Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
DR. L.P. MISRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/08/1998
BENCH:
M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This batch of criminal appeals arise out of an order
dated July 15, 1994 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2058 (c) of
1994 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow, holding the appellants
guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act and awarding a
sentence to each one of them of imprisonment for one month
and a find of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to
undergo further imprisonment for fifteen days.
2. We do not deem it necessary at this stage to set out in
detail the allegations which led to the present proceedings.
Suffice it to refer to the relevant recitals in the impugned
order relating to the present action.
3. On 15th July, 1994, the Division Bench comprising of
Mr. Justice B.M.Lal and Mr. Justice A.P.Singh commenced its
proceeding and in fact some of the cases listed before it
were heard. While hearing Writ Petition No. of 1994
(Deoki Nandan Agarwal Vs. Commissioner, Faizabad Division
and others), Dr. L.P. Misra, Advocate-appellant in Carl.
Appeal No. 483 of 1994 along with his associates entered in
the court room raising slogans and asking the Court to rise
and stop functioning. The Court, however, continued to
function whereupon Dr. L.P. Misra along with Shri A.K.
Bajpaie, Shri Anand Mohan Srivastava, Shri Y.C. Pandey and
Shri Shamim Ahmad (appellants in connected appeals) came on
the dias and tried to manhandle and in that process Dr. L.P.
Misra caught hold of Justice A.P. Singh forcing the court to
rise and then used abusive language against Justice B.M. Lal
in the following words :-
"TUM SHALE UTTH JAAO NAHIEN TO JAAN
SE MAAR DAALENGE. TUMNE CHIEF
JUSTICE SE KAHA HAI KI LUCKNOW KE
JUDGES 5000/- RUPYA LEKAR STAY
GRANT KARTE HAI AUR STAY EXTEND
KARTE HAIN AAJ 2 BAJE TAK AGAR TUM
APNA BORIYA BISTAR LEKAR YAHAN SE
NAHIEN BHAG JAATE HO TO TUMHE JAAN
SE MAAR DALENGE."
In view of an alarming and threatening situation, the
Court was forced to retire and consequently both the Hon’ble
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
Judges retired to the chamber of Justice B.M. Lal. Dr. L.P.
Misra then entered the chamber and repeated the same
uncivilised language and extended the same threat. It was
because of intervention Of Shri J.N. Bhalla, Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel, State of U.P and some members of the staff
of the Court who persuaded Dr. L.P. Misra and others to
leave the chamber. After some time, the court reassembled
and took a serious note of contemptuous conduct on the part
of the appellants and in exercise of it’s power under
Article 215 of the Constitution of India passed the
following order :-
"This clearly amounts to grossest
contempt of the Court, interference
in the administration of justice
and insult to the court as it
scandalises the court and lowers
the authority of the Court.
Therefore, in our considered
opinion, Dr. L.P. Misra, Sri A.K.
Bajpaie, Sri Anand Mohan
Srivastava, Sri Y.C. Pandey and Sri
Shamim Ahmad, Advocates, are
exfacie guilty of contempt of court
and accordingly in exercise of
powers conferred by Article 215 of
the Constitution of India, this
Court hereby sentence aforesaid
advocates, namely (1) Dr. L.P.
Misra , Advocate, (2) Sri A.K.
Bajpaie, Advocate, (3) Sri Anand
Mohan Srivastava, Advocate and (4)
Sri Shamim Ahmad, Advocate with
imprisonment for one month and fine
of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one
thousand) each and in default of
payment of fine they shall undergo
further imprisonment for 15 days."
The court further directed the Addl. Registrar of the
said court to take steps forthwith for execution of this
order.
4. It is against this order dated 15th July, 1994 passed
by the High Court, that the appellants have filed these
Criminal Appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
5. At the outset, we make it clear that the above recitals
are taken from the impugned order which are denied by the
appellants. In the view which we are inclined to take at
this stage, we have refrained ourselves from going into the
merits of the case.
6. Mr. Dwivedi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 483 of 1994 assailed the
impugned order principally on the ground that the court
while passing the said order did not follow the procedure
prescribed by law. Counsel urged that the court had failed
to give a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being
heard. Assuming that the incident as recited in the impugned
order had taken place, the court could not have passed the
impugned order on the same day after it reassembled without
issuing a show cause notice or giving an opportunity to t he
appellants to explain the alleged contemptuous conduct. The
minimal requirement of following the procedure prescribed by
law had been over looked by the Court. In support of his
submission, Counsel drew our attention to Section 14 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as also to the provisions
contained in Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
Rules, 1952. Emphasis was laid on Rule 7 and 8 which read as
under :-
"7. When it is alleged or appears
to t he Court upon its own view
that a person has been guilty of
contempt committed in its presence
or hearing, the Court may cause
such person to be detained in
custody, and at any time before the
rising of the Court, on the same
day or as early as possible
thereafter, shall-
(a) cause him to be informed in
writing of the contempt with which
he is charged, and if such person
pleads guilty to the charge, his
plea shall be recorded and the
Court may in its discretion,
convict him thereon,
(b) if such person refuses to
plead, or does not plead, or claims
to be tried or the Court does not
convict him, on his plea of guilt,
afford him an opportunity to make
his defence to the charge, in
support of which he may file an
affidavit on the date fiked for his
appearance or on such other date as
may be fiked by the court in that
behalf.
(c) after taking such evidence as
may be necessary or as may be
offered by such person and after
hearing him, proceed either
forthwith or after the adjournment,
to determine the matter of the
charge, and
(d) make such order for punishment
of discharge of such person as may
be just.
8. Notwithstanding anything
contained in Rule 7, where a person
charged with contempt under the
rule applies, whether orally or in
writing to have the charge against
him tried by some Judge other than
the Judge or Judges in whose
presence or hearing the offence is
alleged to have been committed, and
the court if of opinion that it is
practicable to do so and that in
the interests of proper
administration of justice the
application should be allowed, it
shall cause the matter to be placed
together with a statement of the
facts of the case, before the Chief
Justice for such directions as he
may think fit to issue as respects
the trial thereof."
Counsel urged that the impugned order is totally
opposed to the principles of natural justice and, therefore,
unsustainable on this score alone. He, therefore, urged that
the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the other appellants
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
adopted the same arguments.
8. We heard Learned Solicitor General who was requested to
appear and assist the Court.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after
going the rough the materials placed on record, we are of
the opinion that the Court while passing the impugned order
had not followed the procedure prescribed by law. It is true
that the High Court can invoke powers and jurisdiction
vested in it under Article 215 of the Constitution of India
but such a jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance
with the procedure prescribed by law. It is in these
circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
10. The next question that needs to be considered by us is
as to what proper order could be passed in the circumstances
of this case.
11. The incident in question had taken place at Lucknow
Bench of the Allahabad High Court. With a view to avoid
embarrassment to the parties and since both the learned
Judges ceased to be the Judges of the Allahabad High Court,
it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the
contempt proceedings to the principal seat of the High Court
at Allahabad. The learned Chief Justice of the Allahabad
High Court is requested to nominate the Bench to hear and
dispose of the above contempt proceedings. It is needless to
state that the procedure prescribed under Chapter XXXV-E of
the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 will be followed. We
also request the High Court to dispose of t he case as early
as possible and preferably within six months form the date
of receipt of the copy of this order.
12. For the foregoing conclusions, the Criminal Appeal No.
483 of 1994 and other connected criminal appeals filed by
the contemners are partly allowed. The impugned order dated
15th July, 1994 passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 2058 (C) of 1994 is set aside and the proceedings
are remitted to the principal seat of the Allahabad High
Court, Allahabad. The Registry is directed to send the copy
of this order to the learned Chief Justice of Allahabad High
Court for appropriate action. All the criminal appeals to
stand disposed of accordingly.