[Contempt law] Calcutta High Court implemented the guidelines of appropriate title in Suo motu contempt case and registry changed the title of the case related with Adv. Bijoy Adhikari.
[Contempt
law] Calcutta High Court implemented the guidelines of appropriate title in Suo motu
contempt case and registry changed the title of the case related with Adv.
Bijoy Adhikari.
In
the order dated 01.10.2020, the title is changed as Re: Bijay Adhikari, however earlier it
was Court on its own motion Vs. Bijay Adhikari.
Supreme court judgment makes it clear that tendering apology in contempt does not amount to confession of guilt of the alleged Contemnor. Which is beneficial for the advocates facing wrong interpretation by some Judges not having proper knowledge of law.
Mumbai:
The rule regarding the effect of tendering of an apology by the Alleged contemnor came for
discussion after the discharge of the lawyer in the case of Adv. Bijoy Adhikari by the Calcutta
High Court, where the High Court accepted the apology of the advocate and
discharged him.
Full
bench of the Supreme Court in the case of H.P.
Singh vs Thakur Prasad Tewari And Anr. AIR 1953 SC 436, had ruled that the apology must
not be taken to be a confession of guilt when apology is given for a specific
act which was not the charge mentioned against him. It was ruled as under;
" The appellant did tender an apology, but that apology must not be taken to be a confession of guilt, especially as it was made in connection with the delay which had occurred in his office. As the rule against the appellant has been discharged by the High Court, we think that his purpose in bringing up the matter to this Court would be served by our pronouncement that in law he is not guilty of contempt."
Here
the apology given by Adv. Bijoy Adhikari was regarding his asking Justice
Dipankar Dutta to observe social distancing in the court hall.
The version of the lawyer Mr. Bijoy Adhikari
which is accepted by the Division Bench reads thus;
“ ..That being the respectable member of the Bar and having long 41
years of standing, I am having highest respect for this Hon’ble Court. On
23.03.2020 there were some misunderstandings on unfortunate circumstances in
the overcrowded court room of Dipankar Dutta J. and I mentioned that
being a sick and weak senior member of the Bar alarming level of inaction had
been experienced in his over crowded court room regarding social distancing. I
tender therefore my unconditional apology before this Hon’ble Court
and the contempt proceeding may kindly be dropped.”
The above version is
against the version set out by Single Judge Dipankar Dutta in his order
dated 23.03.2020. The said order reads thus;
“ While I was dictating the aforesaid order as to whether the writ petition involves such degree of urgency that it has to be taken up for consideration at this stage, Mr. Adhikary obstructed the course of administration of justice by not only interfering repeatedly in the course of dictation but also first thumped the addressing table and then banged the microphone on it, more than once. Mr. Adhikary was warned to behave but instead of heeding to such warning, he was heard to say that my future shall be doomed by him and for such purpose he cursed that I be infected by the Corona virus. Mr. Adhikary was curtly told that neither do I fear dooming of my future nor being infected by the virus; the majesty of the Court is what is paramount in my mind and to uphold that a rule for contempt could be issued against him. Mr. Adhikary seemed not to care and was found to be unrelenting in shouting at the top of his voice, not behoving a member of the noble profession and thereby undermining the dignity and prestige of this Court. It is indeed with difficulty that dictation of this order could be completed. ”
Calcutta High Court accepted the
objection about wrong title:
Adv.
Nilesh Ojha while appearing for Bijoy Adhikari
took the objection for wrong title by the registry and requested for correcting
it as Re: Bijoy Adhikari.
Said
changes are done in the order dated 01.102020.
The
issue regarding title of the case and parties to the proceedings in Contempt is
already decided in the case of in P.N.Duda’s case (1988) 3 SCC 167.
“ the form of a criminal miscellaneous petition styling the informant as the petitioner and certain other persons as respondents is inappropriate for merely lodging the relevant information before the Court under rule 3(a). It would seem that the proper title of such a proceeding should be " In re .. (the alleged contemner)" (see: Kar v. Chief Justice, [1962] 1 SCR 320 though that decision related to an appeal from an order of conviction for contempt by the High Court). ”
Constitution
Bench in the case Supreme Court Bar
Association Vs.Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 it is read as under;
“……. As already noticed in a case of contempt of court, the contemner and the court cannot be said to be litigating parties. ”
Full Bench in Bal Thackeray case (2005) 1
SCC 254, had directed to all High Courts to follow the procedure laid down
in P.N. Duda’s case.
“it is necessary to direct framing of necessary rule or practice direction by the High Courts in terms of Duda's case. Accordingly, we direct Registrar-General to send a copy of this judgment to the Registrar-Generals of the High Courts so that wherever rule and/or practice direction on the line suggested in Duda's case has not been framed, the High Courts may now frame the same at their earliest convenience.”
But then also many High Courts are not using the proper title. The most variations an uninformity can be seen from the Bombay High Court’s registry. I have seen different titles for different contempt proceedings. In one suo moto case by Division bench heard by then Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice B.P.Colabawalla the title in SMCNL/1577/2014 is ‘High Court of Bombay Vs. Sanjay Punamiya’ In another suo motu case initiated by Justice(retd) Roshan Dalvi in the case of SCN no. 787 of 2014 the title is Sheikhah Fadiyah (Plaintiff) Vs. Sanjay Punamiya and others.(Defendants). In 2018 SCC OnLine 3162, the title is Bombay High Court on its Own motion Vs. Ketan Tirodkar. In one case the title is SUO- MOTTO (Court on its own motion) -V/s- Nilesh C. Ojha.
In Gujrat High court in the
case of Yatin Oza the title is Suo Motu Vs. Yatin Oza.
The next important
question is the term to be used for opposite party.
Actually the opposite
party should be Respondent or Alleged Contemnor. Full Bench of Bombay High
Court in
2018 SCC OnLine 3162,
clarified this aspect.
“Though we have
proceeded to issue a suo-motu notice in contempt, we refrained from terming
the respondent as contemnor either during the course of these proceedings
or in this judgment. We have not stooped to the level to which the respondent
has and we would never do so.”
But
then also in a case handled by Justice A.A.Sayyed the opposite party were termed
as contemnors.
In Rabindra Nath Singh –Vs- Pappu Yadav case (2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 165 Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the High Court committed contempt of Court in not following
the guidelines of Supreme Court in the concerned matter.
Seven Judge Bench in the case Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1 has sentenced the High Court
Judge. It was ruled that any citizen can
file contempt petition against the High Court Judge.
In
Badrakanta
Mishra (1973) 1 SCC 446, it
is ruled as under;
‘‘15. The
conduct of the appellant (Judicial officer) in not following the previous, decision of the High Court
is calculated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will
undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the
constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore
comprehended by the principles underlying the law of Contempt.
The analogy of the inferior court's disobedience to the specific order
of a superior court also suggests that his
conduct falls within the purview of the law of Contempt. Just as the disobedience to a
specific order of the Court
undermines the authority and dignity of the
court in a particular case, similarly the
deliberate and malafide conduct of not following the law laid down in the
previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the
High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an
individual case and on a limited number of persons,
the latter conduct
has a much wider and more
disastrous impact. It is calculated
not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High
Court, generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of Law 'and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the
administration of law.’’
In Legrand Pvt. Ltd . 2007 (6) Mh.L.J.146, it
is ruled as under;
‘‘9(c). If in spite of the
earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been pointed out and
attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position, in utter disregard of
that position, proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a wilful
disregard of the law laid down by the High Court and would amount to civil
contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.’’
Order Copy 01.10.2020 : Download Now
Order Copy 21.09.2020 : Download Now
Comments
Post a Comment