Full Judgment Text
$~02.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS.(CRL) 1/2016
th
% Judgment dated 14 March, 2016
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Vivek Sood, Senior Advocate, Amicus
Curiae , with Mr.Siddharth Gupta,
Advocate.
versus
MOHAN NAIR ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Atul T.N. and Mr.Harsh Raghuvanshi,
Adv. for the respondent along with
respondent.
Mr.Amrit Singh and Mr.Aditya Swarup
Aggarwal, Advs. for Mr.Rahul Mehra,
Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J ( ORAL )
1. Present contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondent
pursuant to the reference dated 14.12.2015 received from the Additional
District & Session Judge, Labour Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts,
Shahdara, Delhi, whereby it was alleged that the respondent, Mr.Mohan
Nair, Authorised Representative of the Workmen, who appeared before
the Court on 11.12.2015, had misbehaved in the Court and showed utmost
disrespect to the Court.
2. While issuing notice in these contempt proceedings on 5.2.2016, the
respondent was directed to remain present in Court. On the next date of
hearing i.e. 4.3.2016, the respondent was present in Court along with his
CONT.CAS(C)No. 1/2016 Page 1 of 6
counsel. On 4.3.2016 the respondent had tendered an unconditional
apology to the Court. The respondent was directed to tender an
unconditional apology on an affidavit.
3. Today, the respondent is present in Court and he is also being represented
through his counsel. Affidavit in terms of the order dated 4.3.2016 has
been filed by the respondent explaining his conduct in the Court on
11.12.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has been representing
the workmen in the Labour Court for the past many years and the
respondent herein, who is the Authorised Representative of the workmen,
has a clear and unblemished record. Counsel further submits that the
respondent has always shown utmost respect and regard to the Court and
has also acted in the best interest of the institution, which is also apparent
from the conduct of the respondent as after the notice was issued in these
proceedings, he on the very first date of hearing tendered an unqualified
apology to the Court and, thus, the apology tendered should be accepted.
5. Respondent submits and undertakes to the Court that in future he will
ensure that while appearing in the Courts or otherwise he would not
behave in any manner, which would lower the dignity of the Court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent, the respondent and
Mr.Vivek Sood, learned Senior Counsel, who has been appointed as an
Amicus Curiae by this Court vide order dated 5.2.2016, and also perused
the affidavit filed by the respondent.
7. The law with regard to acceptance of unqualified apology is well settled.
8. It is well settled that an apology tendered must be sincere, unconditional
and bona fide and the Court has power to reject an apology which is not
satisfactory or is an afterthought and simply intended to avoid
punishment.
CONT.CAS(C)No. 1/2016 Page 2 of 6
9. In the case of M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab and
Haryana & Ors., reported at (1991) 3 SCC 600, it was held as under:
“2......The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers
by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever
on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when
a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a
view to browbeating the judge into submission, it is all the more
painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which
would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system,
the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned
judge but also to be fair name of the judiciary. Veiled threats,
abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language and at times
blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often
designedly employed with a view to taming a judge into submission
to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issues touching
the independence of not only the concerned judge but the entire
institution. The foundation of our system which is based on the
independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if
disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the
Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. It is high time that we
realise that the much cherished judicial independence has to be
protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also
from those who are an integral part of the system. An independent
judiciary is of vital importance to any free society. Judicial
independence was not achieved overnight. Since we have inherited
this concept from the British, it would not be out of place to
mention the struggle strong- willed judges like Sir Edward Coke,
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and many others had to put up
with the Crown as well as the Parliament at considerable personal
risk. And when a member of the profession like the appellant who
should know better so lightly trifles with the much endeared
concept of judicial independence to secure small gains it only
betrays a lack of respect for the martyrs of judicial independence
and for the institution itself. Their sacrifice would go waste if we
are not jealous to protect the fair name of the judiciary from
unwarranted attacks on its independence. And here is a member of
the profession who has repeated his performance presumable
because he was let off lightly on the first occasion. Soft-justice is
not the answer--not that the High Court has been harsh with him-
what I mean is he cannot be let off on an apology which is far from
CONT.CAS(C)No. 1/2016 Page 3 of 6
sincere His apology was follow, there was no remorse--no regret--
it was only a device to escape the rigour of the law. What he said in
his affidavit was that he had not uttered the words attributed to him
by the learned Judge; in other words the learned judge was lying--
adding insult to injury--and yet if the court finds him guilty (he
contested the matter tooth and nail) his unqualified apology may be
accepted. This is no apology, it is merely a device to escape. The
High Court rightly did not accept it. That is what this Court had
done in a similar situation in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., [1984]
3 SCC 405. This Court described it as a 'paper apology and refused
to accept it in the following words:
"We do not think that merely because the appellant has
tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and
allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person
wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest
imputations against him has to do, is to go ahead and
scandalize him, and later on tender a formal empty apology
which costs him practically nothing. If such an apology were
to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would
in fact be virtually issuing a 'licence' to scandalize courts
and commit contempt of court with impunity. It will be rather
difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care for their
self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay
such a price for it. And no sitting judge will feel free to
decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on
account of fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an
advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if
the Judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were to be
countenanced, advocates who can cow down the Judges, and
make them fail in line with their wishes, by threats of
character assassination and persecution, will be preferred by
the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional
ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of courts."
10. In the case of Court On Its Own Motion v. Gulshan Bajwa , 141 (2007)
DLT 111 , a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:
“18. The law of contempt is primarily intended to maintain the
dignity of the Court and to ensure that there is no undesirable
interference with the administration of justice, particularly, where
CONT.CAS(C)No. 1/2016 Page 4 of 6
the offending acts are so grave that they directly interfere with the
administration of justice and scandalize the Courts or the Judges.
This special jurisdiction has to be invoked, more so, when the
offending acts are intentional and are motivated. An attempt to
earn small gains by a contemnor at the cost of hurting the system of
administration of justice would necessarily require to be
deprecated at the very initial stage.”
11. In the case of M.Y. Shareef and Another v. Hon’ble Judges of the
Nagpur High Court and Others, reported at AIR 1955 SC 19 , it was held
as under:
“10. The proposition is well settled and self-evident that there
cannot be both justification and an apology. The two things are
incompatible. Again an apology is not a weapon of defence to
purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a
universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real
contriteness.......”
(Emphasis added)”
12. It is settled law that the apology tendered must be sincere and
unconditional and must be made at the earliest opportunity available. The
apology should not be a mere expression of regret and till the Court is
satisfied that the apology is genuine and prompt and not a device on the
part of the contemnor to escape punishment.
13. Having regard to the submissions made, taking into consideration the
apology tendered by the respondent by way of the affidavit dated
8.3.2016, the fact that the apology was tendered by the respondent at the
very first opportunity available and the undertaking given to Court today,
we are of the view that the apology tendered is sincere and remorseful and
the same is not an empty formality. Accordingly, the unconditional
apology tendered by the respondent is accepted. Notice of contempt is
discharged.
CONT.CAS(C)No. 1/2016 Page 5 of 6
14. Contempt petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MARCH 14, 2016
msr
CONT.CAS(C)No. 1/2016 Page 6 of 6