Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 22
PETITIONER:
IN RE : AJAY KUMAR PANDEY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The contemner is a practising advocate. He filed
Complaint Case No.451 of 1994 in the Court of VI Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow against Shri Mahesh Giri,
advocate and Ms. Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge,
Lucknow for offences under Section 499/500 IPC. Mr. Mahesh
Giri, at the relevant time, was the govt. counsel deputed to
work for the prosecution in criminal cases in the Court of
VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow. It was alleged in
the complaint tread with notice which preceded it as also
contemner’s statement recorded under Section 200 Cr. P.C.)
that the accused namely, Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms.
Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow had
imputed sexual relations between the contemner and Ms. Saroj
Bala which had defamed the contemner and, therefore, he
prayed that the accused be tried for the said offences. The
statement of the contemner was recorded under Section 200
Cr. P.C. on 21.9.94 but it remained inconclusive. The
statement was finally record on 26.10.94 and, thereafter,
the case was ajourned for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.
P.C.. It was stated that the petitioner moved an application
that the witnesses whom the contemner wanted to examine
under Section 202 Cr. P.C. may be summoned by the Court as
almost all of them were practising advocates and influential
persons but the complaint itself was dismissed by the
Magistrate on 16.11.94. The petitioner. thereafter, filed a
Criminal Revision against the aforesaid order in the High
Court but it was dismissed on 15.2.95. Hon’ble Virendra
Saran, J. of the Allahabad High Court who disposed of the
Revision observed, inter alia, under:-
"It is well settled that if the
veiled object of a lame prosecution
is to disgrace, humiliate or cause
harassment to the accused, the High
Court must put an end to the
mischief by quashing such
criminal proceedings. The facts of
the record Of the instant case give
a horrendous account of a framed-up
case against a responsible member
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 22
of five lower judiciary holding the
post of an Additional Sessions
judge at Lucknow and hence, even if
the order of the learned Magistrate
dismissing the compliant under S.
203 of the Code be not woolly
justified in law, it is not a fit
case for the exercise of the
discretionary revisioinal
jurisdiction. There can be no doubt
that the prosecution case unfolded
in the complaint and the statement
of the applicant is nothing but an
intricate web of perfidious fabric.
It appears that the aim of the
applicant is to malign the learned
judge (Smt. Saroj Bala) and hold
her at ransom. The applicant
emphatically and repeatedly read
out the lewd passages from his
deposition while arguing the
revision, but the palpably
scurrilous, indecent and abominable
recitals are not worth reproduction
in the judgment. Suffice it to
observe that the arguments of the
applicant, so vehement and pungent,
marked with sarcasm and sneer, do
not impart any strength to his case
which in inherently unbelievable.
They are submissions directed more
towards vilification than
substantiation of the pivotal
points of the case. I was
constrained to ask the applicant
not to make savage additions to the
evidence and show restraint in his
colloquy."
2. The contemner, thereafter, filed SLP (Crl.) Nos.819-
20 of 1996 against the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated
15.2.95 of Hon’ble Virendra Saran, J. in this Court in which
he impleaded only State of U.P. as a proforma respondent.
3. A similar complaint under Sections 500 and 504 IPC
was also filed by the contemner against (1) Shri Prakash
Narayan Awasthi, Advocate (2) Shri R.P. Misra, Advocate (3)
Shri Vishambhar Singh, Advocate (4) Shri T.N. Misra,
Advocate (5) Shri Srikant Verma, Advocate (6) Shri Pankaj
Sinha, Advocate and (7) Shri N.C. Pradhan, Advocate in which
again it was alleged that similar imputations were made by
the aforesaid advocates between contemner and Ms. Saroj
Bala. This was registered as Complaint Case NO.101 of 1995
in which petitioner’s statement was recorded under Section
200 Cr. P.C. In order to produce witnesses under Section 202
Cr. P.C., the contemner gave a list of 31 advocates,
practising at Lucknow, for being summoned by the Court as
witnesses but the application was rejected. It was against
this Order that the petitioner filed SLP (Crl.) No. 4114 of
1995 directly in this Court. The contemner also, in the
meantime, filed Contempt Petition (Crl.) Dy. No. 16199/95
against Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virendra Saran of the Allahabad
High court, Contempt Petition (Crl.) Dy. No. 17021/95
against Ms. Saroj Bala, IV Addl. District Judge, Lucknow,
Shri Udai Raj, V A.C.J.M., Lucknow, Shri R.P. Mishra, VI
Addl. C.J.M., Lucknow and Contempt Petition (Crl.) Dy. No.
17022/95 against Shri J.C. Mishra. District Judge, Lucknow
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 22
(now Judge of the Allahabad High Court) Shri K.N. Ojha, II
Addl. District Judge. Lucknow, Shri Shailendra Saxena, III
Addl. District judge, Lucknow and Shri B.N. Pandey, Special
Judge, Lucknow. All the above matters were listed in Court
No.9 before Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice M.K. Mukherjee on 15th December 1995 when the
following Order was passed:-
"In all these petitions, we
find that attack in indecent, wild,
intemperate and even abusive
language on the named Judges has
been made at various places in each
one of the petitions. The
petitioner, who is an advocate, has
permitted himself the liberty of
using such expressions, which
prima-facie tend to scandlize the
court in relation to judicial
matters and thus have the tendency
to interfere with the
administration of justice. We are
inclined to initiate contempt
proceedings against, the
petitioner, but, on his request
grant him six weeks time to delete
all the objectionable expressions
used in the petitions and file
fresh petitions. He shall also
remove the other defects as pointed
out in the office report when he
files the fresh petitions. against
the petitioner, after eight weeks."
4. The contemner, however did not avail of the above
opportunity and filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
132/95 in paras 4, 5 and 6 whereof he stated as under:-
"4. That today, the matter was
listed in Court No. 9 alongwith all
petitions at Sl. No. 28 and 42 and
when the petitioner tried to start
his argument the court openly
harrased him and compelled him to
withdraw the petition or remove all
the facts but the petitioner
refused to do so in view of the
facts that he has only written the
facts according to section 167,
219 483 and 463 alongwith 120-B of
the IPC and section 44 and 165 of
the evidence act alongwith section
2-C and Section 16 and 12 and 15 of
the contempt of court act and the
Indian Constitution.
5. That the Court is not allowed
the petitioner to submit his
argument an passed an order to
remove the all facts from the
petition and filed the fresh
petitions and also ordered for
listing the matter after 8 weeks.
Thereafter, the petitioner
mentioned and also tried to give in
writing that he is not in a
position to remove anything and
file fresh petitions in view of the
fact that the wrote only truth and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 22
the court is bound to hear the
petition and decide the same
according to the constitution and
contempt of Court Act and other
laws as challenged by the
petitioner but the Court without
saying anything retired to its
chamber.
6. That the petitioner is not in
a position to remove anything and
the deliberate injustice, Fraud
cheating etc. had been done by the
contemnors for concealing their
nefarious acts and even they had
gone to this extent to destroyed
the judicial records and fabricated
some judicial papers.
5. This application was considered by the Court Hon’ble
Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.K.
Mukherjee on 20.2.96 and in the Order passed thereon it was
inter alia stated as under:-
"Inspite of the petitioner‘s
attention having beer, drawn to the
above noted passages on 15.12.1995,
which we felt prima facie, tended
to scandalise the court Courts in
relation to the judicial matters
and had the tendency to interfere
with the administration of justice
and that the attack against the
judges was indecent, wild,
intemperate and abusive, the
petitioner refused to these
objectionable passages and on the
contrary, in his petition (Crl.
M.P. No. 132 of 1996), he has
asserted that he is not prepared to
remove the Objectionable
passages/sentences. On the other
hand the petitioner asserts that
this Court is bound to hear the
petitioner and decide the same
"without the petitioner being
obliged to remove the objectionable
passages. This clearly discloses
the adamant and defiant attitude of
the petitioner.
We, therefore, direct that a Rule
be issued against the petitioner
asking him to show cause why he
should not be punished for
committing criminal contempt of
Court for the use of the
objectionable language in this
petition and the subsequent
application. The petitioner should
file his reply to the Rule within
eight weeks.
List on 26th April, 1996.
The petitioner-in-person has been
informed of the date and has been
bound down to appear on the next
date. No fresh notice, therefore,
need be issued to him.
A copy or the order issuing the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 22
Rule shall be handed over to the
petitioner-in-person.
We request the Solicitor General
Shri Dipankar Gupta to assist the
Court in these proceeding either
himself or by nominating some other
law officer.
This record of case may be
forwarded to the learned Solicitor
General.
This special leave petition
dismissed in vies of what we have
noticed above as also on merits.
The contempt proceedings shall be
separately numbered .
6. The contempt matter has since been registered as
Contempt Petition (Crl.) 2/96. The contemner in the
meantime, moved application for recall for recall/review of
the Order dated 20.2.96 but the application was rejected by
Order dated 9.8.96. The contemner also filed a Contempt
Petition (CRL.) No. 13/96 against Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S.
Anand and Hon’ble Mr . Justice M.K. Mukherjee which was
rejected by this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Verma and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal) on 5.8.96 by the following
Order:
"We regret to find that the
petitioner who is a practicing
lawyer of some standing has chosen
to such a proceeding which resort
to such a proceeding which in our
view is misconceived. We find no
merit in the same but before
dictating this order, we have tried
to explain this position to the
petitioner with the hope that he
will appreciate that as member of
the Bar he is expected to utilise
his time in a better manner to
assist in the administration of
justice. The contempt petition is
dismissed."
7. The contemner has since filed an application for recall
of the above order and for deciding the criminal contempt
petition On merits. In the affidavit accompanying this
application, it is stated that if all matters are not
decided on merits. the contemner would be compelled to
observe continuous hunger strike from 25.9.1996. A copy of
the application to the President of India for permission to
prosecute Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice M.K. Mukherjee, for their behaviour in Court on
15.12.1995, as also two months notice to the President, were
filed with this application.
8. The Contempt Petition No. 2/96 in SLP (Crl.) No.
4114/96 was taken up on 9.8.96 in which the following order
was passed by Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Mukherjee.
"On 20.2.1996, we directed a rule
to be issued to the applicant
asking him to show Cause why he
Should not be punished for
committing criminal contempt of the
court for use of objectionable
language in the SLP and the
application. He was given eight
weeks time to file his reply to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 22
rule, through these two
applications, the applicant seeks
recall/review of the order dated
20.2.1996 passed in SLP (Crl) 819-
820 of 1996 which were dismissed by
this court and of the rule issued
to him. We do not find any reason
to recall or review that order.
There is no merit in these
applications which also bristle
with scandalous remarks and are
couched in objectionable language.
The criminal miscellaneous
petitions filed by the applicant on
24.2.96
are, there dismissed."
In our order dated 20.2.1996, we
had directed issuance of rule and
to number the contempt proceedings
against the applicant separately.
Those have since been numbered as
criminal contempt petition No. 2 of
1996.
The prayer of the applicant to
transfer the case to ’another
bench’ as he does not "wish to
appear before this Bench apart from
being itself contumacious is
rejected because a litigant cannot
be permitted forum shopping. The
case stands assigned to this Bench.
Since the applicant has not filed
his reply to the notice to show
cause why he should not be punished
for committing criminal contempt of
court, we, as a matter of
indulgence, grant him another
opportunity to file the reply if
any, within six weeks. List the
matter for further proceedings and
hearing on 27.9.1996. The alleged
contemner Ajay Kumar Pandey, who
is present in court has been
informed of the date of hearing is
directed to remain present on the
Next date of hearing, i.e.
27.9.1996, whether or not he files
his reply to the show cause notice
. No fresh notice shall be issued
to him for his appearance.
Since Shri Dipanker Gupta has
resigned, the Solicitor General of
India is requested to assist the
court in the contempt proceedings
either himself or by nominating any
other law officer."
9. The petitioner subsequently moved an application dated
12.8.96 for recall of the aforesaid order at the end of
which he put a ’note’ as under:
"if this Hon’ble court would not
hear and decide the matter on
their merits then the petitioner
will be compelled to observe the
continuous hunger strike in Supreme
court premises since 25.9.96."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 22
10. In this application he indicated that he had already
given to the President of India an application, dated
19.12.95 in which he, inter alia, stated as under :-
"Thereafter, they harassed,
compelled and threatened me for
withdrawing the petitions or
removing all things and filing the
fresh petitions and also did not
allow me to submit the arguments
although the matter was fresh and
two petitions had to dispose of
finally according to the settled
law and passed an order in hasty
manner to this effect, "The
petitioner will remove all the
allegations from petitions and file
the fresh petitions and thereafter
the matter will, be listed after 8
weeks otherwise the contempt
proceedings be drawn against him
etc."
Thereafter I again mentioned the
matter at 2 P.M. and clearly said,
"I am not in d position to remove
anything and file the fresh
petitions and my petitions may be
heard immediately as it is because
I wrote only facts and made the
grounds according to the Indian
penal Code, Contempt of Courts Act,
Evidence Act and Constitution,
etc." but they without saying
retired to their chambers. Then I
immediately moved an application in
the Registry of the court and
clearly- said about each and
everything and also said, "I am not
in a position to remove anything
and the Court is bound to hear the
same and decide the same according
to Law and settled norms of
justice."
I am bringing the facts in the
knowledge of your excellency that
the Supreme Court has heard the
contempt petitions against many
citizens of the country i.e.
Advocates. Bureaucrats, Leaders and
Police officer, etc. and has
punished them but when I filed the
contempt petitions against some
corrupt people who had defrauded
and cheated me and
destroyed/fabricated, some judicial
records to conceal their nefarious
acts by exercising their Judicial
powers then Mr Justice A.S. Anand
and Mr. justice M.K. Mukherjee
harassed, compelled and threatened
me in open. Court and also did not
allow me to submit the arguments
and even they had gone in saying
that they would see me and forfeit
my license advocasy despite the
fact that I have been appearing in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 22
person and the matter had no
connection with my profession or
professional capacity.
I am saying with great sorrow and
the matter is also very serious
that the above two Judges consider
them selves the load paramount/
almighty and attacked at a human
being/litigant and also threatened
a young advocate/boy although, the
god is one and only who makes
everybody either he is king or
ordinary man and every human being
is also equal along with equality
before law and the court bound (the
paramount duty) to hear the case as
it is despite the fact that who is
O.P. (King or judge or ordinary
man), but it is very unfortunate
and horrendous that the above two
judges have fully forgotten that
the God is seeing the acts of
everybody by his spiritual eyes and
almighty lives in every soul and
attacking on any people is amounted
to insult the God.
I am also saying that the both
judges broke the decorum of the
court. dismantled the temple of
justice and thus embarrassed the
goddess of justice. Their hurling
upon me is attack at the human
dignity, and fundamental and legal
rights of a honest and genuine
litigant and also restraining a
poor litigant to pursue his case
and obstruction in the way of
justice/holy streem of justice.
I am requesting to your excellency
that being the head of the
nation/the highest constitutional
authority, kindly suggest Mr.
Justice A.S. Anand and Mr. justice
Mr. M.K. Mukherjee of the Supreme
court to feel sorry before me for
their highly objectionable
behaviour with me on 15-12-95
otherwise I will be at liberty to
take any action according to law
and in that case the whole world
will see the power of truth/dharma
and they will be responsible no I."
11. This application was given to the President of India
for sanction to prosecute the two Judges (Hon’ble
Dr. justice A.S. Anand and Hon’ble Mr. justice M.K.
Mukherjee for offences under Section 167, 504 and 506
IPC with two months’ notice to the President indicating
therein that if the sanction was not granted within two
months, it shall be deemed to have been granted.
12. He further stated in para 5 and 6 of the application as
under:-
"5. That the petitioner had
received the letter dt. 11-3-96 and
no. P1-999 from the Rashtrapati
Bhavan and according to that his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 22
excellency sought the opinion of
the ministry of the law and justice
in the matter. The copy of letter
dt. 11-3-96 is annexed as annexure
no.3 to this application for the
perusal of this hon’ble Court.
6. That on the expiry of two
months from 1-3-96 i.e. from the
date of notice to his excellency,
the petitioner had obtained the
formal sanction under section 197
to prosecute Mr. A.S. Anand and Mr.
M.K. Mukherjee."
13. He ultimately prayed as under:-
"It is, therefore, most
respectfully prayed that this
hon’ble Court may graciously be
pleased to recall the order dated
9-8-96 passed in the case mentioned
above and hear all the matters
immediately by constituting a
larger bench/Constitutional bench
otherwise great injury would be
caused to the applicants.
14. The contemner, thereafter, filed on 23.9.96
Compalint Case No. 122/1 of 1996 in the Court of Shri Nepal
Singh, A.C.M.M., New Delhi against Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S.
Anand and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee for offences
under Section 167, 504 and 506 IPC. In this complaint, it
was stated by the contemner as under:
"l. That the Complainant had filed
S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4114/95 and Cr.
M.P.No. 6242-43/95 along with Cri.
Contempt petitions/Diary No. 16199,
17021 and 17022/95 in the supreme
court of India in the month of
October/November, 95 and they were
first come up for hearing on
4.12.95 before the court No.2 of
the apex court and the bench
concerned after some time hearing
ordered ton this effect, ’List
these matters before some other
bench’.
2. That thereupon the petitions
had come up for hearing on 15th day
of December, 95, before the Court
No.9 at serial No.28 & 42 and on
that day the accuseds were on the
bench there .
3. That on the calling of the
matter on that day, the Complainant
who reached from Lucknow, stood
before the Court but as soon as he
stood the accuseds without any
authority, basis, immoraly and
illegaly hurled upon him with
highly derogatory, insulting,
offending and threatening remarks
with the following sentences:-
The accused No. 1 hurled, "You
filed the petitions against the
high Court Judge etc. You will
withdraw your petitions otherwise
we with take action against you and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 22
start the contempt proceedings."
The Complainant requested, ’Let me
argue’, then the accused No.1 again
hurled, "we will send you in jail
otherwise withdraw the petitions or
remove all thing for the petitions
and file the first petitions." The
complainant refused to comply with
their illegal and offending
directions and again said, Let me
argue." Then the accused no.2
hurled upon the Complainant in a
highly objectionable manner, "You
do the practise in Lucknow, you
understand yourself very competent
and intelligent, you abused your
professional privilege, we will see
you and forfeit your licence. the
complaint again prayed, ’submit me
arguments’. "we will not allow you
ton submit the arguments on the
points which you raised and give
the chance to the audience to near
some otherwise everybody will know
the matter".
15. In para 4 of the complaint, the contemner reproduced
the Order passed by Hon’ble Dr. justice A.S. Anand and
Hon’ble Mr. justice M.K. Mukherjee as under:-
4. That thereafter the accuseds
passed the followings order in a
hasty manner :-
"In all the petitions, we find
that attack in indecent, wild,
intemperate, and even abusive
language on the name Judges has
beer, made at various places in
each one Of the petitions. The
petitioner, who is an advocate, has
permitted himself the liberty of
using such expression, which prima
facie tend to scandalize the Court
in relation to judicial matters and
thus have the tendency to interfere
with the administration of the
justice. We are inclined to
initiate contempt proceedings
against the petitioner, but On his
request grant him 6 weeks time to
delete all the objectionable
expressions used in the petitions
and file the fresh petitions. He
shall also remove other defects, as
pointed out in the office report
when he file the fresh petitions.
If the fresh petitions are filed,
the same shall be listed after
eight weeks . Otherwise, these
petitions shall be put UP for
drawing up contempt proceeding
against the petitioner after eight
weeks."
16. In paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the complaint, it
was stated:
"5. That on the such goondaism of
the accuseds; the Complainant left
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 22
the Court room and again he gone
there at 2 P.M. and mentioned and
also tried to give in writing, "I
am not in a position, to remove and
thing and file the fresh petitions
and my petitions be heard as it is
immediately because I wrote only
the truth but the accuseds retired
to their Chambers without saying
anything. It is the most important
to mention here that the
Complainant never prayed to grant 6
weeks time for removing any thing
from the petitions, filing fresh
case and the accuseds dictated the
orders in this regard by their own
falsely, only with the sole motive
to waste the money and valuable
time of the complainant; any how
harass him coupled with hide the
sins/corruption of their
subordinate people.
6. That thereafter the
complainant had immediately moved
an application No. 132/95 in the
registry of the apex Court and
clearly said about his harassment
by the accuseds and their open
goondaism and also prayed for
hearing of his petitions as it is
and decide the same according to
the settled norms of justice.
7. That the complainant also
informed the hon’ble President of
India about the goondaism of the
accuseds through registered letter
No. 162 and dt. 21.12.95 along with
copies to Hon’ble the vice
President of India/Chief justice of
India through the certificate of
posting.
8. That since the acts of the
accuseds were the offences as per
the mandate and by virtue of the
Indian Penal Code so an application
under section 197 of Cr. P.C. along
with two months specific notice to
accord the sanction to prosecute
the accuseds under sections
167,500,504 and 506 of IPC had also
been sent to his excellency vide
registered post receipt no. C-2174
and dated 2.3.96. It is the most
important to mention here again
that although the offences as
stated in proceedings para don’t
come in money manner whatsoever
within the judicial acts/never did
while the accuseds had been
discharging their judicial duties
but inspite of this facts and for
saving any future complication in
the matter, the complainant filed
the application before Hon’ble the
President and requested his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 22
excellency to decide the matter in
two months from the date of notice.
9. That in response to the above
notice/application the complainant
had received a letter dated 11.3.96
and no. P1-999 from the Rashtrapati
Bhavan and according to the
contents of the same his excellency
sought the opinion of the Ministry
of Law and Justice in the matter.
The said letter was received I by
the complainant in the third week
of March 1996 .
10. That the complainant had also
given, registered notice to the
accuseds to tender unconditional,
apology in writing to him for their
misdeeds or, 15.,2.95 and gave him
one month time for making the
unconditional apology from the date
of notice. The registered notices
were sent to both the accuseds on
10.8.96 vide registered letter no.
2888 and 2389 dt. 10.8.96 but they
did not think fit and
proper/necessary to response the
notices and tender the
unconditional apology
however served on 12.8.96.
11. That the accuseds committed
the offences as contemplated in the
Indian Penal Code and liable to be
dealt with strictly, and exemplory
otherwise it will be licensed to
the judicial goondaism and the
Courts/law would have become the
instrumentality of the people like
the accuseds and so the interest of
the litigants will be jeopardised
which is not permissible in law."
17. He made the following prayer in the complaint:
"It is therefore, most
respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be
pleased to take the cognizance of
the above mentioned offences and
punish the accuseds deterrently and
severely under the above stated
circumstances and facts alongwith
pass other necessary orders in the
matter and for which act of
kindness the complainant shall ever
pray as in duty bound."
18. A copy of this complaint was filed by the petitioner
himself on 24.9.96 before the Registrar in Criminal Contempt
Case NO. 2/96. In his letter addressed to the Registrar, he
stated as under:
"I filed some papers in the
cases mentioned above and the same
are the important documents. Since
the matter is listed in court on
27.9.96 so the papers be circulated
for the perusal of the hon’ble
court and read as part of the
petitions."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 22
19. As stated by the contemner himself in his aforesaid
complaint, he had issued a notice dated 10.8.96 to both
the learned judges in which he, inter alia, stated as
under:-
"2. That there after the above
petitions had been listed before
the court No.9 on 15-12-95 and both
of you were on the Bench. On the
calling of the matter on that day,
i who reached form Lucknow, as soon
as stood before the court to argue,
then both of you without any
authority, basis immoraly and
illegaly hurled upon me with highly
derogatory, insulting, offending
and contemptuous remarks with the
following sentences:-
The addressee number 1 hurled, "you
filed the petitions against the
high court judge etc. You will
withdraw your petitions otherwise
we will take action against you and
start the contempt proceedings." I
requested, "Let me argue". You
addressee no.1 hurled, "we will
send you in jail otherwise withdraw
the petitions or remove all things
form the petitions and file fresh
petitions." I refused to do so and
said, Let me argue." Then you the
addressee no.2 hurled upon me in a
highly objectionable manner, "you
do the practise in Lucknow, you
understand yourself very competent
and intelligent, you abused your
professional privilege, we will see
you and forfeit your licence," then
I gain prayed, "submit me
arguments," then you addressee no.1
again hurled, we will not allow you
to submit the argument on the
points which you raised and give
the chance to the audience to hear
the same otherwise everybody will
know matter."
4. That on the above happening I
left the Court room and again had
gone there at 2 p.m. and mentioned
and also tried to give in writing,
I am not in a position to remove
any thing and file the fresh
petitions and my petitions be heard
as it is immediately because I
wrote only the truth but both of
you without saying anything retired
to your chambers. It is the most
important to mention here that I
had never prayed to grant six weeks
time for removing anything from
the petitions, filing the fresh
petitions and you dictated
absolutely false in your order in
this regard only with the sole
motive the waste the money and
valuable time of the petitioner and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 22
any how harass me alongwith hide
the corruption, fraud, cheating and
forgery etc. in a short word,
’since’ of the people who are the
contemnors in the above said
petitions."
20. In paras 5, 6 and 7 he, Inter alia, stated as
under:
"5. But I am also warning you that
the said application was moved
before his excellency. only to
avoid any future complication in
the matter otherwise according to
the settled law VIZ. judicial
precedents, as you also know very
well, the acts mentioned in paras 2
and 3 of this notice were your
personal acts and neither come in
the definition of the official acts
nor were come in your Judicial
duties render- ed by you . As you
know very well and according to the
Indian penal Code, your acts were
offences according to Sections 167,
500, 504 and 506 and due to your
falsity, I suffered from a heavy
financial loss.
6. That it is not worthy that due
to your Falsity I suffered from the
loss of Rupees two thousand (2000/-
) for appearing on that day in the
case so I also entitled for the
compensation from you.
7. That I am warning you that
from the date Of this notice, both
of you tender unconditional written
apology to me for your offences on
15.12.1995 in the Court No. 9 of
the Supreme Court of India coupled
with the compensation of Rupees two
thousand (2000/-) and a handsome
amount for my mental harrassment.
The written apology alongwith
compensation be paid by you in a
month from the date of this notice
otherwise i will be compelled to
initiate the criminal proceedings
against you in the competent
criminal court and you will be
responsible for all cost and
consequences.
21. The aforesaid notice constitutes the basis of Contempt
Petition (Crl.) No. 55/96 while the complaint filed by the
contemner against the two Hon’ble Judges of this Court is
the basis of Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 56/96.
22. The notice issued to as also the complaint subsequently
filed against the two Hon’ble Judges of this Court were
placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India who
directed the same to be placed before the Court. That is how
these matters have come before us.
23. The aforesaid notice dated 10.8.96 issued by the
contemner to the two Hon’ble Judges calling upon them to
tender unconditional written apology to him and also to pay
compensations was placed with the office report dated
12.9.96 before the Court when the following order
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 22
was passed on 16.9.96:
"Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate,
C-2230, Indira Nagar, Lucknow -
225016 has sent registered letters
dated August 10, 1996 to the
Hon’ble Judges of this Court. The
language and the tenor of the
letter prima facie amounts to
scandalising and lowering the
authority of this Court . We issue
contempt notice to Mr. Pandey,
returnable on 30th September, 1996.
He may show cause why he be not
held guilty of the contempt of
court and punished suitably .
Registry to serve the respondent
through the Additional Registrar of
the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High
Court . Mr. Pandey shall be
personally present in Court on 30th
September, 1996 at 10.30 P.M."
24. When the matter was taken up on 30.9.1999, the following
order was passed :
"Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey,
advocate, the contemnor is present
before us. Initially, he had
refused to accept summons of this
Court but later on he himself
contacted the Registry of this
Court on September 27, 1996 and
obtained the summons. Apart from
derogatory and scandalous language
written in the letter addressed to
two Hon’ble Judges of this Court
he also threatened them that he
would file criminal complaints
against them. He has as a matter of
fact filed complaint case No.
122/1/96 on September 23, 1996. The
contents of the complaint in
totality, relate to the proceedings
conducted in Court No. 9 or this
Court. The complaint is full of
scandalous and abusive language. We
issue notice to Ajay K. Pandey why
he should not be held guilty of
contempt of court and be punished
suitably tor filling this
scandalous complaint before Mr.
Nepal Singh, Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate. We take
suo moto. Notice of the complaint
filed before the A.C.M.M. The
complaint is wholly frivolous and
amounts to the abuse of the abuse
of the Court. We quash the
complaint. We are told that the
A.C.M.M. has further marked that
complaint to Ms. Renu Bhatnagar,
Metropolitan Magistrate who has
fixed the date some time in March,
1997. We quash the complaint and
the proceedings before Ms. Renu
Bhatnagar, M.M. Mr. Ajay K. Pandey,
standing before us, has fairly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 22
stated that he has no objection to
the quashing of the complaint. We
are further of the view that
A.C.M.M. and M.M. who have dealt
with this complaint have acted
without any Application of mind. It
seems that they have not even read
the contents of the complaint. We
issue notice to both of them to
show cause why contempt proceedings
be not initiated against them.
Mr. Pandey may file his reply
within one week from today in this
Court in both the contempt
petitions. He may file all the
documents affidavits of himself or
of any other person he wishes to
file in support of his defence
along with the reply. The contempt
petitions shall be heard on
10.10.96 at 10.30 A.M.
On our suggestion, Mr. Pandey
states that he would not mind
having the assistance of a counsel.
Mr. Mukul Mudgal, learned counsel
present in Court states that he
would request Ms. Manju Goel,
Secretary, Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee to assign a
counsel to assist this Court on
behalf of the contemnor. We request
Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior
counsel to assist this Court. A sea
of papers be sent to Mr. G.L.
Sanghi, learned counsel.
The matter regarding contempt
notice to Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and
Metropolitan Magistrates be listed
on 30.10.1996. They shall be
personally present in Court.
25. Separate notices for contempt were issued to the two
Magistrates, who are being dealt with separately.
26. When the matter was taken up on 10.10.1936, the
contemner filed unqualified and unconditional apology to the
following effect :
"I Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
the Respondent contemner herein do
hereby tender my unqualified and
unconditional apology to this
Hon’ble Court for addressing
registered letters dated 10.8.1996
to two Hon’ble Judges of this
Hon’ble Court for the language and
contents the Said letters for
filling a criminal complaint dated
23.9.1996 in the court of
Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate New Delhi against two
Hon’ble judges of this Hon’ble
Court and for the language and
contents of the said complaint. I
respectfully submit that these
actions of mine and the language
used by me in relation to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 22
Judges of this Hon’ble Court were
as a result of my losing control
over myself for which I am
genuinely repentant. I humbly seek
forgiveness from this Hon’ble Court
and pray to this Hon’ble Court to
accept my apology and show mercy on
me. I undertake not to repeat such
conduct in the future."
27. The Court, however, passed the following order on that
date:
"we have heard Mr. Raju
Ramachandran. On our request he
appearing for the contemnor, A.K.
Pandey. We have also heard Mr.
G.L. Sanghi, who on our request is
appearing to assist the Court. We
have also heard Mr. A.K. Pandey.
Initially Mr. Pandey stated that
he could not file reply because
tile Registry declined to permit
him to inspect all the records. We
placed the records before him and
permitted him to examine the same.
Mr. Pandey who is present in Court
states that he does not want to
inspect the records. Mr. Pandey has
filed unqualified and unconditional
apology. This may be taken on
record.
We adjourn the hearing of this
case to October 30, 1996.
Meanwhile, Mr. Pandey may file his
reply to the Contempt Petition if
he so wish. The application and the
apology Which are already on the
record shall be taken into
consideration on the next date of
hearing. The contemnor to be
present in Court on October 30
1996.
28. On 30.10.1996 when the case was next taken Up, the
Court passed the following order:
"Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr.
Advocate, represent Mr. Nepal
Singh, Additional Chief
Metropolitan, Magistrate and Ms.
Renu Bhatnagar, Metropolitan
Magistrate is represented by Mr.
Rajiv Garg, Advocate. both the
contemners are present in Court. To
enable them to file affidavits in
reply to the contempt notice, we
adjourn the hearing to 4th November
1996. is meanwhile, we direct
Registrar of Delhi High Court to
send the personal files of these
two officers to this court. We are
told that Justice J.K. Mehra and
Justice S.N. Kapoor are the
inspecting Judges so far as these
two judicial officers are
concerned. We would request Hon’ble
Judges to give their comments
regarding these two offices. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 22
earlier orders of this Court in
this case may also be sent to the
Registry Of the Delhi High Court.
To come Up On 4th November, 1996 .
Orders to be pronounced on 4th
November, 1996 in respect of Mr.
Ajay Kumar Pandey."
29. The background facts set out above would indicate that
the contemner is a practising Advocate who himself had filed
criminal complaint against a brother advocate (Mr. Mahesh
Giri) and Ms. Saroj Bala who was a member of the lower
judiciary posted as VII Addl. District Judge at Lucknow,
after giving them a notice demanding compensation for having
defamed him by publicly saying that he had sexual relations
with one of them, namely, Ms. Saroj Bala. This complaint was
dismissed at the initial stage as indicated in the earlier
part of this judgment, but he raised a number of
controversies, including a demand for enquiry to be set up
by the then District Judge, Lucknow, Mr. J.C. Mishra, who is
now a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The
contemner filed a Revision before the High Court against the
order by which his complaint was dismissed and the
application for summoning the witnesses through court
process was rejected. This revision, as pointed out earlier,
was dismissed by Mr. Justice Virendra Saran. In the Special
Leave Petition filed against that judgment, the contemner
has criticised Justice Virendra Saran in intemperate
language and termed his judgment as forged and fictitious,
besides imputing bad motive.
30. When this Court noticed the scandalous and even abusive
language by the contemner used against Mr. Virendra Saran
and other officers of the judiciary, it required the
contemner to delete those sentences or portions and/or file
a fresh petition. Not satisfied, the contemner moved an
application for recall of the order and in that application
he again used intemperate language and thereafter started
making efforts to avoid the Court (Hon’ble Anand and
Mukherjee,) and for this purpose, he adopted derogatory and
bad tactics. He gave notice to the two Hon’ble Judges
seeking unconditional apology from them or their conduct and
behaviour in the Court and also demanded compensation from
them. He wrote to the President of India for sanction to
prosecute the Hon’ble judges for offences under sections
167. 500, 504 and 506 IPC giving two months time to the
President to grant sanction or else he would treat the
sanction to have been granted to him. he also threatened to
go on hunger strike before the Supreme Court with effect
from 25.9.1996. He then filed a complaint against the
Hon’ble Judges branding their conduct as "goondaism". He
pleaded for his case to be listed before some other Bench or
to be referred to the Constitution Bench on the ground that
both the Hon’ble Judges were personally involved in the case
and, therefore, they need not hear the matter, but he was
unsuccessful.
31. This Court, as the highest court of the land, has not
only the right to protect itself from being denigrated, but
has also the right jurisdiction and authority to protect the
High Courts and the subordinate courts from being insulted,
abused or in any other way denigrated. All the courts, be
they the lower or the highest function for the noble cause
of dispensing justice. Since they have to decide litigation
between two contesting parties. it is obvious that they have
to have full freedom and independence in settling the
litigation. The Presiding officers who run the courts and
conduct the proceedings therein have to act fearlessly. Any
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 22
action on the part of any person or litigant or lawyer,
which tends to interfere or obstruct the process of justice,
has to be deprecated so that the proceeding may be held in
an orderly fashion and everyone who participates in those
proceedings may have the feeling of liberty to address the
court for proper ad adjudication of his case.
32. An Advocate, as a citizen of this country, has the
fundamental right of freedom of expression and speech under
Article 19 of the Constitution. This right is also
guaranteed to him under the Advocates Act. Apart from that
the legal profession has the inherent right to express
itself in the best manner possible in uninhibited language,
but the right to express also carries with it the duty to be
dignified in the use of expression and to maintain decorum
and peace in the court proceedings.
33. In Dr. D.C. Saxena vs. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India (1996) 5 SCC 216, this court observed, inter alia, as
under,:
" Advocacy touches and asserts
the primary value of freedom Of
expression. It is practical
manifestation of the principle of
freedom of speech. Freedom of
expression in Arguments encourages
the development of judicial
dignity, forensic skills of
advocacy and enable protection of
fraternity, equality and justice.
It plays its part in helping to
secure the protection of other
fundamental human rights. freedom
of expression therefore is one of
the basic conditions for the
progress of advocacy and for the
development of every man including
legal fraternity practising the
profession of law. Freedom of
expression, therefore, is vital to
the maintenance of free society. It
is essential to the rule of law and
liberty of the citizens. The
advocate or the party appearing in
person, therefore, is given liberty
of expression. But they equally owe
countervailing duty to maintain
dignity, decorum and order in the
court proceedings or judicial
process. The liberty of free
expression is not to be confounded
or confused with licence to make
unfounded allegations against any
institution, much less the
judiciary."
34. It was further observed in that above case as under :
"Scandalising the court would mean
hostile criticism of judges as
judges or judiciary. Any personal
attack on a judge in connection
with the office he holds is dealt
with under law of libel or slander.
Yet defamatory publication
concerning the judge as a judge
brings the court or judges into
contempt a serious impediment to
justice and an inroad on the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 22
majesty of justice. Any caricature
of a judge calculated to lower the
dignity of court would destroy,
undermine or tend to undermine
public confidence in the
administration of justice or the
majesty of justice. It would,
therefore , be scandalising the
judge as a judge, in other words,
imputing partiality, corruption,
bias, improper motives to a judge
is scandalisation of the court and
would be contempt of the court.
Even imputation of lack of
impartiality of fairness to a judge
in the discharge of his official
duties amounts to contempt. The
gravamen of the offence is that of
lowering his dignity or authority
or an affront to the majesty of
justice. When the contemnor
challenges the authority of the
court, he interferes with the
performance of duties of judge’s
office or judicial process or
administration of justice or
generation or production of
tendency bringing the judge or
judiciary into contempt."
35. In the present case, we are concerned with the
notice issued by the contemner to the two Hon’ble judges
demanding apology and compensation and the subsequent
complaint filed by him in the court of A.C.M.M., Delhi,
and the contents thereof. The notice relates to the
proceedings Of The court on 15.12.1995. It is said
that both the judges without any authority, basis,
immorally and illegally hurled upon "me" with highly
derogatory, insulting, offending and contemptuous remarks."
36. After setting out what the Judges allegedly said, it is
mentioned in the notice as under:
"It is the most important to
mention here that I had never
prayed to grant six weeks time for
removing anything, from the
petitions, filling the fresh
Petitions and you dictated
absolutely false in your order in
this regard only with the sole
motive to waste the money and
valuable time of the petitioner and
any how harass me alongwith hide
the corruption, fraud, cheating and
forgery etc. in a short word,
sins’.
37. The notice also mentions his application to the
President of India for sanction and in it he held out a
threat to the two Hon’ble judges that if they did not fender
unconditional written apology to him he would initiate
criminal proceedings in the competent criminal court.
38. The criminal contempt is defined in Section 2(c) of the
contempt of courts act, 1971 as under :
"2(c) " criminal contempt" means
the publication (whether by words,
spoken or written, or by signs, or
by visible representation, or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 22
otherwise) of any matter or the
doing of any other act whatsoever."
According to the definition reproduced above, the first pre-
condition is the publication or doing of any other act and
the second is that the publication or doing of the act has
resulted in the consequences set out in Section 2(c) (i)
(ii) and (iii), namely :
(i) scandalizes of tends to
scandalize, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of, any court;
or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or
tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding;
or
(iii) interferes or tends to
interfere with, or obstructs or
tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any
other manner."
39. In view of the definition, the contemptuous conduct may
be either due to the publication or consist in the doing of
any other act.
40. In Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 406, it was observed by this
Court that :
"....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.
The public have a vital stake in
effective and orderly
administration of justice. The
court has the duty of protecting
the interest of the community in
the due administration of justice
and, so, it is entrusted with the
power to commit for contempt of
court, not to protect the dignity
of the court against insult or
injury, but, to protect and to
vindicate the right of the public
so that the administration justice
is not perverted, prejudiced,
obstructed or interfered with."
41. In Dr. D.C. Saxena’s case (supra), this Court has
already laid down that if a Judge, on account of the
proceedings conducted by him in his court, is threatened
that he would be prosecuted in a court of law for the
judicial act done by him, it amounts to criminal contempt as
it lowers and tends to lower the dignity of the court.
42. We are also of the same opinion. We may observe that
any threat of filing a complaint against the Judge in
respect of the judicial proceedings conducted by him in his
own court is a positive attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice. In order that the
Judges may fearlessly and independently act in the discharge
of their judicial functions, it is necessary that they
should have full liberty to act within the sphere of their
activity. If, however, litigants and their counsel start
threatening the Judge or launch prosecution against him for
what he has honestly and bona fide done in his court, the
judicial independence would vanish eroding the very edifice
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 22
on which the institution of justice stands. It would also be
in violation of the statutory protection available to the
Judges and Magistrates under the Judicial Officers
(Protection) Act as also the Judges (Protection) Act.
43. Having seen the entire record, we are fully satisfied
that the contemner, by questioning the conduct of the Judges
through his notice and demanding apology and compensation
from them as also the complaint lodged against them
especially in the language employed by him, is guilty of the
"criminal contempt" and is liable to be punished therefor in
both the case.
44. In relation to the quantum of punishment we may observe
that the contemner, who is a practising advocate and is
young in age, had on 10.10.1996, tendered before us an
unconditional and unqualified apology in writing,
withdrawing all the Objectionable remarks sentences and
words used by him in the application, notice and complaint
and had expressed his regrets. The Court, however, is not
bound to accept the apology unless there is real feeling of
repentance in the contemner. The contemner had already been
given an opportunity at the initial stage by both the
learned Judges to withdraw his remarks against a Judge of
the Allahabad High Court and other officers or the lower
judiciary, but he insisted to proceed with the case. He even
initiated contempt proceedings against both the Hon’ble
Judges. But this Court took a lenient view and instead of
initiating any other action against him, dismissed the
criminal contempt petition by order dated 5.8.1996, passed
by Hon’ble J.S. Verma and hon’ble B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
45. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 129 of the
Constitution is independent of the Contempt of Courts Act
and the power under Article 129 cannot be denuded restricted
or limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus there
is no restriction or limitation on the nature of punishment
that this Court may award while exercising its contempt
jurisdiction. But we do not intend to travel far and beyond.
46. Having convicted the contemner for obstructing the
course of justice by trying to threaten and overawe the
Court by using insulting and disrespectful language and
issuing notices and also launching criminal prosecution
when the allotments were first made to them. Since we laid
down the law for the first time, we have not interfered with
the direction of the High Court but suitably was modified.
This direction, therefore, will not be used as a precedent.
Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20857/93, 20936/93
and CC No. 25107/94 are disposed of accordingly. Appeals
arising out of SLP (C) No. 2492/90, Which is by Shanti
Swaroop against the judgment of the High Court in A.K. Garg
and connected cases is, however, dismissed. There would be
no order as to costs.