High Court while exercising jurisdiction in contempt proceedings can undo the wrong which have bee done to petitioner and restore status quo ante.) (Plea of alleged contemner that order of Tribunal was passed without jurisdiction can be gone into by High Court entertaining contempt petition. (11) Court.Its disregard-o contempt committed-Contempt petition not maintainable. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. 17(DB) and AIR 1989 HP 46 (ii) Contempt of subordinate courts –Power to punish vests in High Court alone.Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction. 1992 Cri LJ 1375 (1377) : 1991(1) Gauhati LR 214. 2-A CPC vide 1985 MPLJ 730. (i) Sections 10 & 11 make it manifestly clear that even in respect of contempt of any subordinate court. 14 of the Act. (2) Proceedings against State or Union.Note : This section deals with ‘Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate Courts. powers and authority.” A. (1) Power of High Court to punish contempts. 9 of Contempt of Courts (Gauhati High Court) Rules (1977). . (10) Other remedy. 228.C. (iii) Subordinate Court can make a reference Under S. 15(2) only in respect of ‘Criminal Contempt”-Cannot entertain application wherein ‘Civil Contempt’ is alleged (iv) Criminal Contempt of Subordinate Court-Suo Motu action for contempt by High CourtPermissible vide AIR 2004 SC 2579 (2588) (v) The High Court may take cognizance even on its own motion of the contempt of a subordinate court vide 1994 MPLJ 424 (427) (DB) (vi) Violation of injunction issued by subordinate Court. 1981 Cri LJ 1880 (Delhi) ** (1987) 2 Rajasthan LR 864(867) ** 1984 Cri LJ 1243 (1246) : 1984 All Cri Respondent 374 (DB). Reversed. (7) Bar of jurisdiction under the Proviso (8) Ex parte order. 39. except in cases covered by S. (9) Parallel proceedings. (Not relevant ) (3) Scope of enquiry. in accordance with the same procedure and practice. Penal Code and O.’ Section 10 of CCA reads as under :“10. (1982) UPLT NOC 79. (5) Exercise of power is discretionary. (6) Contempt proceedings and Criminal P. (4) Evidence and mode of proof. (vii) Order passed by Court having o jurisdiction is nullity and a void order. which applies in case of civil contempt other than contempt referred to in S. Synopsis of section 10 as per AIR manual :(1) Power of High Court to punish contempts. R. 1992 (1) Rec Cri Respondent 257 (259) (P&H). in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself : Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the India Penal Code.

which is not supported by written consent of Advocate General.Charge that he had disobeyed administrative directions of High Court in that he had failed to send certain monthly returns in time. it is fit case in which the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act can be exercised. 1990 Cri LJ (NOC) 62 : (1989) 2 Sim LC 201 (HP). (xv) Case of contempt cannot be made out on the basis of constructive notice through counsel. (xiii) For punishing contemners either under Art. (5) Exercise of power is discretionary. (xii) In a allegation being of criminal contempt. 1997 (3)Raj LW 1773 (1775) : (1998 (1) WLC 106. 1990 Cri LJ 619 : (1989) 3 Bom CR 267. ILR (1983) 1 Cut 377 (385) (DB) ** 2002 (2) All Rent Cas 212 (213) ** 1998 Cri LJ 3126 (3127) : 1998 (2) Rec Civ Respondent 195 (Petitioner & H). (4) Evidence and mode of proof. unless there is clear material at least to suggest the parties were prima facie involved in the matter as alleged. there would be no justification to continue contempt proceedings against them.(ix) When single Judge had passed orders on a contempt petition and single Judge was not conferred with the power of contempt of Court by any order of Chief Justice. contempt proceedings being in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings actual knowledge of the order is sine qua non before finding a person guilty of disobedience of orders. HN 291 (293) : 1993 Cal Cri LR 411 (DB). The allegations should not be circumstantial. (x) No cognizance of criminal contempt of subordinate Court alleged to have been committed by contemners can be taken on the application by a third party before the High Court.Held.Order of High Court ultimately complied with by the new officers who took pains to see that premises were vacated. ILR (1986) 2 Delhi 60 (62). the orders passed by said single Judge on contempt petition were liable to be set aside. 1994 (1) Cal.” (xiv) Where respondent/tenant filed an undertaking in the Court of Rent Controller specifying particular date to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the landlord.High regard for High Court also expressed by concerned Executive Magistrate. (xvi) Where the Municipal Corporation failed to comply with the orders of the High Court to return the belongings of the hutment dwellers which were taken from them at the time of demolition of the hutments.Explanation for delay found to be just. Interim order alleged to be violated found to have been subsequently vacated-Contempt petition not therefore tenable). (xvii) Contempt proceedings initiated by High Court on its own motion against Executive Magistrate. 215 of Constitution or under S.Rule discharged. 1991 All WC 117 (119). Respondent 2A of CPC. willful and deliberate disobedience must be proved beyond all shadow of doubt. . (3) Scope of enquiry. (xi) Disobedience of order of High Court –Eviction order passed by authority – Order upheld by High Court and direction issued to opposite parties – Police Officers to give vacant possession of premises-Non-compliance of order – Such police officers transferred and other Police Officers succeeding them. 10 of Contempt of Courts Act or under O. 1990 Cri LJ 479 : 1989 All LJ 173. fact of illness cannot be a ground for not delivering possession and vacating the premises particularly when respondent suffering from heart disease from long back as per his own averments. On-vacating of premises as per undertaking given I Court amounts to contempt of Court and respondent is liable for imprisonment and fine both. 39. that it was not necessary to initiate contempt proceedings against opposite parties. 2005 (1) All WC 992 (993) : 2005 (1) ESC 14 (DB).

and even then only to the limit strictly called for by such interests ay impression that the exercise of such jurisdiction or the power to punish for contempt. Court is both the accuser and judge of the accusation. AIR 1969 Mad. 474 (482) : 1958 Cri LJ 1162 ** ILR (1955) Mys 524 (DB). jurisdiction relating to contempt of Court held could not be invoked.P explicitly declaring that case was sub judice and he would refrain from any discussion about it – In view of cautionary trends of speech.(xviii) The fact that in a case of contempt committed in its face the Court before it calls upon the Contemner to show cause comes to a decision that a contempt has been committed does not disqualify the Court from adjudicating upon the matter when cause is shown by the Contemner.Case in question referred to in public speech made by P.Litigant may have a grievance in a matter decided by Courts. (xxvii) Power of High Court to punish contempts can be invoked only when facts ex facie support such proceeding and not for enforcement of decreetal rights between parties. (xxvi) Proceedings by ay of contempt of Court should not be used as a ‘legal thumbscrew’ by a party against his opponent for enforcement of his claim. It behoves the Court to act with due circumspection – Court must always be jealous in vindicating its dignity and impartiality while at the same time. (xxii) The power to commit for contempt should be used only when contempt is deliberate. 14 (16. but that cannot justify use of intemperate or improper language by aggrieved party in reference to Courts. AIR 1932 Lah. AIR 1956 Sau 102((104) : 1956 Cri LJ 1355 (DB) ** 2004 (1) Andh LT 1 (11) (DB) ** AIR 1951 Punj 49 (52) : 52 Cri LJ 950 (DB) ** AIR 1950 All 285 (286) : 51 Cri LJ 595 ** AIR 1941 Pat 185 (192) (DB) ** AIR 1969 Delhi 137 (141) : 1969 Cri LJ 599 (DB) ** 1968 Cri LJ 107 (All) ** 1961 (2) Cri LJ 104 (109) (DB) (Ker) ** AIR 1960 All 231 (234) : 1960 Cri LJ 442 (DB) ** AIR 1958 Cal. AIR 1966 Mad 21 (22) : 1966 Cri LJ 35 : (1965) 2 Mad LJ 162 (DB).. AIR 1970 Mad. 378 (380) (DB) (xxiv) The matter of dealing with the contempt is totally within the jurisdiction of the High Court and is not the right of ay party in any sense. it must exercise its power with restraint and care. has been made in a somewhat hasty or dominating mode without carefully considering the consequence involved to parties may be even more unfavourable to the administration of justice. (xxi) Interference with course of justice. (xxviii) The Court must take into consideration the fact that there is another remedy available while exercising its discretion to commit or not to commit a person its discretion to commit or not to commit a person for contempt of Court. AIR 1969 Delhi 169 (170) (FB). AIR 1956 Andhra 84 (86) : 1956 Cri LJ 475 (DB) ** AIR 1950 All 285 (286) : 51 Cri LJ 595 ** ILR (1968) 1 Ker. (xxiii) Interference with due course of justice in pending proceedings. (xx) A Court will not exercise its extraordinary power of committal upon light occasions and where the ends of justice do not require its use. . AIR1945 PC 147 (150) : 47 Cri LJ 61 ** AIR 1958 Cal 474 (482) : 1958 Cri LJ 1162 ** 1968 Cri LJ 430 (431) (Punj).Likelihood and not actual interference is essential.17)(DB). than permitting such acts of contempt to go unnoticed. AIR 1969 Delhi 201 (210) (FB). (xix) In action by ay of contempt. 384 (403) : 1968 Ker LJ 197 (FB) ** 1968 Cri LJ 248(251) : 71 Cal WN 771 (DB) ** 1968 MPLJ 725 (DB) ** AIR 1967 Andh Pra 299 (308) : 1967 Cri LJ 1470 (DB) ** AIR 1961 J & K 76 (81) : 1961 (2) Cri LJ 766 (DB) ** AIR 1959 Orissa 89 (93) : 1959 Cri LJ 626 (DB). 109) (All) ** 1966 All WR (HC) 759 ** 1963 (2) Cri LJ 219 (223) : 1963 MPLJ 1121 (DB) ** AIR 1959 Pat 262 (266) : 1959 Cri LJ 754 (DB). AIR 1939 Mad 257 (260) : 40 Cri LJ 533 (SB) ** AIR 1953 All 266 (270) : 1953 Cri LJ 630 (DB) ** AIR 1969 Delhi 137 (140) : 1969 Cri LJ 599 (DB) ** 1968 Cri LJ 107 (108. this jurisdiction must be very sparingly used only where the interests of justice imperatively require its use. 502 (503) : 33 Cri LJ 675 (FB). Further. (xxv) The jurisdiction to commit for contempt should not be used to vindicate any personal interest of the Judge but only the general administration of law which is the public concern. (1969) Mad LW 25 (28) (DB) (Cri).

Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (11) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction. (xxxi) Contempt of Court by one person another person taking entire responsibility for offence ad expressing unqualified regrets. and was responsible to. was in charge of. 1970 MLJ (Cri) 139. Rule 2-A (Allahabad) of the Civil Procedure Code and also under the contempt of Courts Act. 305(307) : 38 Cri LJ 942 ** (1966) Bom. (xxxii) Committal for contempt is a weapon to be used sparingly and always with reference to the interests of the administration of justice. ILR (1971) Cut. Courts should not hesitate to exercise the powers conferred by the Act. no Court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it. (Not relevant) M. where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt. the Court. (xxxiii) Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate Courts.Commitment for contempt is discretionary. (xxxiv) L. Punishment for contempt of Court. as well as the company. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section. by the detention is civil prison of each such person : .Is no ground for absolving former. (4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of Court in respect of any undertaking give to a Court is a company. 1964 All WR 127(128). (xxx) Where the circumstances require it.. shall. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (12) of CCA Note : This section deals with punishment for contempt of court and it reads as under :“12.An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if accused makes it bona fide. Explanation. shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced. AIR 1954 Pat.(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law. a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months. instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment. the company for the conduct of the business of the company. or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. at the time the contempt was committed.(xxix) A party guilty of disobedience of an interim injunction order can be punished under Order 39. 237 (SC). 203 (208) : 1954 Cri LJ 533 (DB) ** AIR 1967 Bom. if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary. (6) Contempt proceedings and Criminal P. direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.Power to be exercised to maintain the course of justice pure and unaffected. every person who. LR 453. with the leave of the Court. or with both : Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.C. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. It is however not necessary to award separate punishment. AIR 1969 Delhi 201 (205) (FB).

. any director. Explanation. Bonbehari Roy Vs. 254B. means a partner in the firm. AIR 2001 SC 1293. Mrityujoy Das Vs. N. as recognized by law.Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. is yet limited and cannot be expanded to include the power to determine whether an advocate is also guilty of “Professional misconduct” in a summary manner. (v) The power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of court. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4). Hemchand M. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman. and (b) ‘director’. Noorali Babul Thanewala Vs. or is attributable to any neglect on the part of. (iv) The common English phrase “he who asserts must prove” has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. Shetty AIR 1990 SC 564. AIR 2007 SC 2725. High Court of Judicature of M. AIR 1998 SC 1895.P. (1990) 3 Bom CR 82 (Bom). Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (13) of CCA Note : This section deals with contempts not punishable in certain cases. Union of India. secretary or other officer of the company such director. (vi) Breach of an injunction or breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a civil proceeding amounts to contempt. manager. in relation to a firm. with the leave of the Court. where the contempt of Court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of. Singhania. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. O. COMMENTS (i) Purpose of imposing punishment is to ensure faith. secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and punishment may be enforced. That would be exercising review jurisdiction with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. secretary or other officer. Shakuntala Sahadevram Tiwari Vs. Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. As regards the standard of proof. AIR 2004 SC 4277A. Prithavi Nath Ram Vs. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. AIR 2004 Cal.For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5) – (a) ‘Company’ means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. (iii) The various different modes of execution of orders and decrees. the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. cannot be resorted to by the Court in a contempt proceeding. though quite wide. be it noted that a proceeding under the Courts Act is quasi judicial. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (14) of CCA . State of Jharkhand. K. manager. Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. by the detention in civil prison of such director. and as such. (ii) Court dealing with application for contempt of court cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. trust and confidence in administration of justice . manager.M. (vi) Committing the contemer to prison is always discretionary with the court.

’ R. The heading of the section. indicates that it was to provide for “Limitation for actions for contempt. Appeals. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (15) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases’ and this section provides the procedure to follow in the High Court and this section 15 reads as under :Q. (b) Where the order or decision is that of a Bench. (2) Pending any appeal. And reads as under :“19. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (16) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Contempt by Judge. to the Supreme Court : Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory. from the date of the order appealed against. within thirty days .(a) Where the order or decision is that of a single Judge. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (20) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Limitation for actions for contempt.’ T.” and thus. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (17) of CCA Note : This section deals with procedure after cognizance. within sixty days. S. this section provides that action for contempt can be taken within a period of one year from the date on . U. (3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfied the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court. however. (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court.Note : This section deals with ‘Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or the High Court.(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its Jurisdiction to punish for contempt. (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed – (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court.. is not happily worded. such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.’ and this section 14 reads as under :P. the appellate Court may order that – (a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended . Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (18) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (19) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘appeal. he be released on bail. Magistrate or other person acting judicially.’ (Most Important) This section. and (c ) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. as framed. (b) if the appellant is in confinement.

(b). either its own motion or otherwise. it is essential to understand the meaning of the phrases . These are – (i)(a). In the cases contemplated by (i) or )ii_ it cannot be said that any proceedings for contempt have been initiated. 1: This section deals with ‘Limitation for actions for contempt’ and as such. or (b) the court may issue notice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause why the proceedings for contempt be not initiated (iii) the court may issue notice to the person sought to be proceeded against calling upon him to show cause why he be not punished for contempt. it must legally follow that proceedings for contempt are initiated when the applications are made and as such an application for contempt of court should be moved within a period of one year from the date when contempt was committed. In the case of a street. this section does not directly deal with limitation for filing of contempt application within a period of one years because as per the said section.. 1971 Note No. it is necessary to notice several situations or stages which my arise before the court dealing with contempt proceedings. the court may receive a motion or reference from the Advocate -General or with his consent in writing from any other person or a specified Law Officer or a Court subordinate to High Court (ii)(a) the court may in routine issue notice to the person sought to be proceeded against. and commonly is referred to as the ‘”terminus” (As per Black’s Law Dictionary) Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Custodian and others. It is only when the court has found an opinion that a prima facie . a private party may file or present an application or petition for initiating any proceedings for civil contempt . after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed Comments (i) In order to appreciate the exact connotation of the expression “initiate any proceedings of contempt”. 2 : In order to understand and appreciate the point of limitation mentioned in the above referred section.quo” and “terminus ad quem” The above mentioned two phrases are used respectively to designate the starting point and terminating point of a private way.which the contempt was committed.No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt. Limitation for actions for contempt. the period of one year is for actions for contempt and not for filing contempt application :- Note No. Detail of judgments and propositions of law pertaining to section (20) of CCA as given in the court of Contempt of Courts Act. (Paras 34 & 39 of the judgment reported as Pallav Sheth Vs. road or railway. 1971 reads as under :“20. In order to enable the High Court to take action for contempt within a period of one year. either end may be. “terminus a. AIR 2001 SC 2763: 2001 Cri LJ 4175) U-1.

(iii) (iv) No intervening event or order stops the running of time specified in this section Delay in initiating contempt proceedings cannot be condoned. 1989LW (Cri) 237. Madhao Gadkari. Abdul Golcha Advertising Agency Vs.A.M. (1990) 2 Bom. (ii) Initiation of any proceedings for contempt is barred after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. S. State of Maharashtra.” . Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Mittal. Hamed Vs.).).case for initiating proceedings for contempt is made out ad that the respondents or the alleged contemners should be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished then the court can be said to have initiated proceedings for contempt. D.K. AIR 2000 SC 1136. CR 262 (Bom. Radhakrishnan. T.M. Kanade Vs. V. (1990) 1 Mahh LR 544 (Bom.

Order of eviction.) (1. “A contempt was raised on behalf of the alleged Contemner based on Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act. was taken about limitation of this application under S. Parikh Vs.7. Narnaul dated 3rd November.Limitation. AIR 2001 THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR SC 2763 (A three Judge Bench Decision ) pertaining to the above referred judgment :- . Custodian and others. 1971. of the act of not giving the possession by force of the order of the learned Sr. (1) SCR 223” Note: As per the above referred judgment. 194”(D.B. “Firm Ganpat Ram Raj Kumar Vs. 20 OF THE ACT. 20. Therefore. Detail of judgments and their relevant extracts as given in the AIR Manual “Dineshbhai A. if it amounts to a contempt in a situation of this nature IS A CONTINUING WRONG. Ahmedabad and others. this Court observed as follows (Para 7 of AIR ) : Para 19 of the judgment reported as “Pallav Sheth Vs. 1.” (iii) :“In Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 1988 as appears from the affidavit in support of the application. AIR 1980 Guj. either on its own motion or otherwise. 20 of the Act.U-2. failure to give possession if it amounts to contempt in facts of case was continuing wrong to which S. in a case of continuing wrong. 2. FAILURE TO GIVE POSSESSION. The contempt consisted. S.1980)(Available) Note : This judgment has been overruled. 20 states that no courts shall initiate any proceedings for contempt. the present application was filed on or about 3rd November. In this case.” (ii) Para 7 of the above referred judgment :- “Another point. 20 of CCA is not applicable. 20 was not applicable. S. 1988. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society Nagarvel. S.Contempt consisting of act of not giving possession by force of order of temporary injunction obtained in another suitHeld. APPLICATION OF S. an application was filed for initiation of contempt proceedings. (i) Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR :- “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). Dealing with this contention. AIR 1989 SC 2285 : 1989 Supp. the application was well within the period of one year. 1989 Supp (1) SCR 223 : (AIR 1989 SC 2285) where an order of this Court ordering delivering of premises had not been complied with. Kalu Ram. Kalu Ram. Sub Judge. inter alia.

Contempts not punishable-Party obtaining favourable order of court by suppressing material facts within exclusive knowledge of him--Contempt of that order-Contempt jurisdiction would not be exercised in favour of him.” 3 “Engg. contemner escape action.11. If a person obtains a favourable interim order on a condition and does not fulfill the condition. AIR 2001 SC 2763 (A three Judge Bench Decision ) pertaining to the above referred judgment :“The abovementioned observations indicate that the contention based o Section 20 was not accepted for two reasons firstly that application for initiating action for contempt was filed within one year of the date when the contempt was alleged to have been committed and secondly failure to give possession amounted to continuing wrong and. I. 12 & 20.1995)(Gujrat High Court) (Available) (a) Head Note (A) of the above referred Cri L. (21. Custodian and others. 11.2. It seems contemner had never any intention to obey order of Court. 1990 RLR 180” (Delhi) (22. therefore. A petitioner in such a case is not an applicant but only an informant and hence limitation of one year U/S 20 is not applicable. There was no scope for application of S. In this case. 1971. 13. 1988 as appears from the affidavit in support of the application. Failure to give possession if it amounts to a contempt in a situation of this nature is a continuing wrong. Narnaul dated 12th Feb.J. 20 of the Act. 1988.. either on its own motion or otherwise. There was no terminus quo for complying with condition and disobedience continued. Ss. The contempt considered. Sukhanandi Vs. Section 20 stats that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt. there was no scope for application of Section 20 of the Act. therefore. inter alia. Projects (I) Ltd Vs. 1997 Cri L. then he is guilty for disobeying or noncompliance of orders of Court. This case is important for the reason that the Court regarded the filing of the application for initiating contempt proceedings as the relevant date from the point of view of limitation. of the act of not giving the possession by force of the order of the learned Sr. “Yogesh P.1990) (Available) (i) Head Note of the above referred RLR :- “Contempt of Courts Act. the application was well within the period of one year.J. State of Gujrat and Others. 4. after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.” (iv) Para 20 of the above referred judgment reported as “Pallav Sheth Vs. Sub Judge.D.“Another point was taken about limitation of this application under section 20 of the Act.. :497” If apology is not bonafide it cannot be accepted to help “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) S. Ganeriwala. the present application was filed on/or about 3 rd Nov.” (b) Para 2 of the above referred judgment :- .

In the instant case. If the order is obtained by suppressing material facts.“We are of the view that jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act should not be exercised in favour of the persons who have no regard for the truth. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE CONTEMPT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.J. if the same is within their knowledge. AIR 2000 SC 1136” (22. D. 7. Liyakatalikhan and others. These facts could not be within the knowledge of the respondents and if these were within the knowledge of the respondents they ought to have disclosed the same when the ord3er came to be passed in the main petition.No Court shall INITIATE any proceedings for contempt. 1237”(23. “Sandeep Chandra Vs. (i) “Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Limitation for actions for contempt. so is the case in these applications. Principle of burden of proof also coveys that it is the duty of all the parties to bring the truth before the Court if same is within their knowledge. For due administration of justice duty is cast on all the parties concerned to tell the truth before the Court and disclose all the facts relevant to the case.1999) (available) Note : The above referred judgment is not relevant. it is clear that the following facts were suppressed by the petitioner and is the petitioner would have disclosed these facts.2000) Para 9 of the above referred judgment :“20.” (c ) Relevant extracts of para 3 of the above referred judgment :- “In view of the affidavit in reply. Vice-Admiral Subhash C. 76 (1998) DLT 776” (DB) (28. Dr.” (ii) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred AIR :- (Available) “Section 20 of the Act reads as under :- .1998) (available) 6. This court. either on its own motion or otherwise. no court have passed the order which is sought to be enforced by action under the Contempt of Courts Act ----. Chopra (RTD) & Ors.” 5. would not like to exercise its contempt jurisdiction.8. the petitioner has suppressed relevant facts and it can be said that he has obtained relevant facts and it can be said that he has obtained favourable order by suppressing material facts. “Pathan Nawabkhan Vs.2. Mittal and another. the party concerned will hesitate to enforce that order and we it is brought to the notice of this Court that in fact and in substance the said order came to be passed on suppression of material facts which were within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. 2000 Cri L..K. tis Court should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. in these facts and circumstances of the case.” (d) Para 4 of the above referred judgment :- “The above fact5s were within the personal knowledge of the petitioner.9.

” (ii) Para 9 of the above referred judgment as reported in the above referred SCC :- “Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India declare the Supreme Court and every High Court to be a court of record having all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. They merely recognize a preexisting situation that the Supreme Court and the High Courts are courts of record and by virtue of being courts of record have inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt of themselves. S. S. 1971 cannot be used for limiting or regulating the exercise of .Limitation for action for contempt-S. 20. Government of Andhra Pradesh.2000 ( available) (Three Judge Bench Decision) (i) Head Note (C ) of the above referred judgment reported in the above referred SCC :- “Constitution of India. Madan Lal Verma. provisions of contempt of courts Act. 1971 S. “Devi Kishan Vs. These articles do not confer any new jurisdiction or status on the Supreme Court and the High Court.12. 129 & 215 but has been recognized therein –This power cannot be curtailed by law and is governed only by principles of natural justice –further held. 20 – Limitation for action for Contempt – Expression ‘initiate any proceedings for Contempt’-Connotation –Proceedings can be said to be initiated –NOT ON RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR TAKING ACTION.Does not provide limitation in sense understood in limitation Act. 20 strikes at jurisdiction of Court.--------. L. 2000 Cri. 1971 are in addition to. Sudhakar Prasad Vs.” The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.5 8. 9 “T. 129 and 215. It cannot be taken away or whittled down by any legislative enactment subordinate to the constitution. is an inherent and inalienable one and has not been originally conferred by Arts.Arts. 22. The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.Jurisdiction and power of Supreme Court and High Court under – Nature of –Restated – Power to punish for contempt of themselves. Such inherent power to punish for contempt is summary. 1971 are in addition to and not in derogation of Articles 129 & 215 of the Constitution.2000) (available) Note : This judgment has been overruled. 3619” (29.5.NOT ON ISSUE OF NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN – BUT WHEN NOTICE IS ISSUED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONTEMNOR SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED. (2001) 1 SCC 516 : 2000 AIR SCW 4611” 13.” (iii ) Head Note (D) of the above referred AIR :- “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). It is not governed or limited by any rules of procedure excepting the principles of natural justice. jurisdiction contemplated by the said two articles. and not in derogation of articles 129 & 215-Contempt of Courts Act. 5 of Limitation Act does not apply.J.“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971).S. The jurisdiction contemplated by Articles 129 and 215 is inalienable. held. Limitation Act (36 of 1963). S.

It cannot be taken away or whittled down by any legislative enactment subordinate to the constitution. It also held that such inherent power of punishment for contempt is summary and further went on to held as follows :“ It is not governed or limited by any rules of procedure excepting the principles of natural justice. Sudhakar Prasad (2000 AIR SCW 4611) (Supra) accepted the consistent view of the Supreme Court as noted above and the Court has take note of its judgment in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association (AIR 1998 SC 1895) (Supra). Sudhakar Prasad Vs. LJ 60 :“Recently in another case the Supreme Court again considered the width of contempt jurisdiction of the High Court in the context of Art. The jurisdiction contemplated by Articles 129 and 215 is inalienable.” (ii) :“It may be noted that subsequently a Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in T. The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Sukumar Das & Others. 2002 CRI. in T. (iii) :“In Om Prakash (supra) the observations to the effect that “Section 20 strikes at the root of the Court to initiate any proceeding of the contempt” and the further interpretation that where proceeding has not been initiated within one year the “jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding for contempt is lost” have been made without consideration of the previous judgments of the Supreme Court in the context of High Court’s contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Para 84 of the said judgment reported as “Shyamal Krishana Chakraborty Vs. Therefore. 215 of the Constitution in the case of T. Sukumar Das & Others. Sukumar Para 83 of the said judgment reported as “Shyamal Krishana Chakraborty Vs. In this decision. the subsequent judgment of the larger Bench. LJ 60” as is evident from the relevant extract of the following paras of the said judgment :(i) Relevant extract of para 59 of the said judgment reported as Shyamal Krishana Chakraborty Vs. 1971 cannot be used for limiting or regulating the exercise of jurisdiction contemplated by the said two articles.Note : The above quoted observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been re-iterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as “Shyamal Krishana Chakraborty Vs. But in the previous Two Judge Bench judgment in Om Prakash (2000 Cri LJ 1700) (SC) (Supra) this aspect of the matter was unfortunately not brought to the notice of the Apex Court. Sudhakar Prasad (Supra) which is in accord with the consistent views of Supreme Court right from 1954 may be taken to the binding precedent on this aspect. 2002 CRI. LJ 60” . 2002 CRI. the supreme court considered the constitution bench judgment in After considering the said Supreme Court Bar Association (AIR 1998 SC 1895) (Supra). Sukumar Das & Others. judgment. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2001) 1 SCC 516 : (2000) AIR SCW 4611. 2002 CRI. the Supreme Court has held in para 9 that under article 215 of the Constitution no new jurisdiction or states is conferred in the High Court. LJ 60” Das & Others. It merely recognized the pre-existing situation.

Therefore.J. 20.2001)(Available) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred Cri L. Sukumar Das & Others. Sukumar Das & Others. LJ 60” (27. those observations in Om Prasad (supra) on interpretation of section 20 of CCA 71. relied on various judgments of different High Courts in order to contend that bar created under Section 20 of the CCA must operate regardless of the Constitutional provision under Article 215. Sudhakar Prasad (2000 AIR SCW 4611) (Supra). however.” (ii) Para 57 of the above referred judgment :- “So except the aforesaid limited area pointed out above. 2002 CRI.Constitution.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 64 of the above referred judgment :- “The learned Counsel for the respondent. Sudhakar Prasad (supra). ---. 2002 CRI. especially in view of its subsequent larger Bench Judgment in the case. In fact. In the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court of a larger Bench it has held that the provisions of CCA cannot limit or regulate the exercise of contempt jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 215. LJ 60” Para 88 of the said judgment reported as “Shyamal Krishana Chakraborty Vs. (iv) :“It is clear in this case that the decision of Supreme Court in Om Prakash on the jurisdiction of High Court vis-à-vis section 20 of the CCA was not rendered after considering the effect of Article 215 on the power of a high Court as a Court of Record in matters of contempt jurisdiction. Ss. the decision in Om Prakash (2000 Cri LJ 1700) (SC) (Supra) must yield to the subsequent well considered and larger Bench decision in T.It cannot inhibit or prohibit exercise of jurisdiction of High Court. 20 – S. 215 of ConstitutionNot to be truncated and circumscribed by narrow interpretation of S.7. T. 23 – Constitution of India. Therefore. do not have the binding nature of precedent. with great respect.” (iv) Para 75 of the above referred judgment :- . 20 operates as guide in exercise of discretion of High Court contempt jurisdiction. The observations in Om Prasad (Supra) may be confined to the facts of that case since interpretation on High Court’s jurisdiction in contempt was made without reference to Article 215 of Constitution or te law laid down by the Supreme Court on this point. Art. 215 – Contempt jurisdiction. the Supreme Court did not interfere with the other punishment of suspended sentence of imprisonment imposed ‘In Re : Vinay Chandra Mishra’(supra).” 10 “Shyamal Krishana Chakraborty Vs. :- “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971).Is inherent in High Court and recognized as such under Art. the Supreme Court did not overrule the other aspect of the law laid down “in Re : Vinay Chandra Mishra (supra).

The learned Judges held that failure to give possession being the alleged act of contempt it is a case of continuous wrong.” (viii) Para 83 of the above referred judgment :- “It may be noted that subsequently a Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in T. reported in 1988 Cri LJ 558. the nature of contempt jurisdiction of the High Court in the context of Article 215 was unfortunately not at all brought to the notice of the Apex Court in Om Prakash (Supra). Sudhakar Prasad (2000 AIR SCW 4611) (supra) accepted the consistent view of the Supreme Court as noted above and the Court had taken note of its judgment in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association (AIR 1998 SC 1895) (Supra). the proceedings for contempt are not barred by limitation under Section 20 of CCA. this Court respectfully and humbly is of the view that interpretation of section 20 of CCA in Om Prakash (2000 Cri LJ 1700) (SC) (Supra) is perhaps not in consonance with the consistent declaration of law by the Supreme Court about the nature of Contempt jurisdiction of the High Court. Kaluram. AIR 1989 SC 2285 where the learned Judges held in para 7 of the Judgment that the case of contempt consisted of acts of not giving possession.” (v) Para 76 of the above referred judgment :- “Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganpat Ram Raj Kumar Vs. But I the previous Two Judge Bench judgment in Om Prakash (2000 Cri LJ 1700) (SC) (supra) this aspect of the matter was unfortunately not brought to the notice of the Apex Court. in T.” (vii) Para 82 of the above referred judgment :- “In the Indian context in view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court which has been pointed out above and which binds all Courts in India. there is no scope for application of Section 20 of the Act. the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that in the instant case the failure on the part of the respondent to pay the petitioner his pay for the period in question is a continuing wrong inasmuch as for such failure to pay the petitioner his due pay scale has not been fixed and the petitioner is suffering every month for this.” . Therefore. Sudhakar Prasad (supra) which is in accord with the consistent views of Supreme Court right from 1954 may be taken to be the binding precedent on this aspect. There is ample substance in this contention but because of the view which this Court is taking I this matter. So the alleged contempt committed by the respondent being a continuing wrong.“The learned Counsel for the petitioner Court in the case of Sarladevi Parbati Kumari Rungta Vs. In that case. Shiba Prosad Rungta. The learned Judge held that such payment of maintenance has to be given every month and on-payment is a recurring cause for contempt. In fact. the subsequent judgment of the larger bench. Therefore. In view of such recurring causes. no finding is given on this aspect of this matter. the learned Judge held that the order in respect of which the contempt proceeding was initiated was an order for payment of maintenance during the pendency of the appeal.” (vi) Para 77 of the above referred judgment :- “Relying on those two judgments. section 20 cannot be applied.

in exercising the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court.K. reported in AIR 1978 Kant 57 : (1978 Cri LJ 726). State of Kerala reported in 1995 Cri LJ 3830. Sudhakar Prasad (2000 AIR SCW 4611 (supra). Prabhakar reported in (1997) 6 Andh LT 718 and the Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of A. even though the petition was presented in time would have the effect of denuding the effectiveness of the remedy not only under Article 215 but also under Article 226. Reference in this connection may be made of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/S Goodyear India Ltd Vs. But any interpretation which robs of the High Court of its inherent jurisdiction to act as a Courts of Record to punish a contempt of its own order after a certain time. the decision in Om Prakash (2000 Cri LJ 1799) (SC) (supra) must yield to the subsequent well considered and larger Bench decision I n T. in my considered view. th learned Judges. however. D. this Court is of the opinion that section 20 of CCA has not been correctly interpreted in the following cases ad the ratio of the following decisions is not approved : (a) Hari Nandan Agarwal Vs.” (xi) Para 91 of the above referred judgment :- “So. The Principal. Sri Ramji Das.” (xii) Para 99 of the above referred judgment :- “For the aforesaid view which this Court has taken on interpretation of Section 20 of CCA. 194 and (d) N. Mayilswami Vs.” (x) Para 88 of the above referred judgment :- It is clear in this case that the decision of Supreme Court in Om Prakash on the jurisdiction of High Court vis-à-vis section 20 of the CCA was not rendered after considering the effect of Article 215 on the power of a High Court as Court of record in matters of contempt jurisdiction. Padita. (b) Gulab Singh Vs.N. P.” . will follow the same principle of not entertaining causes which are belated and where it is clear that the persons invoking Court’s jurisdiction are guilty of laches which has not bee explained. In the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court of a larger Bench it has held that the provisions of CCA cannot limit or regulate the exercise of contempt jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 215. Venkataramanappa Vs. Samarendra Bondopadhyay reported I (1996) 2 Cal. S.(ix) Para 85 of the above referred judgment :- “It has been settled authoritatively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court more than once that when a finding is reached without argument and without consideration of the previous judgments of the Supreme Court such a finding does not have the binding nature of the precedent. State of Haryana Judges held a decision on a question which has not been argued cannot be treated as a precedent. approves the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of Begunkodar High School Vs. Nikar. LJ 349 and also approves the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nallamal Vekateshwara Rao Vs. reported in AIR 1975 All 366 (c ) Dineshbhai A. reported in AIR 1975 All 48. Parikh Vs Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society reported in AIR 1980 Guj. This court. Therefore.

decree etc which could amount to the commission of offence by filing application in this regard within a period of one year from the date of commission of alleged contempt. Besides that. AIR 2001 SC 2763 : 2001 Cri. The crucial question that arises is as to how or when are the proceedings for contempt initiated.11. Custodian and others.K. The heading of the section. The procedure which is to be followed in each of these cases is different. it must logically follow that proceedings for contempt are initiated when the applications are made thus. Mittal. Overruled. THIS REFERENCE OR MOTION CAN CONCEIVABLY COMMENCE ON AN APPLICATION BEING FILED BY A PERSON whereupon the subordinate court or the advocate-general if it is so satisfied may refer the matter to the high court. Section 20 as framed is not happily worded. 215 – 129. as per the above referred judgment. the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or the Law Officer of the Central Government in the case of Union Territory. L. Arts. Held obiter. In the case of criminal contempt of subordinate Court. 4175” (10. “Pallav Sheth Vs.J. in the case of Union Territory.Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). 2000 AIR SCW 722. 20-Supreme Court and High Court –Constitutional power to punish for contempt.cannot be taken to abrogate constitutional powers------Om Prakash Vs. Observation in AIR 1974 SC 2255. (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred AIR :- “Constitution of India. S. L. When the judicial procedure requires an application being filed either before the Court or consent being sought by a person from the advocate-general or a Law Officer.Law prescribing period for initiation of contempt proceeding. Section 20 deals not only with criminal contempt but also with civil contempt. Proceedings . It applies not only to the contempt committed in the face of the High Court or the Supreme Court but would also be applicable in the case of contempt of the Subordinate Court. application must be moved within a period of one year from the date of commission of alleged contempt as per paras 38 & 39 of the above referred judgment. (Para 18) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. D.” The wording of the sections are negative but it is clear that terminus ad quem is the initiation of proceedings for contempt. OBITER DICTA IS NOT BINDING UPON A COURT .2001)(A three Judge Bench Decision ) (AIR and Cri.J. This reference or motion can conceivably commence on an application being filed by a person whereupon the subordinate court or the advocate-general if it is so satisfied may refer the matter to the High Court. however. the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the Subordinate Court or on a motion made by the advocate general or the Law Officer of the Central Govt.. proceedings normally commence with a person aggrieved bringing to the notice of the court the willful disobedience of any judgment. both available) Note : In the case of civil contempt.8. But in the case of criminal contempt of subordinate court. indicates what it was to provide for “Limitation for actions for contempt. in the case of civil contempt or criminal contempt.

No Court shall initiate any proceedings for “Sections 20 and 22. of his assets. 42 & 44) (ii) Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR :- “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). read as follows :contempt.Section 17 of Limitation Act applies.” (Paras 41. Act to be in addition to and not I derogation of. order etc. after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of Courts. transferring etc. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to.Action for contempt. which could amount to the commission of the offence. the proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. 17. 22.Limitation Act (36 of 1963).Limitation-Running of –In cases of fraud-Provision embodies fundamental principle of justice and equity.”(Para 48) (iii ) Head Note (C ) of the above referred AIR :- “Limitation Act (36 of 1963). with which we are concerned in the present case. When the judicial procedure requires an application being filed either before the Court or consent being sought by a person from the Advocate-General or a Law Officer it must logically follow that PROCEEDING FOR CONTEMPT ARE INITIATED WHEN THE APPLICATION ARE MADE. 20. decree. 20. 34 & 39) One of the principles underlying the law of limitation is that a litigant must act diligently and not sleep over its rights. The attention of the Court is drawn to such a contempt being committed ONLY BY A PERSON FILING AN APPLICATION IN THAT BEHALF.Limitation-Contemnor restrained by Court from alienating.for civil contempt normally commence wit a person aggrieved bringing to the notice of the Court the willful disobedience of any judgment. EITHER BY FILING OF AN APPLICATION OR BY THE COURT ISSUING NOTICE SUO MOTU.(Paras 33. unless a Court was to take a suo motu action. In other words. WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE CONTEMPT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.” (v) Relevant extract of para 18 of the above referred judgment :- .Application for initiating contempt proceedings filed immediately on becoming aware of fraud. Limitation for actions for contempt. 1971 would normally commence with the filing of an application drawing the attention of the Court to the contempt having been committed. S. other laws relating to contempt. either on its own motion or otherwise. 17.Found to have set up benami companies ad transferred his assets despite restraint order – Fraud perpetrated by contemnor revealed in Income –tax raid conducted 3 years after restraint order. S. -------The proper construction therefore to be placed o section 20 must be that ACTION MUST BE INITIATED. S.Initiation of contempt proceedings is well wetter limitation under S.” (Para 47) (iv) Para 15 of the above referred judgment :“20.

THIS WAS ONLY ISSUE WHICH AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT IN BARADAKANTA MISHRA’S CASE and this court upheld the preliminary objection and held that no appeal U/S 19(1) was maintainable. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra. Under the circumstances. IF. 129 or Art. on the other hand. FURTHER MORE. Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court (1975)3 SCC 535 : (AIR 1974 SC 2233) : 1975 Cri LJ 1 and it was contended that it was held in this section that section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 provided a period of limitation by saying that no court shall initiate any proceeding for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Full Bench of three Judges were of the opinion that no contempt of A court had been committed and the application was rejected. In Baradakanta Mishra’s case (supra) the appellant had filed an application before the High Court for initiating contempt proceeding against the Chief Justice and other Judges in their personal capacity. PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT INITIATED BY FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE CONTEMPT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. If . Baradakanta Mishra’s case decision does not specifically deal with the question as to when or how proceedings for contempt are initiated for the purposes of section 20and or has it considered the applicability of the provisions of the limitation act to which we shall presently refer. Venugopal on a decision in Baradakanta Mishra Vs. The appellant then purported to avail the right of appeal U/S 19(1) of the Act and filed an appeal in this court. In any case. proceedings are properly initiated by the filing of an application in the case of Civil Contempt like the present before the Court within the period of limitation then the provisions of section 20 will not stand in the way of the court exercising its jurisdiction. No reference is made in the judgment to Art. we hold that the observations made by this court with reference to section 20 WERE IN THE NATURE OF OBITER DICTA AND NOT BINDING ON THIS COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE. no appeal as of right would be lie U/S 19(1). It is no doubt true that during the course of discussion reference was made two sections 15. HOWEVER. 1971 BUT THIS COURT WAS IN THAT CASE NOT CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT VIS-À-VIS INHERENT POWERS OF THE HIGH COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.” (vi) Para 38 of the above referred judgment :- “The rules so framed by all the courts in India do show that proceedings are initiated inter alia with the filing of an application or a petition in that behalf. preliminary objection was taken by the state against the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that where the High Court had not initiated proceedings ad had refused to take action. INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 20 WAS NOT AN ISSUE AND NO QUESTION OF LIMITATION AROSE THEREIN. 215 of the constitution. THEN THE COURT SHALL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. 17 & 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.” (vii) Para 39 of the above referred judgment :- .“-----Reliance was placed by Mr.

If the interpretation of Section 20 put in Om Prakash Jaiswal’s case (supra) is correct. if would mean that notwithstanding both the subordinate Court and the High Court being prima facie satisfied that contempt has been committed the high Court would become powerless to take ay action.” (viii) Para 42 of the above referred judgment :- “The decision in Om Prakash Jaiswal’s case (2000 AIR SCW 722 : AIR 2000 SC 1136 : 2000 Cri LJ 1700) (supra). dehors the Contempt of Courts. Act. more often than not. Proceedings for civil contempt normally commence with a person aggrieved bringing to the notice of the Court the willful disobedience of any judgment. Such an interpretation of Section 20 would harmonise that section wit the powers of the Courts to punish for contempt which is recognized by the Constitution. the High Court may take action ON A REFERENCE MADE TO IT BY THE SUBORDINATE COURT or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or the Law Officer of the Central Government in the case of Union Territory. 1971 is enshrined in Art. unless a Court was to take a suo motu action. When the judicial procedure requires an application being filed either before the Court or consent being sought by a person from the Advocate-General or a Law Officer. It is only thereafter that a High Court can take further action under Section 15.” (ix) Relevant extract of para 43 of the above referred judgment :- . it must logically follow that PROCEEDING FOR CONTEMPT ARE INITIATED WHEN THE APPLICATIONS ARE MADE. The attention of the Court is drawn to such a contempt being committed only by a person filing an application in that behalf. which could amount to the commission of the offence. to the effect that initiation of proceedings under section 20 can only be said to have occurred when the Court formed the prima facie opinion that contempt has been committed and issued notice to the Contemner to show cause why it should not be punished. in a case where a contempt of a subordinate Court I committed a report is prepared whether on an application to Court or otherwise and reference made by the subordinate Court to the High Court.“In the case of criminal contempt of subordinate Court. In other words. decree. 1971 would normally commence with the filing of an application drawing to the attention of the Court to the contempt having been committed. a period of one year elapses. O the other hand if the filing of an application before the subordinate Court or the High Court making a reference by a subordinate Court in ow motion or the filing an application therefore an Advocate-General for permission initiate contempt proceedings is regarded initiation by the Court for the purposes Section 10. 215 of the Constitution. order etc. then such an interpretation would not impinge on or stultify the power of the High Court to punish for contempt which power. A provision like Section 20 has to be interpreted having regard to the realities of the situation. the proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. For instance. I the process. This reference or motion can conceivably commence on an application being filed by a person whereupon the subordinate Court or the Advocate-General if it is so satisfied may refer the matter to the High Court. is taking too narrow a view of Section 20 which does not seem to be warranted and is not only going to cause hardship but would perpetrate injustice.

“A question arose before a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Manjit Singh Vs. Darshan Singh 1984 Cri LJ 301 with regard to the application of section 20 to the proceedings of Criminal Contempt. ------- The Court then proceeded to observe in paras 13 and 19 as follows : “13. Once that is so, one must now proceed to analyse and construe S. 20

independently. A plain reading thereof would indicate that the legislature drew a clear line of distinction betwixt proceedings for contempt initiated by the Court on its own motion and those not so done. Suo motu action by the High Court is thus clearly a class by itself. Consequently the statute in express terms refers to these two classes separately namely, any proceedings for contempt on COURT’S OWN MOTION, and proceedings for contempt initiated “OTHERWISE”. The use of the word ‘otherwise’ is significant and indeed provides the clue to be the true interpretation of Section 20. Therefore, initiation of contempt proceedings otherwise than on Court’s own motion would include within its sweep a motion by the Advocate General, a reference by a subordinate Court to the High Court to take action for contempt and an application before the Advocate General seeking his consent by any other person under S. 15 and lastly in cases of civil contempt the motion by a private litigant directly in the Court. “19. committed. To finally conclude it must be held that the terminus a quo for limitation begins The terminus ad quem in case of criminal contempt would necessarily vary

under Section 20 of the Act on the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been and be related to the modes of taking cognizance thereof provided for in S. 15. In cases where it is initiated on the Court’s own motion, it would necessarily be from the issuance of the notice for contempt by the Court. In case of a motion by the Advocate General under Section 15(1)(a), the proceedings would initiate from the date of the filing of such a motion in the High Court. Where any other person moves the Advocate General for his consent in writing as prescribed in S. 15(1)(b), the initiation of proceedings would be with effect from the date of such application. Lastly, in cases of criminal contempt of a subordinate Court on a reference made by it the proceedings must be deemed to be initiated from the date when such reference is made.” (x) Para 44 of the above referred judgment :-

“Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the Court and that instituted otherwise than on the Court’s own motion. THE MODE OF

INITIATION IN EACH CASE WOULD NECESSARILY BE DIFFERENT. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice. IN OTHER CASES INITIATION CAN ONLY BE BY A PARTY FILING AN APPLICATION. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on section 20 must be that ACTION MUST BE INITIATED, EITHER BY FILING OF AN APPLICATION OR BY THE COURT ISSUING NOTICE SUO MOTU, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE CONTEMPT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.” 12. “Ratan Chandra Sharma and Another Vs. Kumari Sheetal Sharma and others,

2003 CRI. L.J. 740” (21.8.2002) (Karnataka High Court) (Available) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred Cri LJ :-

“Constitution of India, Art. 215- Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Ss. 10, 15- Motion of criminal contempt of subordinate court- By private party-Consent of Advocate General is necessary-Consent has to accompany motion-Subsequently obtained consent- Is of no significance. The contempt of court alleged in the instant case is that the contemners are in the habit of filing suit after suit just to frustrate the decrees obtained by the complainant from the Apex Court and High Court ----. It is undisputed that the party who moved the motion in this contempt petition is a private party falling under clause (b) of section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It was a motion made by the complainants without obtaining the consent of the advocate general in writing for contempt of court.---The complainant has prayed High Court to punish the accused by invoking the powers of the High Court U/S 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act for committing Contempts of Subordinate Courts. SECTION 10 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR PUNISHING THE ACCUSED FOR COMMITTING CONTEMPT ON SUBORDINATE COURT. The procedure to initiate contempt action is provided U/S 15 of the Act. For a valid motion, compliance of the requirement of section 15 of the Contempt Court Act is mandatory ---. The plea that complainant have obtained the consent of the advocate general as directed by the Court and hence, complied with the office objections and, therefore, compliance of section 15 (1)(b) is made by the complainant and the petition is perfectly maintainable is not tenable. Subsequent obtaining of the consent does not cure the initial defect so as to convert the incompetent motion into maintainable petition. The contempt petition fails for want of consent of Advocate General in writing as contemplated U/S 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.” (ii) Head Note (B) of the above Cri LJ :-

“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S. 15- Motion for criminal contempt of subordinate Court- Consent of Advocate General asked by private party-Refused –High Court as yet has discretion to take suo motu cognizance- However, the Court should exercise this power sparingly.” (iii) Head Note (C ) of the above referred Cri LJ :-

“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S. 20- Motion for contempt-Limitation- S. 20 fixing period of limitation- Does not apply to case of continuing offence.” (iv) Para 21 of the above referred Cri LJ :-

“Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for limitation for actions or contempt. It reads as follows : “No court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have bee committed.:” The provisions, admittedly are not applicable in a case of continuing offence. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the complainants that this is a case of continuing offence. The very fact that the first accused has challenged the or5fer of the court below which vacated the stay order inn O.S. No. 7206/98 and challenged the stay order in Misc. Appeal No. 4226/01 on the file of this Court in the year 2001shows that it is a case of continuing offence and therefore, there is no delay in fling this contempt petition. There is no satisfactory counter argument offered on behalf of the respondents. We are satisfied that there is no delay in filing the complaint and the petition does not suffer for want of limitation. We therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and answer point No. 2 ccordingly.” 13 “Court on its own motion Vs. Kuldip Singh, 2003 Cri L.J. 4483” (D.B.) (Punjab &

Haryana High Court) (30.5.2003) (Available) (a) Head Note (B) of the above referred Cri L.J. :-

“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S. 20- Contempt proceedings-Initiation of –LimitationContemner produced interpolated order dated 9.1.1998 before authorities on 21.2.1998Contempt proceedings initiated against him on filing written statement on 13.7.1998 – Held, were initiated within period stipulated under Section 20.” (b) Head Note (C ) of the above referred Cr. L.J. :-

“Constitution of India, Art. 215- Contempt proceedings-Initiation of by High Court in exercise of powers under Art. 215- Limitation provided U/S 20 of Contempt of Courts Act- Would not be applicable.” (c ) Head Note (E) of the above refereed Cri. L.J. :-

“Constitution of India, Art. 215- Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S. 12- Contempt of Court- Punishment –Petitioner, Contemner interpolated order of High Court-Authority before whom interpolated order was produced acted on bonafide belief that order had been passed by High Court- Such reprehensible conduct of contemner cannot be excused by High Court –At no stage, contemner expressed any remorse at his reprehensible behaviour-Counsel for contemner made offer of apology only at end of arguments- Thus, apology tendered by contemner would be liable to be rejected- Contemner sentenced to undergo one month R. 1 and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-.”

14 “Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute and another, AIR 2005 SC 396” (29.11.2004) (i) Head Note (B) of the above referred AIR:“Contempt of Courts Act. (70 of 1971), S. 15-Cognizance of criminal contempt– PROCEDURE – proceedings before High Court were initiated by respondents for filing contempt petition under S. 15 – petition were vigorously pursued and strenuously argued as private petitions – same were never treated as suo motu petitions – non-compliance of mandatory requirement of obtaining consent of Advocate- General –petition held, would not be maintainable (ii) Para 6 of the above referred judgment:“For determination of the main issue in these appeals---------, it is necessary to briefly note the object of power of the court to punish a person for contempt.” (iii) Para 7 of the above referred judgment ;“Every High Court besides powers under the act has also the power to punish for contempt as provided in Article 215 of the Constitution of India. ----. The Act lays down ‘contempt of Court’ to mean civil contempt or criminal contempt. We are concerned with criminal contempt. ‘Criminal; contempt’ is defined in section 2 (c ) of the act. It, inter alia means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written for by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends to scandalizes, OR LOWERS OR TENDS TO LOWER THE AUTHORITY OF ANY COURT. The procedure for initiating a proceeding of contempt when it is committed IN THE FACE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR HIGH COURT has been prescribed in SECTION 14 of the Act. IN THE CASE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, OTHER THEN A CONTEMPT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 14, THE MANNER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 15 OF THE ACT. This section, inter alia provides that action for contempt may be taken on court’s own motion or on a motion made by – (e) the Advocate – General, or (f) any other person, with the consent in writing of the advocate general (iii) Para 12 of the above referred judgment:“For determination of the issues involved, it would also be useful to note the observations may in the case of S. K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow vs. Vinay Chandra Mishra ((1981) 1 SCC 436) to the following effect:“Section 15 does not specify the basis or the source of information on which the High Court can act. on its own motion. If the High Court acts on information derived from its own sources, such as FROM A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS OF A SUBORDINATE COURT or on reading a report in a newspaper or hearing a public speech, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY

REFERENCE FROM THE SUBORDINATE COURT or the advocate General, it can be said to have taken cognizance on its own motion. But, if the High court is directly moved by a petition by a private person feeling aggrieved, not being the Advocate General can the High Court refused to entertain the same on the ground that it has been made without the consent in writing of the advocate General? It appears to us that the High Court has, in such a situation, a discretion to refused to entertain the petition, or to take cognizance on its own motion on the basis of the information supplied to it in that petition.” (iv) Para 13 of the above referred judgment:“In P.N. Duda’s case (AIR 1988 SC 1208), it was held that:“54. A conjoint perusal of the Act. and rules makes it clear that so far as this Court is Concerned, action for contempt may be taken by the court on its own motion or on the motion of the attorney General (or Solicitor General) or of any other person with his consent in writing. There is no difficulty where the court or the attorney General chooses to move in the matter. But when this is not done and a private person desires that such action should be taken, ONE OF THE THREE COURSES IS OPEN TO HIM. He may place the information in his possession before the court and request the court to take action (vide C.K. Daphtary vs. O.P. Gupta and Sarkar vs. Mishra (AIR 1971 SC 1132 and AIR 1981 SC 723 respectively) ; HE MAY PLACE THE INFORMATION INFORMATION BEFORE BEFORE THE THE ATTORNEY ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERAL AND AND REQUEST TO TAKE ACTION ; OR HE MAY PLACE THE REQUEST HIM TO PERMIT HIM TO MOVE TO THE COURT.” (v) Relevant extract of para 16 of the above referred judgment:“The whole object of prescribing procedural mode of taking cognizance in section 15 is to safe guard the valuable time of the court from being wasted by frivolous contempt petition. 15 “P. Damodaran Vs. Cherkalam Abdulla and Ors., AIR 2007 Kerala 153”(7.3.2007)

(F.B.) (Kerala) (Available) (a) Head Note of the above referred judgment :-

“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), Ss. 20, 2(b)-Civil Contempt-Limitation prescribed U/S 20 for initiation of proceedings-Aggrieved party should file application within 1 year of date of contempt-Date of application will be considered as date on which contempt proceedings were initiated-petitioner filed application within1 month from date of contempt-Court delaying posting of case for more than 4 years for no fault of petitioner- Maxim ‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit’, applies-Petition not barred by limitation.”

(b)

Para 3 of the above referred judgment :-

“In this case, petitioner filed the application to bring to the notice of the Court regarding the alleged contempt in time, i.e. within one month of the alleged date of incident. At the time of filing the application, correct address of the first respondent was given, but, this Court delayed in posting the case and by the undue delay in posting the case by the Court for no fault of the petitioner, they cannot suffer. The maxim ‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit’ – an act of the Court shall prejudice no man –is well accepted in Indian jurisprudence as held by the Apex Court in Rajesh D. Darbar V. Narsingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni (2003) 7 SCC 219 and South Eastern Coalifields Ltd Vs. State of M.P. (2003) 8 SCC 648 : (AIR 2003 SC 4482). In any event, in view of the Apex Court’s decision in Pallav Sheth’s case (Supra) that action is initiated on the date of filing of the complaint, we are of the view that this contempt petition cannot be closed as barred by limitation.”

1. 1971 as given in the book titled “Iyer’s Law on Contempt of Courts” 4th Edition published by Delhi Law House. 493 at p. Nikar (AIR 1978 Karnataka 57) and Romesh Kumar Vs. Hitendra R.P.E. 2709 at p. V. 339.L. Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Ram Dhyan Ram Yadav Vs. Article 215 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act have to be read together. (Lopaben Patel Vs.K. 193.J. be urged that the contempt proceedings would be barred under Sec. therefore. can definitely be said to be a continuing wrong. 1626 : 2000 Cr. 1990 U. Madhav Gadkari. Therefore. It is an obligation on the part of the respondent-husband to pay the amounts. 281 at pp. The High Court cannot take cognizance even of contempt of itself if the period of one year has already elapsed. 99.L. 94 at p. 558 at p. State of U. one for the petitioner-wife and the other for the minor daughter.B. L. Commentary on section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Mittal. 1971. Starting point of limitation is the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed and not date of knowledge of complaint.L. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3.R. (Harphool Singh Vs.L. D. 190 at pp.. Subbanna. Ranbir Singh. (Sarladevi Bharatkumar Rungta Vs. see also.J. 300. This would definitely go to show that the orders are in the nature of imposing recurring obligation on the part of the respondent-husband till the proceedings are decided by the trial Court.R. Contempt committed during earlier law.). 1990 All. but the Contempt of Courts Act lays down how that power has to be exercised. 116 at p. Patel. Venkataramanppa Vs. Scope – Article 215 no doubt empowers every High Court to punish contempt of Court subordinate to it.C.K.P. 1999 (2) Guj. L. 2716 (Guj. Bhagwan Das Ahuja { (1986) 89 P. are not barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 299. Cr. 494 (Petitioner & H) }. 1616 : at P. 301 . 1 is refusing to pay any amount towards the maintenance though specifically ordered by this Court.) .). Any default to make the payment.U-3. 564 (Bom. Bharathhkumar Shivprasad Rungta.J.K.J. As was held in .) 2. High Court of Karnataka Vs. The payment of maintenance during the pendency of appeal has to be made every month and nonpayment thereof by respondent No.R. L. It cannot. Y. 298. if can be initiated with the force of new law – Recurring cause of action – It is true that action for contempt of Court must be taken within one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. D. 120. the present proceedings for contempt. 1 is the recurring cause for the contempt and the appeal is still pending and Respondent No. 194 (Bom. Kanade Vs. . L. 1990 Cr. 1990 (1) Cr. 339 at pp.M.C. 1988 Cr. in terms of the above said order. 297. 1980 A. 340. on the stipulated time-frame of every month till the date of disposal of the petition.

Therefore. It is the duty of the person who institutes an action to satisfy the Court that it is within time. but also where contempt application is made after obtaining the permission of the Advocate-General. Naikar.K. such application automatically fails and the jurisdiction of the Court is barred. the actual awareness of the Court of an act of criminal contempt would inevitably remain a fortuitous circumstance.) It appears that on the unequivocal language of Sec. that it is the date of knowledge of the contempt that is the starting point for the limitation prescribed by Sec. For limitation to run from a point of time so uncertain as the knowledge of the Court itself or when it is brought to its notice. 1984 Cr. on principle also the terminus of limitation has to be a fixed and precisely determinable one. 20. A. 20 of the Act that has to be reckoned from the time when the Court becomes aware of the commission of its contempt and not from the date on which the act comprehended to be contemptuous of the Court was committed by the contemner. 304 (Petitioner & H). would introduce a double element of uncertainly for the start of the point of limitation which would be contrary to sound principles of construction. Venkataramanappa Vs. “From the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed” it is impossible to take the view that the date of knowledge of the complaint has any relevance for the purpose of computing the period of limitation.R. 23 at p. L. namely. would frustrate the very purpose of the Legislature in introducing a period of limitation.R. AIR 1975 All. 46. (Kishan Lal Vs. 44 at p.) Section 20 applies not only to those cases. 126). 1974 P. It was held in N. Ahmedabad. Having regard to the clear language employed in Sec. This apart.I. an action for criminal contempt can be visualized many years after its actual commission because factually it may be brought to the notice of the Court even after a decade. thereafter. 1987 (13) All. where the Court takes action suo motu.L. (Dineshbhai A. 52. Pandita. Nagarvel. Parikh Vs. (AIR 1978 Kant. Chhotey Lal. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant. If an application for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act is filed within the period of one year from the date of alleged commission of the contempt but the Court has not initiated proceeding before the expiry of one year from such date. . in essence. D. Jai Narain. 197. 303. 20 itself as also on principle. 20 of the Act. L. This. S. 60). 194 at p. 1980 Guj. it is not possible to initiate proceedings. (Sudesh Kumar Vs.R. 48 at p. 20 itself. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society.J.) The date on which the contempt can be alleged to be committed within the contemplation of Sec. it is not possible to accede to the by Secalle of Sri Seshagiri Rao.No contempt proceedings ca be initiated by the Court after expiry of the period of one year from the date of alleged commission of contempt. This follows from the clear cut ad plain grammatical construction of Sec. Darshan Singh. 301 at p. On such a view. In the instant case. (Manjit Singh Vs.N. the date when time begins to run or the terminus a quo here is inflexibly fixed from the point on which the criminal contempt is alleged to have been committed. the application for initiating proceedings for civil contempt has been filed well within time yet as proceedings for civil contempt have not been initiated within a period of one year from the date of the commission of the contempt. 57 at p. and not the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. (Hari Nandan Agrawal Vs.

P. 4175 at 4189 (S. 3785 at p. S. the petition would be barred by time. 549 at p. 572. 1174 (Kant.J.C. 1987 A.J. 194 at p. 3451 at p. it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice.L. (Earth Designers and Developers Pvt. 1985 Cr. 3455 : (1997) 3 S. L. (Pallav Sheth Vs. L. Deen Dayal Vs. 1159 at pp.J.) . 1990 Cr. 326 at p. 199. Koteswara Rao. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act so as to obligate the Court to decide the issue of limitation even if the same has not been specifically set up by the respondent.L.C. It prohibits initiation of proceedings by High Court. moreover. initiation can only be by a party fling an application. 20 of the Act. 215.P. 1176 : 1984 (1) A. opinion. 20. applied its mind nor decided to issue show cause notice to respondents. much less initiate any action. H’onable Mr. 327 .P. 1173.C. (Balbhadra Singh Vs.C.) 2001 Cr. The powers can be exercised in all their amplitude within the period of one year prescribed in Sec.). see also High Court of Karnataka Vs. namely. 3790 (Bom.R. Nagarvel.L. within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. either wholly or partially.J. within one year of the period limited by Sec. 69). Section 20 of the Act does not intend to “abrogate” the powers under Art. 1990 (2) Bom.J. at p. see also Sabirabai Vs. AIR 1980 Guj. even if the provisions of Limitation Act. therefore. M. Subbana.I. 2777 : 2001 (4) Mh. 19 (S. L.J. (Dineshbhai a.4.) 2001 (7) S. Golchha Advertising Agency Vs.C.J. 1 at p. 1430 (A. 265. 1997 S. While in the case of suo motu proceedings. Chief Minister.V. Initiation of the contempt proceedings is the time when the Court applies its mind to the allegation in the petition and decides to direct. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. 1428 at p.K. Brobula Reddy. 2001 Cr.K. Anjaih. (Advocate General.J. If the Court had not. that initiated suo motu by the Court and that instituted otherwise than on the Court’s motion. 20 must be that action must be initiated either by filing of an application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu. T.C. AIR 2001 SC 2763 at p.) . (1984) 2 Cr. L. under Sec. A. having regard to the settled position that fundamentally contempt is a matter between the Court and the Contemnor. Parikh Vs. but the principle underlying Sec. 20 of the Act. 1963 were inapplicable to the contempt proceeding.R. 1288 (A.J. (Kishan Singh Vs. Viswad. State of Maharashtra. 17 the alleged contemner to show cause why he should not be punished. Vs. A. In their lordships. Justice T. L. That obligation clearly flows from the mandate of Sec.) The Apex Court held that action for contempt is divisible into two categories. 139 : 1997 Cr. C. Ahmedabad. Custodian. L. 262 at p. 4080. 2003 Cr. the proper construction to be placed o Sec.K. Y. In other cases. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act does not prescribe any limitation. Patil. Date of initiation of proceedings – The proceedings for civil contempt cannot be initiated after the expiry of the period of one year from that date. Ltd Vs. 1171 at p. High Court of Andhra Pradesh.) It would be the bounden duty of the Court to examine the question of limitation before proceeding to take cognizance. A.) The jurisdiction of the Court is that the court shall not initiate any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiration of a period of one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed.J. L. Kripalu Co-operative Housing Society.J. 3 of the Limitation Act can be telescoped in the provisions of Sec.

647 at p. 1986 (2) Civil L.J. 36970. (Bank of Baroda Vs. 5. It is not possible to initiate proceedings thereafter. 562 (All. 20 is the date when a proceeding for contempt is initiated by the Court. Custodian. 1985. ( Smt Bano Vs. 20 of the Act and in this view of the matter also.. 472). (Ratan Singh Vs.) The Court wanted respondents Nos. 649 (All. 560 at p. The exercise of the jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with the initiation of a proceeding for contempt whether suo motu or on a motion or a reference. 560 at p. Even if the applications are considered to be under Art. still. 471 at p. Pheree.) : 1986 All. (Manjit Singh Vs. in such a situation. (2004) 1 SCC 360 at pp. ((2001) 7 SCC 549). C. in clearest possible words notices have been directed to be issued why the petition not be admitted and why action for Contempt of Court be not taken against them. for the purpose of limitation. 471 at p. 562 (All. Pheree. the Court has not yet decided to take action for contempt against the Contemner and the proceedings have not yet been initiated and the period during which such proceedings could be initiated has expired. There is no manner of doubt that on 3rd December.).J. the proceedings initiated against the respondents cannot be held to be barred by limitation in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth Vs.There is no matter of doubt that the Court did not initiate proceeding for civil contempt and did not call upon the respondents to show cause why they not be punished for having committed civil Contempt of Court.B. 6. the Court did not initiate proceeding for civil contempt and did not call upon the respondents to show cause why they not be punished for having committed civil contempt of Court. the application for taking action of the contempt were barred by limitation. Ram Autar Gautam. 1987 Cr. It is very clear that the proceedings for contempt have not been initiated so far and the period during which the proceedings could be initiated has admittedly expired on 5th December. L. It is very clear that the proceeding for contempt have not been initiated has admittedly expired. 215 of the Constitution. Darshan Singh.J. 472. 1985.J.J. 304 (F. The petitioners filed the present application within five months getting knowledge of the undertaking given by the respondents in the said case.J. In the instant case. C.) : 1986 All. 1986 (2) Civil L. to make their submissions and for that purpose. Sadruddin Hasan Daya. (Ratan Singh Vs. That is why the terminus a quo for the period of limitation provided in Sec. It is not possible to initiate proceedings after the expiry of such period. Whether initiation of proceeding start when court gives show cause notice to contemner – Application of the Limitation Act – . 1984 Cr. 1 to 5. they will be governed by Sec. L. 20 of the Act is to be reckoned up to the date of initiation of proceedings for contempt by the Court for the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. wherein it has been held that the period of limitation in a case like the present one has to be counted from the date of knowledge.) It is the Court which initiates the proceedings and the period of limitation under Sec. 301 at p.

Even if the Court has issued a notice to Sri Chaturvedi to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted would not have amounted to initiation of proceeding to save limitation. 10. 15 (2). C. C. 20 of the Act.) 14.7. 9. limitation could be saved only if Allahabad High Court had. because the obligation to keep the bank guarantees alive was operative till the Court passed ay further order or the application was disposed of. Chekrapani. in any manner enhanced the period of limitation. 1105 at pp. Limitation – Plea urging bar of limitation created by Sec. 1106. it will be deemed to have initiated on the day when a court has passed an order was issuing notice against contemner and thereby applying its mind . 17. Vs. is also not sustainable in the present case. Limitation prescribed by section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act is not ultra vires – Cardinal principle of section 20 is to initiate the proceedings for Contempt not to Bar of limitation applied to the facts of the case – Enhancement of period of limitation – The mere fact that the petitioner had been filing adjudicate the proceedings – representation one after the other will not. Agra. Vs. so as to arrest the running of limitation. 8. 573). Ishwari Prashad Ganeriwala (1990) 40 DLT 567 at p.J.P. Limitation for initiation of Contempt proceedings is one year from the date of violation -Violation is the date when court issues show cause notice- 16.B. after the receipt of the reference from the Civil Judge under Sec. Limitation – Contemner was asked to produce buses when called to do so –Time taken on several occasion for the purpose –Limitation starts when for the last time the contemner fails to produce the buses. It is not a case where there was ay definite terminus for some act to be done by the respondent. 1997 (3) A. 588 (D. “Court” –Meaning of – Contempt. 1107. Civil Judge.P. (State of U. It follows. see also Advocate General of A. 13. Date of commencement of the period of limitation for contempt where no time limit was fixed by the court for compliance of its order15.D. 12. 1991 All. (Engineering Projects (Petitioner) Ltd Vs.L. 11. Saving of limitation – It is apparent that the show cause notice issued by the Civil Judge to Sri Chaturvedi will not amount to initiation of contempt proceedings. considered the matter and issued notice to Sri Chaturvedi of show cause as to why he should not be punished for having committed the contempt of the Court of the Civil Judge.

) Period of limitation for initiation of contempt proceedings as provided U/S 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.Admittedly. 22.B. no notice should be taken of the action which are alleged to amount to Contempt of Court. 83. cases 79 at p. It is not possible to accept this argument because there is nothing in the Contempt of Courts Act. if it amounts to a contempt in a given situation is a continuing wrong.) 19. No peculiar circumstances have been brought to the notice of the High Court persuading it to direct for issuance of notices on the contempt petition to the opposite parties as such a late stage. 2012 (All. Cr. 1992 (1) Bom.18.F. Contempt proceedings should be initiated within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance 20. Nagar Palika. either in its letter or in its spirit. in the case of a contempt of a subordinate Court. Saraf. even otherwise the court cannot proceed in the matter to punish the contempt vide (Gopal Krishna Mishra Vs. Institution of contempt proceedings – When -. In the case where contempt is of subordinate Court it would not be sufficient compliance of Sec. the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous vide (2005 Cri. In view of the aforesaid discussion. Vide (Yashodabai. Keeping in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 265). L. proceedings for contempt can be said to be initiated only when the High Court decides to take action against the contemner and initiates the proceedings by issuing notice to the contemner show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken against him. Simply because the Subordinate Court is moved by the party aggrieved and the The Subordinate Court holds an enquiry for the purpose of making a reference to the high Court. The “Court” contemplated by Sec. 21.J. 1971 is within one year from the date on which contempt is committed. failure to give possession amounts to a contempt is no scope for the application of section 20 – Failure to give possession. B. Continuing wrong –If under the given circumstances. suggests that after the expiry of considerable period of time. W/o Khayyalal P. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1994 JIC 400 (All. 1971.R. Barred by time. 20 if the subordinate Court initiates a proceeding for the purpose of making reference to the High Court. since the alleged commission of contempt by the opposite parties in January 1994. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1990 SC F. 259 at p. Narayandas G. there is no occasion to direct for issuance of notices to the opposite parties after a lapse of about 10 years. Thus. which could suggest that a act .. There is nothing in the Act that an Act amounting to Contempt of Court should not be taken cognizance at all merely because sometime has passed after the commission of the said Act. Saraf Vs. is the high Court. it cannot be said that the Subordinate Court has initiated proceedings for contempt. the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged has expired and the contempt application has not yet been admitted by the High Court. Kalu Ram. There was no scope for application of section 20 of the Act vide (Firm Ganpat Ram Raj Kumar Vs.The spirit of Sec.

the Court has no jurisdiction to take a cognizance beyond one year of the act of omission. both these applications are filed beyond the stipulated time. 425 at p. committing or constituting contempt of the court. 511). 1971.In view of Sec. L. P. (i) (ii).R. 25. 1997 Cr. (1993) 1 Ker. L. Sukhanandi Vs. As every high Curt has power to determine questions about its own jurisdiction and it has inherent power to punish for its contempt summarily. Article 215 of the constitution of India gives a supreme position to the High Court compared to the lower courts. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 499 (Guj. in view of these facts. 1995 Cr. 1998 (1) ALD 370.) : 1990 (1) (Mah.M.). As the power conferred on the High Court under article 215 of the Constitution of India is absolute and unfettered and it cannot be said that the time limit specified in section 20 would apply and the proceeding before Kerala High Court is barred by limitation. Radha Krishan 1989 LW (Cr) 257) Hence. L. State of Gujarat. for cognizance by a court vide . 782) cannot be approved. Vide (Yogesh P. (1990) 1 Cr. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the instant case. L.R.A. Vide (V.Section 20 can not make any in rod into the power vested in the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. at all merely because sometime has passed after the commission of the said Act. 497 at p.mounting to Contempt of Court should not be taken cognizance of. 712 at p. Kanade Vs. 3832) and ‘Nallamalo Vekateswararao Vs.J. L. No court to initiate proceedings of contempt after expiry of period of one year. As the article and envisages that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 23. 24.) L.C. Mohan. The period mentioned in section 20 cannot be made applicable to a case of contempt of the High Court. Ranvir Singh.. What is provided in Sec. 1980 ALJ 1028 “T.J. Section 5 of the limitation act dos not deal with condonation of the period of limitation “Harphool Singh Vs. 417 (Mah. period of limitation in section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act has no application to contempt proceedings initiated in the high Court on its own motion or own complaint regarding contempt of High Court. Prabhakar. Mayilaswami Vs. Abdul Hameed Vs. Vide (A. is that no Court shall initiate ay proceedings for contempt after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 3830 at p.M. 26. 717 (Bom) : 1990 Cr.T. (Rajan Nair Vs. Period of limitation mentioned in section 20 is not applicable in Contempt proceedings initiated under article 215 of the constitution. State of Kerala. The court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance beyond one year of the act or omission committing or constituting contempt of the court. it is not possible for their Lordships to hold that the period of one year mentioned in section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is applicable to a case where contempt proceeding is initiated by the High Court for having disobeyed or not complied with its order. the Gujarat High Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same. Madhao Gadka.

Vs. CR 262” . 3622” If there is no definite terminus for some act to be done. Vide (i) “Golcha Advertising Agency Vs. (i) 29. 20 “Engineering projects--. One is the date of commission of nature vide of CCA is not sustainable vide alleged contempt and the other of actual initiation of proceedings of contempt. State of Maharashtra 1990 (2) Bom. Bar of limitation created by S. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply if the wrong done is not of a continuous “Devi Kishan Vs. No intervening event or order stops the running of time of one year. (i) 28. Ishwari Prasad.27. Madan Lal Verma 2000 Cri LJ 3619at p. (1990) 40 DLT 567” There are only two points of time that are material.

20 of the Courts of Contempt Act. 1971 does not apply in a case of continuing wrong. .U-4. Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts which contain the proposition of law that Limitation as provided S.

.

.

Public interest requires that the corporate veil must be lifted to find out the person who disobeyed the order of . This is a reiteration of inherent power to punish for contempt of its by court of record vide (i) 1987 Cri L. and not in derogation of other laws relating to contempt’ as becomes evident from section 22 of CCA which reads as under :“22. 217 (220)(MP) (iii) 1993 (1) BLJR 690 (701) (iv) 1990 U. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (22) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Act to be in addition to. Cri. Act not to apply to Nyay Panchayats or other Village Courts-Nothing contained in this act shall apply in relation to Contempt of Nyay Pancayats or other Village Courts. The law of contempt is conceived in the public interest. L. The right to prevent such acts is inherent in court vide (i) 1978 Cri L.J. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (21) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Act not to apply to Nyay Panchayats or other Village Courts’ as is evident from section 21 of CCA which reads as under :-(Not relevant) “21. Act to be I addition to. Ali Ahmed. Harish Chandra Misra Vs. 715 (Delhi) . and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts. Where I a case the corporate veil is being blatantly used as a cloak to willfully disobey the orders of the Court. The court cannot be a mere spectator of its process being abused only to punish the person so abusing after the abuse but in incompetent to prevent its re-petition. 65. 22 of the contempt of Court Act provides that the right to proceed under the Act is an additional right. S. for the administration of justice. 20 vide (i) 1981 Cri L.J.J.The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to.R. AIR 1986 Pat. 192) (SC) 5. Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts as per AIR manual :- 1. by whatever name known. COMMENTS The provisions incorporated in the Act are supplemental to already existing law of contempt.J. other laws relating to contempt. Vide 2006 (32) PTC 190 (191. and not in derogation of. Section 22 does not control S.P. Rule 2 (a) of the Civil Code provides a remedy for breach of injunction order because S. 22 of the Contempt of Courts Act postulates that the provisions contained in the act are supplementary to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts.) 2. 4. Contents proceedings for breach of injunction order under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be disallowed merely because Order 39. S.” A. R. 560 (DB) (Cal. (NOC) 141 (1981) 1 Rent L. established under any law.V.” W.) 3. 158 (160) (DB) (All. 2018 (2020) (ii) (1999) 1 Jab.

the Court. Where A and B willfully disobeyed the order of the Court by which they were restrained for transferring the property, they are guilty of flagrant disobedience of the order of the Court. Vide 1987 Cri. LJ 1281 (1286, 1287) : (1987) 32 Delhi LT 198.” B. Detail of judgments alongwith their relevant extracts as per the book titled Iyer’s Law of Contempt of Courts, 4th Edition published by Delhi Law House :(i) Scope –An act or action which was not contempt of Court before the Act came in force shall not be punishable as contempt of Court under the Act. The provisions incorporated in the Act are supplemental to already existing law of contempt as interpreted by the Supreme Court and different High Courts. (Shri Harish Chandra Mishra Vs. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed, A.I.R. 1986 Pat. 65). (ii) Prevention of Contempt of Court. – The Court cannot be a mere spectator of its process being abused only to punish the person so abusing after the abuse but incompetent to prevent its repetition. The right to prevent such acts is inherent in Court. (Hastings Mill Limited Vs. Hira Singh, 1978 Cr. L.J. 560 at p. 569 (Cal.). (iii) Principles of order XXI, Rule 32 (5) can be extended to Contempt proceedings –N.C. Mazdoor Union Vs. Union of India, 1994 (98) C.W.N 474 Cal. (iv) In case of violation of the order passed by the Court, the court has inherent powers to put back the aggrieved person in the same position as before.-- It is well settled that the inherent powers of the High Court under Sec. 151, C.P.C. are wide and are not subject to any limitation. Where, in violation of any order passed by the High Court something has bee done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. The inherent power will not only be available inn such cases but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interest of justice. Since the respondent has, in utter violation of any order, conducted as secret enquiry behind the back of the applicant and the applicant has been affected because of that order, the applicant can approach the High Court and ask for relief on the ground that the order passed by the respondent would be destructive of her stand-point and the High Court, on a consideration of the entire circumstances and facts, will have to put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to the passing of the order. (Prabhavathi Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 1994 (1) MLJ 14 at p. 16)

Note : This section deals with ‘Act to be in addition to, and not in derogation of other laws relating to contempt.’

X. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (23) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules’ as is evident from S. 23 which reads as under :“Section 23. Power of Supreme Court and High Court to make rules : The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its procedure.”

Y. Detail of judgments and propositions of law contained therein pertaining to section (24) of CCA Note : This section deals with ‘Repeal’.

Z. Prosecution of Judges and public servants 1. Section 197 of Cr. P.C. deal with the prosecution of judges.

(for himself and for 11 other Judges) (ii) Relevant extract of para 6 of the above referred judgment :- . Held -----The contempt committed by the contemners is gravest. they deserved severe punishment-----. AIR 1990 SC (19. B.P. Per D. “Court of its own motion Vs.K. Important propositions of law pertaining to ‘Contempt of Courts Act’ relevant for the present case and appeal :1. THIS COURT HAS TO PERFORM THE PAINFUL DUTY OF DIRECTING IMPOSITION OF IMPRISONMENT AND FINE ON THE CONTEMNERS-----. Bearing in mind the outrageous conduct of the contemners. J Held ----. Sabharwal.12. COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT THE CONTEMPT IS NOT COMMITTED BY LAY CONTEMNERS BUT BY THE ADVOCATES.Z-1. the gross contempt which they committed and the fact that the acts were preconceived. And other. If anything.B. Wad. 46 (1992) DLT 35” (Full Court) “Dr.----.) Roshan Sam Joyee vs. J & three Others. Simply because they are officers of the Court and right has been given to them to practice in Court do not mean that they have to be dealt with leniency.” “Gokal Chand Mital..” Per Y. SR Cotton Mills Ltd. Held ----.1991) (Available) (i) Relevant extracts of the Head Note of the above referred DLT :IT IS “Per S. WHO ARE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. J. Wadhwa. CJ. the populist line of showing over indulgence and magnanimity would not subserve the ends of justice but would amount to giving a licence to contemners to repeat such incidents.D. ACCORDINGLY. Kaushik & Ors. (Mrs. 1881” (MISLEADING A COURT KNOWINGLY AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT) (Head Note A) 2.

---. (For himself and on behalf of B. THE APOLOGY SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. they are part and parcel of the Administration of justice -----. Wad.A very civilized behavior and attitude is expected from the members of the Bar.) (viii) Para 43 of the above referred judgment :- .” (M.” (vii) Para 41 of the above referred judgment :- “With regard to apology in proceedings for contempt of Court.K. ----. ----.In AIR 1985 SC 1726.) (iii) Relevant extract of para 12 of the above referred judgment :- “Of all the unpleasant duties which the court is required to perform. ----. it is well settled that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence. IF THERE WAS GENUINE REPENTANCE. the most painful duty is to proceed against the advocates.If lawyers fail in their duty.” (v) Relevant extract of para 38 of the above referred judgment :- “---The right to practice and exclusive privilege of audience given by section 29 and section 30 of the ct cannot be unreasonably utilized to the detriment of the society.Y. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors. decorum and discipline. P. faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a large extent..THE APOLOGY MUST COME AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AND IT SHOULD BE IN WRITING.---. nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea. Bahri & Arun Kumar J.” (vi) Relevant extract of para 40 of the above referred judgment :- “------. 1955 (1) SCR 757 at page 764.“------.ABSTENTION FROM WORK WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CLIENT WOULD AMOUNT TO BREACH OF CONTRACT WITH THE CLIENT. therefore. Kirpal. Vs. Shareef & Anr.They had no factual defence and. J. it would be contempt of court because that would amount to interfering with course of justice. THE APOLOGY SHOULD HAVE COME AT FIRST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY.In AIR 1980 SC 946 (referred to above) the Court has held that WHERE THE CONDUCT IS REPREHENSIBLE.N. the Supreme Court has warned that IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE IF ITS GROSS CONTEMPT GOES UNPUNISHED. the Officers of the Court for contempt of court.B.” S. In fact. They must discharge their duties with dignity.--. but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.---. ---.” (iv) Relevant extract of para 32 of the above referred judgment :- “Now the question arises whether the apology tendered by the contemnors should be accepted or not. Where there is deliberate failure to attend the court.

who are officers of the Court. the punishment to the contemnors in the present case must be an quintessence for the others so that it creates an awe not only in the mind of contemnors alone but in the mind of other also deter them from committing such an act again.” (xii) Relevant extract of para 52 of the above referred judgment :AND THOSE WHO SEEK ITS PROTECTION LOSE “-----------. Judgal Wadhwa. They are also officers of the court.” (xi) Para 50 of the above referred judgment :- “In this very judgment Edmund Davies.N. WHILE THOSE WHO DEFY IT GO FREE. S/s.each. Here we are dealing with advocates well versed in law who. Jatan Singh and P. should undergo simple imprisonment for one month and shall pay a fine of Rs. THIS WAS INDULGED IN BY THE VERY PERSONS WHO THEMSELVES SUPPOSED TO UPHOLD THE MAJESTY OF LAW AND THE COURTS. IF LAWYERS THEMSELVES BRING DOWN THE PRESTIGE AND IMAGE OF THE COURT.” Sunanda Bhandare. (xiii) Relevant extract of para 59 of the above referred judgment :- “Now coming to the question of sentence.D. --. by fiction of law are officers of the Court. B. we are of the opinion that in the present case the contemnors deserve the punishment of sentence. it is not save anywhere. ----. If the dignity of the court is not safe in the hands of the lawyers. HOPE.In my view. Kaushik Rajiv Khosla.” (ix) Relevant extract of para 45 of the above referred judgment :- “----Since we have held that the apology is not bonafide and not acceptable.S. the County Judge : “THE LAW SHOULD NOT BE SEEN TO SIT BY LIMPLY.“Having considered all relevant aspects and authorities. Wadhwa. 2000/. quotes with approval the following memorable aphorism of his Honour Judge Curtis-Releigh. we direct that contemnors.P.In recent times there has been a sharp fall in ethical standards at all . R. J. THE CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY THE CONTEMNORS IS GRAVEST. Rathee. J : (x) Relevant extract of para 47 of the above referred judgment :- “------.----Lawyers belong to a noble and learned profession.----. viz.J. L. Vats. They are the vital link between the court and the members of the public. ---. R. D. IT WILL IMPAIR THE MAJESTY OF THE COURTS OF LAW IRREPARABLY.K. Sharma.It is compounded by the fact that the contempt is not committed by lay contemnors but by the advocates.

---.” Accordingly. THOSE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM NEITHER DESERVED SYMPATHY NOR COMPASSION. if anything as lawyers the responsibility on the contemnors was much greater. this court has to perform the painful duty of directing imposing of imprisonment and fine on the . the gross contempt which they committed and the fact that the acts were preconceived. THE POPULIST LINE OF SHOWING OVER INDULGENCE AND MAGNANIMITY WOULD NOT SUB-SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE BUT WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING A LICENCE TO CONTEMNERS TO REPEAT SUCH INCIDENTS. ----. Sabharwal. AND PUNISH THE SAME AS CONTEMPT OF ITSELF. 1961. COMPORT HIMSELF IN A MANNER BEFITTING HIS STATUS AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT.K. Here. J. it may be useful to extract the relevant portion.” (xv) Para 69 of the above referred judgment :- “Indeed.---. SOFT ATTITUDE TOWARDS YOUR OWN COMMUNITY ENCOURAGES INDISCIPLINE AND LEADS TO FURTHER EROSION OF STANDARDS. AND A GENTLEMAN. and the same majority of members of the bar. (xvii) Relevant extract of para 84 of the above referred judgment :- “------Bearing in mind outrageous conduct of the contemners. that THE HIGH COURT WILL TAKE COGNIZANCE OF EVERY CRIMINAL AND COMPLIMENTARY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY ANYONE. what is expected of an advocate is beautifully stated in the preamble to Chapter II laying down standards of professional conduct and etiquette in Part VI of Rules framed by the Bar Council of India in the exercise of its rule making powers under the Advocates Act.---. BEARING IN MIND THAT WHAT MAY BE LAWFUL AND MORAL FOR A PERSON WHO IS NOT A MEMBERS OF THE BAR. It is high time. RELATED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAW. It reads :“AN ADVOCATE SHALL.” (xvi) Relevant extract of para 75 of the above referred judgment :- “----. AT ALL TIMES. contemners. A PRIVILEGED MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY.” (xiv) Relevant extract of para 60 of the above referred judgment :- “Thus. Y.levels. the subordinate judiciary. OR FOR A MEMBERS OF THE BAR IN HIS NONPROFESSIONAL CAPACITY MAY STILL BE IMPROPER FOR AN ADVOCATE. in the prevailing conditions to infuse confidence in the minds of the[public. IN ANY FORUM.

161 (2009) DLT 130 (SC)” (i) Para 59 of the above referred judgment :- “To punish an Advocate for Contempt of Court.HELD. “Chandra Shashi Vs. --------. Anand Vs. (1) SCC 529” This judgment has been relied upon by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “R.e.P. a mere sentence of fine would not meet the ends of justice in the circumstances--------. 1971 ----. to punish the contemner in order to preserve its dignity.3. THOSE WHO INDULGE IN IMMORAL ACTS LIKE PERJURY. Jabalpur. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working. if his act or conduct in relation to Court or Court proceedings interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice. NOT ACCEPTABLE –“TWO WEEKS” IMPRISONMENT AWARDED TO CONTEMNOR WITH A VIEW THAT IT SHOULD SERVE AS DETERRENT AND EYE-OPENER. but to preserve the proceedings of the Courts from being deflected or interfered with. serene and undefiled. “Pritam Pal Vs. PREVARICATION AND MOTIVATED FALSEHOODS HAVE TO BE APPROPRIATED DEALT WITH. HAVING REGARD TO THE SENTENCING POLICY THAT PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE. NO ONE CAN CLAIM IMMUNITY FROM THE OPERATION OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one however high he may be. though painful. ------. Registrar. (1995) 1 Supreme Court cases 421”: “1995 Rajdhani Law Reporter Page 1” (Vol.11. no doubt. Anil Kumar Verma.. . if he violates courts order BUT ALSO TO KEEP THE STREAM OF JUSTICE CLEAR AND PURE -------.K. must be regarded as an extreme measure. Delhi High Court. and to keep the streams of justice pure.” (ii) Para 62 of the above referred judgment :- “THEREFORE. Held from the facts it is clear that the respondent contemnor had filed a forged and fabricated document in court TO RESIST THE PRAYER OF HIS WIFE to get the matrimonial proceedings transferred on the ground of her poverty i. APOLOGY NOT OUTCOME OF REAL REMORSE OR CONTRITION BUT TENDERED AS A WEAPON OF DEFENCE AND THEREFORE. we hold that the sentence of 2 months imprisonment in no way calls for interference and accordingly the sentence is confirmed. High Court of M. 1993 Supp.1994):(i) Relevant extract of Index –B of the above referred SCC at page-422:“Contempt of Courts Act. it was done with an oblique motive. it becomes the duty of the Court.” 4. 25) (14.

rs” courts. so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. --------. THE PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO TWO WEEKS IN THE HOPE THAT THE INCARCERATION OF THIS CONTEMNOR WILL WORK AS EYE OPENER AND NO COURT WILL HENCEFORTH FEEL CONSTRAINED AND TO DO SO IN ANY OTHER CASE. or if anything is done with oblique motive. the intention to defraud is writ large. THE CONTEMNOR HAS TO BE AWARDED A SENTENCE OF ‘TWO WEEKS’ IMPRISONMENT. This apart. the same would definitely hinder. guilty of contempt--. --------.” (ii) Para 8 of the above referred judgment:“--------------. deflects the course of judicial proceedings. A longer period of incarceration could have been awarded because of the gravity of contumacious act fabrication of document to defeat just cause of an adversary and thereby seriously affecting the purity of courts proceeding BUT THAT IS NOT NEEDED HERE AS THIS IS THE FIRST OCCASION IN FREE INDIA WHEN THE SUPREME COURT (FOR THAT MATTER MAY BE ANY COURT OF THE COUNTRY) HAS FELT CALLED UPON TO SEND A PERSON LIKE THE CONTEMNOR BEHIND IRON BARS IN EXERCISE OF CONTEMPT JURISDICTION. WHICH REQUIRES SOME WHAT DETERRENT SENTENCE. In the case and hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court. If recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive. SUCH A TENDENCY IS REQUIRED TO BE CURBED. People would have faith in courts when they would find that “lR. NOT ONLY TO PUNISH THEM FOR THE WRONG DONE BUT ALSO TO DETER OTHERS FROM INDULGING IN SIMILAR ACTS WHICH SHAKE THE FAITH OF PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. --------------. SUCH PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROPERLY DEALT WITH.Any one who takes recourse to fraud.eso t.” (iii) (Truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there or (“Yato Dharamstato Jai”) (It is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of Relevant portion of para 12 of the above referred judgment:- . hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do. ------------. THEREFORE. the same interferes with the administration of justice. THE POLLUTERS OF JUDICIAL FIRMAMENT ARE REQUIRED TO BE WELL TAKEN CARE OF TO MAINTAIN THE SUBLIMITY OF COURTS’ ENVIRONMENT. Anil Kumar is. therefore. the increasing tendency of taking recourse to objectionable means to get a favourable verdict in the courts has to be viewed gravely to deter the large number of persons approaching courts from doing so.

Filing of false affidavit or making a false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and NO COURT CAN IGNORE SUCH CONDUCT which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. Therefore. HE COMMITS ITS CONTEMPT. --------. THEREFORE. Arvind Shukla (1995) Supp. ANY OBSTRUCTION CAUSED IN THE PATH OF THOSE SEEKING JUSTICE ARE AN AFFRONT TO THE MAJESTY OF LAW AND. “Ram Autar Shukla v. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1795” (2.” (Head Note A) . the words “due course of justice” used in Section 2 (c ) or Section 13 of the Act are of wide import and ARE NOT LIMITED TO ANY PARTICULAR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. (2) SCC 130” : 1994 (4) Scale 1088 : 1995 (1) SCJ 310” (23.5.11. ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. State of Haryana and Others.“---------.” (Head Note A of SCC) (ii) “It has become increasingly a tendency on the part of the parties EITHER TO PRODUCE FABRICATED EVIDENCE AS A PART OF THE PLEADINGS OR RECORD or to fabricate the court record itself for retarding or obstructing the course of justice or judicial proceedings to gain unfair advantage in the judicial process.” 5.1995) :(i) “ANY CONDUCT WHICH HAS THE TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH THE OF JUSTICE OR THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTS TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.Due course of justice means not only any particular proceeding but a broad stream of administration of justice. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the FILING OF FALSE EVIDENCE commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act.” (para 7) 6. What emerges from this decision is that IF A PERSON DOES ANYTHING TO DEFRAUD THE COURT. THIS TENDENCY TO OBSTRUCT THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE OR TENDENCY TO UNDERMINE THE DIGNITY OF THE COURT NEEDS TO BE SEVERELY DEALT WITH TO DETER THE PERSONS HAVING SIMILAR PROCLIVITY TO RESORT TO SUCH ACTS OR CONDUCT.1994) (i) “------. -------. THE CONDUCT IS PUNISHABLE AS CONTEMPT OF COURT. “Dhananjay Sharma Vs.

It is seen that Ahlawat.to obtain a favourable order. HE COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF THE COURT BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS.1993 that they were not in wrongful detention nor are they taken into custody which was later found to be false.” (Para 40) 7. 15 & 18 – Criminal Contempt – Code of Civil Procedure. He first used fabricated counter affidavit ------.1997):(i) Relevant extract of Head Note of the above referred AD:- “Contempt of Courts Act. M/s Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2326” :Relevant extract of para 31 of the above referred judgment:- “Criminal contempt” defined in section 2 (c ) means interference with the administration of justice in any other manner. 71 (1998) DLT 1: “1998 1 AD (Delhi) 927”: “1998 (44) DRJ 109” (DB) (12. 1908 0 Or.” (Para 31) 8. 9. 3 to the main writ petition and in-charge of the criminal administration. Allibhoy and Another. Thereby he further committed contempt of the judicial process.12. HE HAS NO REGARD FOR TRUTH. caused two minor boys’ wrongful detention. (i) “Afzal And Another Vs. he fabricated further false evidence -------. but he made obviously false statements. Thereby. (i) “State of Mahrashtra Vs. But when he perceived adverse atmosphere to him. with his connivance. he committed criminal contempt of judicial proceedings of this court.(ii) “THE STREAM OF JUSTICE HAS TO BE KEPT CLEAN AND PURE AND ANY ONE SPOILING ITS PURITY MUST BE DEALT WITH STERNLY SO THAT THE MASSAGE PERCOLATES LOUD AND CLEAR THAT NO ONE CAN BE PERMITTED TO UNDERMINE THE DIGNITY OF THE COURT AND INTERFERE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. respondent No. XXXIX rule 1 & 2 – Ad-interim injunction – Ex-parte – Non-disclosure . He made an averment in the counter affidavit dated October 30. and another. has to be decided by the court having regard to the facts and circumstancesPerson who brings to the notice of the court the commission of contempt by anyone only assists the court in maintaining dignity and majesty of the court. FROM STAGE TO STAGE. Mehboob S. 2 (c ). (1996) 4 SCC 411” Head Note (B) of the above referred SCC :- “Contempt of Court-Contempt proceeding-Nature of-Whether to punish the contemner or discharge him. “A FALSE OR A MISLEADING OR A WRONG STATEMENT DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY MADE BY A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE ORDER WOULD PREJUDICE OR INTERFERE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. he is required to make truthful statements before the Court. State of Haryana & Others. 1971 – Secs. Being a responsible officer. Satish Khosla v.

“It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. therefore. 261/97) ITSELF. ---------. Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court-----. guilty of playing fraud of the court as well as on the respondent. therefore. must come with clean hands. One who comes to the Court. IT CAN ONLY BE IF WE NON-SUIT THE RESPONDENTS IN SUIT NO. 261/97. the respondent is guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party and such acts had been done only in order to gain advantage on the other side and to get a stay in the second suit. we do not purpose to take action against the respondent for contempt for except to issue a warning to respondent no. fell into patent error. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case. the respondent has not been able to get an injunction. 2 to be more careful in future WE DIRECT THE DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT (BEING SUIT NO. the plaintiff had not even filed the plaint of the earlier suit being Suit No. by withholding the plaint of the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing that in the earlier suit. We are. of the opinion that by withholding the plaint and the application in the earlier suit from the Court and by not disclosing to the Court about the proceedings in the earlier suit and the stay having not been granted to it. We are of the view that an attempt has been made by the respondent to over – reach the court and the respondents have played fraud upon the court as well as on the opposite parte and is thus clearly guilty of contempt.of dismissal of such application in earlier suit – Amounts to fraud upon the Court – Guilty of Contempt. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. therefore. While. HE CAN BE SUMMARILY THROWN OUT AT ANY STAGE OF THE LITIGATION. 3604/96 nor the court had an opportunity to go through the allegations made in the said plaint.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 16 of the above referred judgment:- “We are informed that in Suit No. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are relevant for purposes of present case:“The High Court in our view.P. the plaintiff/respondent had tried to get an advantage from the Court and was. Jagannath and Others. AIR 1994 SC 853 was held that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties.” (ii) Para 15 of the above referred judgment:- “In S. RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE HEARD IN THE CASE UNLESS IT PURGES ITSELF OF THE CONTEMPT SO COMMITTED AND IN OUR VIEW.” THE PRINCIPLE OF . Held: In our view. A litigant who approaches the Court. We do not agree with the High Court that “THERE IS NO LEGAL DUTY CASTE UPON THE PLAINTIFF TO COME TO COURT WITH A TRUE CASE AND PROVE IT BY TRUE EVIDENCE. is bound to produce all the documents executed by which are relevant to the litigation. 261/97.

” Note : ‘Over-reach’ means to reach or extent beyond. But it may be necessary to punish as a contempt. ----. the pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases. We have no hasitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood. “It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. must produce all the documents which are relevant to the litigation and he must also disclose to the Court about the pendency of any earlier litigation between the parties and the result thereof. ----. however.” -----. it was obligatory upon the respondent to disclose to the Court that in the application filed in the earlier suit. of the opinion that the respondent has not come to the Court with clean hands and has also suppressed material facts from the Court with a view to gain advantage in the second suit. if these facts were before the Court on February 6. Satyapal and another AIR 1977 SC 2421. we hope will activate this obligation. --------. (v) Relevant extract of para 19 of the above referred judgment:- “As held by the Supreme Court in T. has no right to approach the court. THIS IN OUR VIEW IS CLEARLY OVER –REACHING THE COURT. We are.V. Rule 16 or in some other manner. to outwit or get the better of. who approaches the Court. Arivandandam Vs. It may be that certain minor abuses of the process of the court may be suitably dealt with as between the parties. The Bar Council of India.--. T. 1997 when the second suit came up for hearing before it.” . therefore. a similar relief had been claimed.“FINALITY OF LITIGATION” CANNOT BE PRESSED TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH AN ABSURDITY THAT IT BECOMES AN ENGINE OF FRAUD IN THE HANDS OF DISHONEST LITIGANTS. ------. MAY BE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE WAS PERSUADED NOT TO GRANT ANY EX-PARTE STAY IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT. a litigant. In our view. by striking out pleadings under the provisions of order 6. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. A party must come to the Court with clean hands and must disclose all the relevant facts which may result in appreciating the rival contentions of the parties. to defeat by one’s oversubtlety (iv) Para 17 of the above referred judgment:- “---------. In our view. a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends it pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. One who comes to the Court.In our opinion. And remembering that AN ADVOCATE IS AN OFFICER OF JUSTICE he owes it to society NOT TO COLLABORATE IN SHADY ACTIONS. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. the Court had not granted the said relief. must come with clean hands.

Arivandandam Vs.” (ii) Relevant extracts of para 6 of the above referred judgment:“----------. Contempt law is for inducing confidence in people for due administration of justice. Punishment for contempt is for ensuing rule of law by upholding majesty and dignity of Court. Fabrication on oath in an affidavit is a serious matter calling for severe punishment when there is substantial interference with course of justice.2001) (i) Relevant extract of the above referred AIR:“Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). --------. If obstruction of justice is allowed.(vi) Para 20 of the above referred judgment:- “We are of the opinion that the above noted passage of the aforesaid judgment in T. IN OUR VIEW. It is criminal contempt and AS FALSEHOOD HAD BEEN REPEATED. Criminal Contempt has been defined in Section 2 (c) to mean interference with the administration of justice IN ANY MANNER. S. FRAUD AND FALSEHOOD DEFLECT EVEN FLOW OF JUSTICE AND LOWER AUTHORITY OF COURT. Having not succeeded in getting stay in Suit No. Vs. Filing false affidavits and fabricated documents are matters of great concern. Litigant public ought to be very cautious in making statements lest these become offence under the Act. S.2000):“Contempt of Courts Act. CONTEMENOR DESERVED PUNISHMENT TO DETER OTHERS and had taken advantage (Rita Markand’s case). 129 – ---.1. LATTER MAY SUFFER WHEN A PARTY MAKES FALSE DENIALS IN AN AFFIDAVIT AND STATES POSITIVE ASSERTIONS MAKING SAME AS MOTIVATED FALSEHOOD. Ashok Kumar Newatia. PRACTICE OF FILING FALSE AFFIDAVIT IS DEPRECATED AND A COURT WOULD BE FAILING IN ITS DUTY TO MAINTAIN MAJESTY OF LAW IF IT DOES NOT GIVE PROPER PUNISHMENT.V. By false affidavit justice is defeated as attempt is to delay delivery of possession. ------.5. it would permeate society. 2000 RLR 124(SC)” (25. COURT MUST NOT KEEP ANGELIC SILENCE.” 10. People approach Courts with firm hope that truth would ultimately prevail. 2 (c) (iii) WHEN THERE IS INFRACTION OF MAJESTY OF LAW. “In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh. T. Art. A FALSE or MISLEADING or a wrong statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings TO OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE ORDER would undoubtedly tantamount to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. 3064/96.” 11. AIR 2001 SC 2018” (3. OFFER OF APOLOGY IS NOT GENUINE. THE LAWYER SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO MOVE AN APPLICATION FOR STAY IN THE SECOND SUIT. WHEN A PERSON IS FOUND TO HAVE UTILIZED AN ORDER OF A COURT WHICH HE OR SHE KNOWS TO BE INCORRECT FOR . “Murray & Co. 1971. Satyapal’s case is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2 (c) – Constitution of India.

A. Chidambara and another. AIR 2001 SC 3041 : VII (2001) SLT 153” (9. S. 2 . we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Mrs. On the aforesaid parameters it would be necessary to examine whether it can be said that Mrs. . Megha Rude.:If any person tries to either file any false affidavit. 493” (30. therefore hold both Mrs. “Pravin C. 12 –----. Shah Vs.” 13.7.J. THE VERY UTILIZATION OF THE FABRICATED ORDER BY THE PERSON CONCERNED WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD HIM/HER GUILTY OF CONTEMPT. -----. the conduct of such person has a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings.CONFERRING BENEFIT ON PERSONS WHO ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME.” 14.10.2001) :(i) Relevant extract of Head Note (A) of the above referred AIR:- “Contempt of Court Act (70 of 1971). Sareen & ors. L. Ali & Another. Kanwaljit S. irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication. 12.- “We. “Court on its own Motion v.J.Ss.CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO APPEAR.2007) “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). 2004 Cri L. forged document or even makes false statement on oath. 2339” : 138 (2007) DLT 682 : (9. 2007 Cri L. In view of our conclusion on the basis of materials available in the inquiry proceedings with regard to the role played by Mrs. High Court of Karnataka v. This conduct is having tendency of impeding. Rude is guilty of gross criminal contempt and must be suitably punished for the same. Megha Rude and Mr. Dilip Wamanrao Gund to be guilty of contempt having committed criminal contempt as well as under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and for such gross act on their part. “Advocate General.” (iii) Para 9 of the above referred judgment. 2(c ) – Criminal contempt –-------.ADVOCATE FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT. -------.J.2. obstructing or interference striking a blow on the rule of law and NO COURT CAN IGNORE SUCH CONDUCT WHICH HAS THE TENDENCY TO SHAKE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND IN THE JUDICIAL INSTITUTION. ACT OR PLEAD IN COURT UNLESS HE HAS PURGED HIMSELF OF THE CONTEMPT --------. Mohd.. Megha Rude can be held to be guilty of contempt.2003) (i) Head Note (B) of the above referred Cri. K. ----------. they are sentenced to imprisonment for six months.

P. witnessing agreements which were either not executed on the dates mentioned thereon or were not executed at all. P. –Contempt of Court----As suo motu notice of contempt initiated and determined. Cr. PRACTISING FRAUD and making of averments which were false to the knowledge of the counsel in the plaint. P.:- “Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971). not in interest of justice. without which the chariots of justice may not move and may even collapse. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BAR FOR KEEPING THE STREAM OF JUSTICE PURE AND UNSULLIED IS FAR GREATER.- .C. initiation of proceedings under section 340 Cr.AS RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS OF THE COURT. in the present state of circumstances would also amount to obstructing the due course of administration of justice and interfering with the same and thus constitute criminal contempt. IN ESSENCE. Senior Advocate who had been appointed Amicus Curiae. statements and documents on record.(i) Head Note (A) of the above referred Cri. THE COUNSEL HAVE AN OVERALL OBLIGATION OF ASSISTING THE COURTS IN A JUST AND PROPER MANNER. which form the basis for proceeding for contempt as also in relation to the application moved under S. IN THE JUST AND PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. The suits were instituted on the basis of loan agreements where under monies were not paid and the said loan agreements were not executed on the dates thereof.Cognizance of abuse of legal process-Initiation of proceeding under section 340 Cr. would not serve any useful purpose nor be in interest of justice – Parties requested for quietus in matter. If the notice issued by the counsel runs contrary to the averment in the plaint. 195(1)(b)(ii).C. J. Deliberately making false statements on oath. HE SUBMITTED THAT A MATURED AND EXPERIENCED ADVOCATE WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCE HAS INSTITUTED SUITS BASED ON AVERMENTS. L. apart from being gross violations of code of conduct or PROFESSIONAL ETHICS.C.C.” (ii) Relevant extract of Head Note (iv) of the above referred DLT:- “Criminal Procedure Code. --------.” (iii) Para 14 of the above referred judgment:- “Mr. P. (iv) Para 25 of the above referred judgment. WHICH RUN CONTRARY TOTE NOTICE GIVEN BY HIM. succinctly brought forth the facts from the averments in the pleadings.Inquiry under section 340 Cr. 340. Neeraj Kishan Kaul. While the direction of the movement is controlled by the judge holding reins. 2 (c ) – Criminal Contempt – Interference by Advocate in due course of administration of justice The judge and counsel are two wheels of the chariot of justice. S. 1973 – Section 340 r/w Section 195. A junior advocate of the plaintiff has signed the agreement as witness without the agreements having been executed in her presence. such conduct on the part of the counsel cannot be condoned or simply excused or washed away. the movement it self is facilitated by the counsel and litigants.

Delhi High Court legal Service Authority for a period of six months. as costs to the Advocates Welfare Fund. as also the age of the counsel AND HIS BLEMISHLESS TRACK RECORD SO FAR. He shall also render pro bono service for a period of six months for at least two hours. (ii) Head Note (ii) of the above referred judgment:- . but one actuated either by extreme forgetfulness or blissful ignorance of the provisions of law. Delhi Legal Services Authority or such other suitable work as may be assigned by the Member Secretary.“In these circumstances. HE IS DIRECTED TO PAY A SUM OF RS.within two weeks from today. she is a young budding advocate and she has faced this ordeal at the beginning of her profession itself. 15. is a bona fide one and is accepted. twice a week. She is directed to do pro bono work and render services under the supervision of the Member Secretary.” 15. for two hours.000/. which was tendered at the outset. twice a week. HOWEVER. She has recognized that this is a humbling experience and she would exercise extreme care in future and discharge her functions with responsibility. Her apology. She was inexperienced and claims to have signed the agreements as witness on the asking of the senior counsel for his clients. It appears that the experience for her has indeed been a humbling one. “Court on its own Motion v.2. considering that this could not have been a deliberate or intentional act. as discussed therein before. Swaran Singh Banda. the apology tendered by him is accepted. deposition before Court and in letter addressed to L & DO regarding property being HUF property and contrary stand before L & DO ---------– Appellant an advocate though aged one – He is fully familiar with legal pleas and consequences of his conduct – Fit case for issuance of notice for criminal contempt to respondent who has tried to pollute course of justice and interfere with same knowing falsehood of his statements – FACT THAT HE IS AN ADVOCATE MAKES CONDUCT OF RESPONDENT ALL THE MORE DEPLORABLE and mere advanced age of respondent should not deter this court from proceeding further in matter – Appropriate notice to show cause be issued to respondent of being proceeded against and punished for criminal contempt of Court.2009) (i) Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT:- “Contempt of court – Contradictory stand taken by contemnor in written statement. (v) Para 26 of the above referred judgment:- “As regards Kiran Singh. at any of the Delhi Legal Service Centers under the supervision and direction of the Member Secretary. 159 (2009) DLT 362” (DB) (17.

was prima-facie satisfied that these persons ‘HAVE WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY TRIED TO INTERFERE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY THE COURTS’. Khan and defence lawyer R.8. 127.U. --------. on a consideration of the material available. THE CONDUCT IS PUNISHABLE AS CONTEMPT OF COURT.Art.“Contempt of Court – Party taking recourse to fraud deflects course of judicial proceedings and same constitutes interference in administration of justice and liable for contempt of Court in vide Kanwaljit S.Interference with judicial proceedings and administration of justice – Nexus between Special Public Prosecutor and Defence Lawyer –-----Complicity between Special Public Prosecutor and Defence Lawyer – both were More than mixed up in BMW case – conduct of both had tendency to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice as influencing a witness to alter his evidence or to decline to testify amounts to interference in administration of justice -------Contempt very much before eyes and within hearing – contempt of courts act.Contempt of Court – Punishment –Imposition – Interference with judicial proceedings and administration of justice proved – Collusion between SPP I. THEREFORE.206 & 207) (ii) Head Note (xi) of the above referred DLT:“Constitution of India.K. STATE & ORS. 2000/.respectively. 143.M. (iii) Relevant extract of para 20 of the above referred judgment:“On 7th August.K. both of them liable to pay fine of Rs. “COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS.U. 125. 20. 78. ANY OBSTRUCTION CAUSED IN THE PATH OF THOSE SEEKING JUSTICE ARE AN AFFRONT TO THE MAJESTY OF LAW AND. -section 2 (C ) (Paras 2. Khan prohibited from appearing in this Court or Courts subordinate to it for 4 months – However they are free to discharge their professional duties –Further Full Court recommended to strip them of their designation of Senior Advocate. Anand were the counsel for the state and defence respectively) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT:“Contempt of Court . Sareen case 138 (2007) DLT 682. Case wherein Mr.” 16. 8.2008)(Delhi High Court) (This judgment is in respect of B. Anand and I. 11. I. The tendency on the part of the contemnor in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact. 1972.W. conditional or unconditional. 151 (2008) DLT 695 (DB)” (21. 1950. R.U. 156. 169. the court -----. 10.Both lawyers Senior Advocate – They have not tendered. Anand in BMW case.K. expressed any contrition or repentance for their conduct – Both R. (iii) Relevant extract of para 4 of the above referred judgment :- “-----. It was observed that prima-facie THEIR ACTS AND CONDUCT WERE INTENDED TO SUBVERT THE . Any interference in the course of justice. 155. Khan and Mr. 2007 . 215.

12 – Constitution of India. J. ---------. Rajiv Dawar. we feel the adequate punishment would be to prohibit them from appearing before this court and the Courts subordinate to it for a specified period and also to recommend to the Full Court that they should be stripped of their designation as Senior Advocates. we are doing so because we feel it necessary to clear the air in so far as the rights of litigants and their advocates are concerned. (1980) 3 ALL ER 151.Section 34. 2007 (I) AD (Delhi) 567. Machin. However.” (iv) Para 28 of the above referred judgment:- “Consequently. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT ABERRATION COMMITTED BY THOSE WHO ARE INTEGRAL PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ARE STERNLY AND FIRMLY DEALT WITH. Magnanimity and latitude should be available to those who are not knowledgeable conversant with the system or commit the offence unwittingly or innocently. In this context. 1961.” (vi) Para 241 of the above referred judgment:“In these circumstances.BMW case.Arts. Anand. Anand Vs.Sting operation- . 161 (2009) DLT 130(SC)” (A Three Judge Bench Decision) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (V) of the above referred DLT:- “Contempt of Courts Act.Sections 2 (c ).” (v) Relevant extract of para 37 of the above referred judgment:“-----------. “R. Delhi High Court. Even if a different perspective or view than the findings and views expressed by us can be propounded. it was noted that the gist of an offence of contempt of court is ‘CONDUCT WHICH MAY LEAD AND IS INTENDED TO LEAD TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE WHETHER OR NOT A MISCARRIAGE ACTUALLY OCCURS’. it does not appear to be necessary to deal with the cases cited by Mr.” 17. V. This is because of overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence on record beckoning and calling for maintaining the purity of the stream of justice especially WHEN IT IS SOUGHT TO BE POLLUTED BY THOSE HAVING A PIVOTAL ROLE WITHIN THE SYSTEM.K. 145. This submission was rejected by the Bench holding: “TO OUR MIND. --------.Contempt of Court. Registrar. 1971.) titled “Court on Its Own Motion v. We agree with this exposition of the law. In R. we may refer to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court authored by one of us (Manmohan Sarin. ---------. 215 – Advocates Act. that would not affect the finding on merits given by us in respect of criminal contempt having been committed by the alleged contemnors.ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE PENDING BMW CASE AND IN PARTICULAR INFLUENCE THE OUT COME OF THE PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. 1950.

A RULE CAN STIPULATE THAT A PERSON WHO HAS COMMITTED CONTEMPT OF COURT OR HAS BEHAVED UNPROFESSIONALLY AND IN AN UNBECOMING MANNER WILL NOT HAVETHE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO APPEAR AND PLEAD AND CONDUCT CASES IN COURTS.---. UOI followed. One last thing which must be mentioned is that the right of appearance in Courts is still within the control and jurisdiction of Courts. Anand.” (iv) Para 145 of the above referred judgment :- “Lest we are misunderstood it needs to be made clear that the occasion to take recourse to the extreme step of debarring an advocate from appearing in Court should arise very rarely . In paragraph 34 of the decision the Court made highly illuminating observations in regard to lawyers’ right to appear before the Court and sounded the note of caution for the lawyers. Harish Uppal Vs.----. ----. VII (2002) SLT 229= (2003) 2 SCC 45. 145 of Constitution of India and section 34 of the Advocates Act clearly show that there is no absolute right to an advocate who appear in a court. Capt.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 141 of the above referred judgment :- “More importantly. Capt. Though by the time the appeals were taken up for hearing the period of four months was over. Art. 145 of Constitution – ART.No conflict or clash between section 34 of Advocates Act and Art. Para 34 of the decision need to be reproduced below:“34. Conduct in Court is a matter concerning the court and hence the bar Council cannot claim that what should happen inside the Court could also be regulated by them in exercise of their disciplinary powers. examined the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott of Court(s). who is guilty of contempt of court or of unbecoming or unprofessional conduct. THOUGH IN A GIVEN CASE THE HIGH COURT COULD DEBAR THE CONTEMNOR FROM APPEARING IN COURT TILL HE PURGED HIMSELF OF THE CONTEMPT. Hence courts cannot be and are not divested of control or supervision of conduct in Court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate. standing in the Court would erode the dignity of the court ---. 145 AND SECTION 34 OF ACT CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO AN ADVOCATE TO APPEAR IN COURT – An Advocate appears in Court subject to conditions laid down by Court. Altaf Ahmed contended that the High Court’s direction was beyond its competence and authority. another Constitution Bench of this Court in Ex.K.The very sight of an advocate.But the right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on which the court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power.Negotiation between SK and Special Public Prosecutor and R. Senior Advocate.--------.Two appellants were debarred from appearing before High Court and Courts subordinate to it for a period of 4 months. Harish Uppal Vs.. for his sellout in favour of defence for a very high price. Union of India and Another. Mr.----(ii) Para 135 of the above referred judgment :- “We were also addressed on the validity of the High Court’s direction prohibiting the two appellants from appearing before the High Court and the Courts subordinate to it for a period of four months.--.Prohibition against appearing in CourtsObservations made in case of Ex. In a proceeding of contempt punishment could only be awarded as provided under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Defendant/Contemnor filed written statement in suit of plaintiff and made statement on oath before trial court AND ADMITTING HE SOLD SUIT PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF AND HANDED OVER POSSESSION TO HIM. II (1995) CCR 128 (SC) = (1995) 3 SCC 7578.2009) (Available) (i) Relevant extract of Head Note (i) of the above referred DLT :- “Contempt of Courts Act. “In the matter of Contempt Proceedings against Kanwar Singh Saini. 1971. Although Section 2 (c ) does not specifically provide that FILING OF FALSE AFFIDAVITS OR PLEADINGS WHICH ARE DULY VERIFIED IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS amounts to criminal contempt. ---------.and only as a measure of last resort IN CASES WHERE THE WRONG DOER ADVOCATE DOES NOT AT ALL APPEAR TO BE GENUINELY CONTRITE AND REMORSEFUL FOR HIS ACT/CONDUCT. we proceed to examine if the defendant/contemnor has committed criminal contempt or not.” (iii) Relevant extract of para 31 of the above referred judgment :- .---. Surjit Singh Arora. Rita Markandey Vs. contemnor took a somersault AND TOOK PLEA THAT HE NEITHER SOLD SUIT PROPERTY TO PLAINTIFF NOR HANDED OVER POSSESSION TO HIM.It was tendered by defendant/contemnor for first time while giving evidence in these proceedingsDefendant/contemnor is guilty of criminal contempt.” (ii) Para 29 of the above referred judgment :- “Now.” 18. Vs.But subsequently in his reply to contempt application filed by plaintiff.---Sections 2 (a).Criminal ContemptCONTRADICTORY STANDS TAKEN IN HIS PLEADINGS/ AFFIDAVITS BY DEFENDANT/CONTEMNOR REGARDING OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF SUIT PROPERTY.FILING OF FALSE AFFIDAVITS OR STATEMENTS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AS IT TENDS TO OBSTRUCT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. And even the learned Counsel for the defendant/contemnor did not dispute this proposition. State of Haryana and Ors. Some of those decisions of the Supreme Court are reported as Murray & Co. Ashok Kr. I(2000) SLT 550= 1(2000) CLT 310 (SC)= (2000) 2 SCC 367. 2(c ).----.7. Newatia and Anr. (1996) 6 SCC 14 and Dhananjay Sharma Vs.Apology tendered by contemnor. BUT IT HAS NOW BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT FILING OF FALSE AFFIDAVITS/STATEMENTS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BY ANY PARTY TENDS TO INTERFERE WITH OR OBSTRUCTS OR TENDS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND SO THAT ACT AMOUNTS TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. 2(b). BUT ON THE CONTRARY SHOWS A TENDENCY TO REPEAT OR PERPETUATE THE WRONG ACT(S). not at all apologetic and not accepted. 161 (2009) DLT 466” (DB) (20.

E. The stage at which he has tendered an apology shows that he was really not apologetic at all since at no earlier point of time he tendered apology. We impose upon the contemnor punishment of simple imprisonment for four months. not inclined to accept the so called apology tendered by the defendant/contemnor for the first time while giving evidence in these proceedings.” (iv) Para 32 of the above referred judgment :- “While holding the defendant/contemnor guilty of criminal contempt we straightaway proceed to punish him also in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court in para No. he did commit criminal contempt for which he deserves to be punished.---.“-----In our view. R.S. the ipsi dixit of the defendant/contemnor that he had made the admissions regarding sale of property in question to the plaintiff and also handing over of its possession to him were as a result of fraud having been played upon him is difficult to be accepted. C. Z-2. 6 CPC:- . Ltd (Supra). Important proposition of law pertaining to ‘Contempt of Courts Act’ relevant for arguments on the petitioner’s application U/o 12. Ltd and Ors. ---. 36 of its judgment in Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Vs.We are therefore.C. Consequently.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful