Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Appellant-practising advocate and former army personnel threatened lady counsel appearing for the opposite side after seeking adjournment in the matter, repeatedly disobeyed orders, repeatedly failed to appear before the court despite attempts made to secure his presence and casted aspersions and threatened the Judges hearing the matters – Suo motu contempt jurisdiction exercised by the High Court – Appellant held 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 – Interference with:
Held: Appellant’s conduct before the High Court and even before this Court, amounts to undermining the system of the law and interfering with the course of justice administration – 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 – Misbehaviour goes to the extent of casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters – High Court rightly held that there is need to maintain the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and to protect them from motivated, libellous and unfounded allegations which interfere with the administration of justice – Also, the High Court rightly rejected the apology tendered by the appellant since it was not bonafide and lacked in sincerity, apart from being belated and a mere ‘lip service’ – Furthermore, the appellant was trying to resort to forum shopping by asking this Court to refer the matter to a judge who had issued notice in a connected matter – Appellant failed to see that notice in the lead matter was issued more than a decade and half ago – In view thereof, the finding of conviction against the appellant warrants no interference – However, considering his age and his medical ailments, the sentence imposed is modified from imprisonment for three months till the rising of the court. [Paras 17-18, 21, 22, 23] Judicial independence – Protection of:
Held: Judicial independence ought to be protected from acts maligning the reputation of judicial officers – There is need to maintain the dignity of the Court and majesty of law. [Para 17] Contempt of court – Apology tendered, when can be accepted: Held: Apology must evidence remorse with respect to the contemptuous acts and is not to be used as a weapon to purge the guilty of their offence – An apology lacking in sincerity and not evidencing contriteness, cannot be accepted. [Para 22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.