Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 74
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577/2007
GULSHAN BAJWA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. ..RESPONDENT(S)
With
M.A. 256/2017 in CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 64/2007
With
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 9689/2018
With
DIARY No. 44408/2018
O R D E R
1. The Criminal Appeal No. 577/2007 arises out of the common
judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi (“ ”)
High Court
dated 19.10.2006 in Criminal Contempt Case Nos. 16 of 2006
and 17 of 2006.
2. By virtue of the impugned order, the High Court exercising
its suo motu contempt jurisdiction, convicted the sole
appellant herein, a practising advocate and a former army
personnel, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“ Act ”)
and sentenced him to civil imprisonment of three months
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2024.01.30
18:22:23 IST
Reason:
which was to run concurrently and a fine of Rs. 2,000, each
in both the contempt cases.
1
3. Facts in the lead matter: On 17.08.2006, in a writ petition
before the High Court, the appellant, appearing as counsel,
sought an adjournment. After granting an adjournment, the
Court noticed the appellant’s conduct relating to giving
threats to the lady counsel who was appearing for the other
side. Thereafter, the High Court passed an order directing
him to explain his conduct. The order is reproduced herein
for ready reference:-
“ Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he wishes to
file some applications and requests for adjournment. Request
is allowed.
At this stage, after the request for filing the applications was
allowed, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while
going back passed a comment on the lady Advocate opposing
him in the case and appearing for the respondents. She
brought it to the notice of the Court and we requested the
Counsel appearing for the petitioner to come back, which he
did.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a threatening remark
to her, saying that now she be prepared for the consequences.
Shri Dipak Bhattacharya (Advocate), who was also present in
the Court duly confirmed that he overheard this remark being
made to the lady Advocate appearing for the respondents.
We find this attitude of the Counsel appearing for the petitioner
to be undesirable and needs to be deprecated and dealt with
in accordance with law. It is unfair for any Counsel to give any
threats to the Counsel appearing on the other side, as all of
them appear as officers of the Court and assist the Court or
their respective clients. However, before we direct any further
action or issue notice for contempt, learned Counsel for the
petitioner made a request and the case is directed to be listed
for tomorrow.
List on 18.8.2006. ”
4. On 18.08.2006, when the matter was called out, the
appellant failed to appear. Therefore, the Bench adjourned
2
the matter to 21.08.2006. In fact, a counsel standing in the
courtroom at that time undertook to personally inform the
appellant about the next date of hearing. Surprisingly, the
appellant had filed an application seeking transfer of the said
writ petition to a different bench of the High Court, even
though he failed to physically appear in the matter. Later in
the day, a counsel appearing on behalf the appellant made a
request for an adjournment on the ground that the appellant
was unwell. That said, the standing counsel for the Union of
India, who was also present in the same court at that time,
informed the Bench that the appellant was seen in the court
premises earlier in the day. Nonetheless, in the interest of
justice, the Bench adjourned the matter to 21.08.2006.
5. Thereafter, even on 21.08.2006, the appellant failed to
appear. However, he had filed applications in the same
matter making reckless and unsubstantiated allegations
against the judges of the High Court. Clearly, by failing to
appear and filing baseless allegations, the appellant had
disobeyed the orders of the Court. In fact, it also came to the
knowledge of the High Court that the appellant herein has
frequently filed transfer applications on behalf of his clients,
3
without their knowledge. Therefore, by its order dated
21.08.2006, a Division Bench of the High Court issued a
notice to the appellant asking him to show cause as to why
proceedings under the Act should not be initiated against him
(Suo Motu Contempt Case No. 16 of 2006).
6. Around the same time, another Division Bench of the Court
had also initiated suo motu contempt action against the
appellant after noticing that he had filed an application in a
writ petition, where he had made certain improper allegations
against the Judges. Even in this contempt proceeding as well
as the writ petition, the appellant failed to appear. However,
he was filing applications day-after-day making reckless
allegations against the Judges. While issuing a show-cause
notice on 08.08.2006 (Suo Motu Contempt Case No. 17 of
2006), the High Court noted as follows:
“ We have looked into the statement made in the application,
which is registered as CM No. 9695/2006. Having gone
through the same, we direct for issuance of a notice to the
petitioner to show cause why appropriate action under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or otherwise shall not
be initiated against him. Notice shall be issued to the petitioner
by the registry of this Court without process fee and shall be
served by the Process Serving Agency of this Court, returnable
on 3rd October, 2006. ”
4
7. Both the suo motu contempt proceedings were tagged and
listed for 22.08.2006. However, neither on that date nor on
subsequent dates did the appellant appear.
8. Multiple ways were adopted to secure the presence of the
appellant, without any avail. The appellant was not to be
found on the addresses mentioned and hence, service of
notice under the Act could not be completed. As a last resort,
the High Court issued bailable warrants against the
appellant. Upon failure to secure the appellant’s presence
even then, non-bailable warrants were issued. The said
warrants could also not be executed since the appellant was
not available on any of the addresses mentioned.
9. After numerous attempts, the High Court directed the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, to be present in Court.
Upon his appearance in Court, the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, New Delhi was directed to ensure the presence of the
appellant in Court. Soon thereafter, on 18.09.2006, he was
produced in Court. On the same day, while the Appeallant
was released upon furnishing a personal bond, he was
arrested by the Police of Uttarakhand in furtherance of
another non-bailable warrant issued by a Family Court in a
5
case filed by the appellant’s wife for execution of a decree.
The High Court noted that even during this time, the
appellant failed to appear before the Court, instead, he was
filing applications challenging the jurisdiction of the Court in
issuing such warrants.
10. This is a long-drawn case in which the appellant has been
committing successive acts of contempt. There are about
seven instances which the High Court has taken into
account, where the conduct of the appellant came under
scrutiny in different proceedings. In all those cases, the
egregious act of contempt of the appellant was recorded.
These instances in short are as follows:
(i) In a case concerning his dismissal from service,
the matter got carried up to this Court. While dismissing
a review petition filed by him, this Court noted the
allegations and insinuations made by the appellant
against the conduct of the judges of this Court. While
referring the matter to the Bar Council, this Court
observed as under
“ We have carefully perused the review petition as well
as the documents annexed therewith, but we find no
merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
6
Having regard to the allegations and insinuations
contained in the review petition, there is justification for
action under the Contempt of Courts Act, against the
petitioner. However, considering his background as is
apparent from the record of the case and the apparent
frustration caused to the petitioner as a result of his
losing his appeal before this Court, we do not propose to
initiate any action under the said Act, since the
respondent has preferred the review petition in-person.
However, we notice that the petitioner is an Advocate
and is practising as an Advocate-on-Record in this
Court. The conduct of the petitioner in filing a review
petition containing such baseless allegations and
insinuations reflecting on the conduct of Judges of this
Court does call for closer scrutiny, as to whether his
conduct does no credit to the noble profession to which
he belongs. However, since that matter is not within our
jurisdiction and it is only the Bar Council of India which
is empowered to take appropriate action, we refer this
matter to the Bar Council of India for such action as it
may consider appropriate. ”
(ii) In Suo Motu Contempt Case No. 16 of 2006, the
appellant had filed transfer petitions seeking transfer of
the underlying matter as well as the suo motu contempt
proceeding before a different bench of the High Court.
Admittedly, he had filed the transfer petition on grounds
which were devoid of the writ petitioner’s knowledge.
The transfer petitions filed by the appellant in this
matter, along with the various other matters, were
firstly placed before the then Acting Chief Justice of the
High Court, and pursuant to his order dated
24.08.2006, the matter was listed before the same
7
Bench which issued notice in Suo Motu Contempt Case
No. 16 of 2006 on 21.08.2006. It has to be stated here
that the original writ petitioner in this writ petition was
personally present in the Court on 29.08.2006 and
stated that he had not read the content of the transfer
petition nor did he sign the transfer petition.
(iii) In a different writ petition before High Court, in
which the appellant was appearing as a counsel, he had
filed an application wherein he made allegations against
the Judges of the High Court as well as this Court. He
also alleged that the transfer petitions were never placed
before the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court,
thus, causing injustice.
(iv) In W.P. No. 245 of 1986 before the High Court, the
appellant had filed a written submission, where he had
made the following statement (we have deliberately
redacted the names of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court
and that of the High Court to maintain the decorum of
these proceedings. The details are however, available in
the order impugned before us):
8
‘The following Hon'ble Judges declined to hear
the personal matters of the petitioner— (1) ... (2)
... (3) ... (4) ... (5) ...
In addition, from time-to-time, the following
Hon'ble Judges also declined to hear the
petitioner's personal matters— (6) ... (7) … (8) …
(9) … (10) ... (11) ... (12) ... (13) ... The said
refusal stemmed partly from the death of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice …'s son and the death of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice … as a result of the written
curse (‘shrap’) made by the humble petitioner;
Hon'ble Mr. Justice …'s son, too, died, and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice … has been paralysed for
life.’
(v) Further, in W.P. No. 5183 of 2005 before the High
Court, the appellant had filed a written submission,
where he had made the following statement (we have
deliberately redacted the names of the Hon’ble Judges
of this Court and that of the High Court to maintain the
decorum of these proceedings. The details are however,
available in the order impugned before us):
“ Apparently, it is the ego of the judicial office and the
accompanying powers—which can be used or
mischievously abused/misused, which is making him
ill-treat the Hon'ble Members of the Bar and to act in a
whimsical, vengeant and harassing manner towards
me, in particular. But the learned Judge overlooks the
fact that he is not the Lord Almighty and there are
Members of the Bar who are close to the real Lord
Almighty—for example, I wrote to the then Hon'ble Chief
Justice of India and therein cursed that the way justice
had been delayed, there will be delay in medical aid
and one son of Mr. Justice … shall die; his son died
within 4 days. Again, I wrote to His Lordship that Mr.
Justice … shall die—he died within 7 days. Similarly,
Mr. Justice …. died, Mr. … (retired Judge) has been
9
paralysed for life, Mr. Justice … is also suffering with
medical problems, etc. Since then at least 13 Hon'ble
Judges have declined to hear my personal matters—
including Mr. Chief Justice … ”
(vi) In CM 9695 of 2006 in WP (C) No. 9244 of 2006
before the High Court, the appellant had filed a written
submission, where he had made the following statement
(we have deliberately redacted the names of the Hon’ble
Judges of this Court and that of the High Court to
maintain the decorum of these proceedings. The details
are however, available in the order impugned before us):
“3 . That several Universal Legal
Maxims/Principles/Premises—which are followed by
all the civilised Nations, have been given a go-by in
several legal cases (including the instant case) and the
same is palpably apparent on the face of the record.
Hence, the humble Applicant hereby curses that one
son/child of each of the individuals who passed the
motivated orders shall die prematurely—and so shall it
happen soon. Bismillah!
In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that it is
on the written record of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
the applicant herein had stated in writing that one son
of the then Mr. Justice … would die—he died within 4
days, that the then Mr. Justice … would die—he, too,
died within 7 days. And the then Mr. Justice …'s son
also died, Mr. … (retired Judge) has been paralysed.
Moreover, ACM … (the individual, who had tried to
harass the humble Applicant) was not only himself
paralysed, but his daughter also committed suicide and
his son died in an air-crash. It is pertinent to mention
that blatant and motivated abuse of their powers by
certain public officials has occasioned miscarriage of
justice against the ex-servicemen/servicemen, and their
said acts are an open instigation to the ex-
servicemen/servicemen to abuse their powers, too in
any case, this is a reason enough for lowering the
morale of the Armed Forces personnel who may even
10
refuse to fight against the intruders to save the lives of
such corrupted individuals. Hence a copy of this
Application is being sent to the Supreme Commander of
the Armed Forces.”
(vii) Lastly, the High Court noted that in a matter where
the appellant was appearing before a Division Bench of
the High Court, the appellant sought an adjournment
in the matter and requested listing the matter a day
after the next day owing to an out-station matter. While
granting an adjournment, the Bench listed the matter
for the next day. The next day when the matter was
called for hearing, it was again adjourned. It is the claim
of the appellant that the same was done out of
vengeance since one of the Judges on the Bench had a
pre-existing tiff with the appellant.
Findings of the High Court:
11. While analysing the conduct of the appellant, the High Court
summarised his contemptuous acts in the following words:
“(a) Use of undesirable language as afore-noticed with an
intention to malign the Court and to lower the dignity of the
Court. The intention is obvious i.e. transferring of the cases in
which he is the petitioner himself or Counsel for the petitioner
unless you are willing to pass favourable orders only in those
cases, failing which the threats were extended to the various
Courts with dire consequences resulting from the curse written
or otherwise of the said person. This amounts to apparent
interference with the administration of justice and extending
undesirable threats to the Courts.
11
(b) Wild allegations are made in the transfer petitions filed by
the said person without getting them signed from the petitioner
concerned and in fact even without bringing it to the notice of
the client as to what application was filed, obviously with an
intention to hamper the administration of justice and making
allegations in other cases, wherein he was not a petitioner, to
browbeat the Courts and filing applications even without the
knowledge and contents of the application being known to the
petitioners in those cases.
(c) Extending threats in presence of the Court to Ms. Rekha
Palli, Advocate for the respondents of facing dire consequences
in the case filed by the petitioner. This was done in presence
of the Court and the threats extended were even overheard by
a senior member of the Bar Mr. Deepak Bhattacharya (Refer
to order dated 17th August, 2006).”
12. The High Court categorically noted that the appellant has
prima facie committed criminal contempt of court and the
magnanimity shown to him has resulted in doing acts and
omissions of graver nature, thus, treating the tolerance as
weakness of administration of justice. The High Court held
that the acts are intentional, malicious and have persisted
over a long period and are now clearly interfering with the
administration of justice and lowering the dignity of the
Court.
13. Having recounted the above-referred incidents, the High
Court through its judgment and order dated 19.10.2006
found the appellant guilty of criminal contempt and awarded
a punishment of simple imprisonment of 3 months along with
a fine of Rs. 2000, in each contempt proceeding. It is basing
12
this conviction and sentence that the appellant has filed the
instant appeal.
Proceedings before this Court:
14. While admitting the appeal, this Court by order dated
16.04.2007, granted a stay of the impugned order dated
19.10.2006. Thereafter, the record of proceedings are replete
with requests for adjournments, and finally, by order dated
01.08.2023, one of us, vacated the interim order and directed
that the case will be heard without any further adjournments.
Thus, we heard the appellant and have also permitted him to
file written submissions. The written submissions were filed.
Submissions before this Court:
15. The appellant made the following submissions: (i) notice in
one of the connected matters was issued by a Judge who is
still a member of this Court. Therefore, it is the submission
of the appellant that these matters should be heard by a
bench presided over by that particular Judge; (ii) none of the
connected matters are related to the contempt petition.
Therefore, they must be de-tagged and be heard separately;
(iii) the Court Martial proceedings which were relied upon by
13
the High Court are not relevant to the present proceedings;
(iv) the matters before the High Court, in which the appellant
was appearing as a counsel, were being adjourned without a
pass-over being granted on the first call; (v) the threat given
to the lady advocate was nothing but elderly advice; (vi) no
show cause notice in the contempt proceedings was served
on him; (vii) all the transfer petitions and the underlying
matters were transferred to one single bench without
following the rules framed by the High Court relating to
assignment of matters; (viii) the Judges who heard his case
and issued notice under the Act were biased against him; and
(ix) the appellant challenged all other proceedings initiated
against him on the ground that the authorities conducting
such proceedings were biased against him.
16. We have also heard the learned counsel for the Respondent.
It was their submission that the order impugned herein has
been rendered after a detailed consideration of the material
placed before them. It was submitted that the appellant had
appeared before the Court pursuant to service of show cause
notice under the Act, and the submission that there was no
proper service of notice is not correct. It has also been
14
contended that till date, the appellant has never apologised
for his actions. In fact, even before this Court, he has been
writing letters making reckless allegations against Judges
and the Judiciary.
Analysis:
17. At the outset, we note that the order impugned herein is a
detailed one, which considers and answers each and every
aspect of the matter . While imposing the punishment, the
High Court relied on a decision of this Court to highlight that
judicial independence ought to be protected from acts
1
maligning the reputation of judicial officers . Further, the
High Court also reiterated the finding of this Court, wherein
it was highlighted that a contemnor ought to be punished
with imprisonment for making libellous and motivated
allegations against the Court and its Judges which interfere
2
with the administration of justice . Furthermore, the High
Court highlighted the importance of protecting and upholding
the dignity of the Court and the majesty of the law as also
3
observed previously by this Court . We are in complete
1
M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana , (1991) 3 SCC 600.
2
Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P., Jabalpur , 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529.
3
Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re , (1998) 7 SCC 248.
15
agreement with the decision of the High Court on the need to
maintain the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and to
protect them from motivated, libellous and unfounded
allegations. We are also of the opinion that the High Court
was correct in not accepting the apology tendered by the
appellant since it was not bonafide and lacked in sincerity,
apart from being belated and a mere ‘lip service’.
18. The submissions made before us are also not appealing. Even
here, the appellant is trying to resort to forum shopping by
asking us to refer the matter to a judge who had issued notice
in a connected matter. The appellant has failed to see that
notice in the lead matter was issued more than a decade and
half ago. While the appellant seeks to de-tag the court martial
proceedings as if they are unconnected to the egregious act
of contempt, we note that those proceedings were not of a
client of the appellant, in fact, the appellant himself was
subjected to court martial proceedings, and he was in fact
appearing as a party-in-person. We do not see two different
lives here. The appellant contemnor is the petitioner in the
court-martial proceedings.
16
19. It is also incorrect to say that there was no service of notice
on the appellant. The appellant had in fact appeared before
the Court after issuance of notice under the Act. Making an
assertion that there was no service of the notice is factually
wrong. The appellant, while making an allegation of bias
should have supplemented it with cogent material, which he
has failed to do. This again, is an irresponsible statement.
20. With respect to the other arguments made by the appellant
before us, we are of the view that the High Court has
elaborately dealt with the same and they require no
interference or indulgence by us.
21. The appellant’s conduct before the High Court and for that
matter, even before this Court, amounts to undermining the
system of the law and interfering with the course of justice
administration. The High Court observed a pattern in the
behaviour of the appellant. He has had a habit of
misbehaving with a Bench which is not agreeing with him.
The misbehaviour goes to the extent of casting aspersions
and threatening the Judges hearing the matters.
22. We are of the opinion that the High Court correctly rejected
the apology. An apology must evidence remorse with respect
17
to the contemptuous acts and is not to be used as a weapon
4
to purge the guilty of their offence . Further, an apology
lacking in sincerity and not evidencing contriteness, cannot
5
be accepted .
23. Having considered the order impugned before us in detail and
having perused the way the appellant has conducted the
proceedings before this Court, and after giving our anxious
consideration, we are of the opinion that the finding of
conviction against the appellant warrants no interference.
However, considering the age of the appellant and taking note
of his submission that he is suffering from certain medical
ailments, we modify the sentence imposed by the High Court
from imprisonment for three months till the rising of the
court.
24. The three other connected matters being (a) M.A. 256/2017
in Contempt Petition (C) No. 64/2007, (b) SLP (Crl.) No.
9689/2018, and (c) Diary No. 44408/2018 are not related to
the present criminal appeal and, therefore, we de-tag them
and direct them to be listed for hearing separately.
4
M.Y. Shareef v. Hon’ble Judges of High Court of Nagpur , (1955) 1 SCR 757.
5
Omesh Saigal and State v. R.K. Dalmia , 1968 SCC OnLine Del 179 and L. D. Jaikwal v. State
of U.P. , (1984) 3 SCC 405.
18
25. In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No. 577/2007 arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1756 of 2007 against Final Common
Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the High
Court of Delhi in Criminal Contempt Cases Nos. 16 & 17 of
2006, is dismissed, subject to the above modification of the
sentence till the rising of the Court.
26. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
27. No order as to costs.
……..……………………………….J.
[Vikram Nath]
.………….………………………….J.
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha]
New Delhi;
January 30, 2024
19