It
ought to be a matter of equal pride to the Bar. It is unquestionably
true that courtesy breeds courtesy and just as charity has to begin at
home, courtesy must begin with the Judge. A discourteous Judge is like
an ill-tuned instrument in the setting of a court room. But members of
the Bar will do well to remember that such flagrant violations of
professional ethics and cultured conduct will only result in the
ultimate destruction of a system without which no democracy can
survive." In Mahabir Prasad Singh v. M/s. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.[2],
this Court has observed that judicial function cannot and should not be
permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology
whether it is by litigants or by counsel. In the said case the two
learned Judges, after referring to a three-Judge Bench decision in Lt.
Col. S.J. Chaudharyv. State (Delhi Administration)[3], has opined thus: -
"It
was further reminded that "having accepted the brief, he will be
committing a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to attend".
"A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract from the
dignity of the Court, of which he is himself a sworn officer and
assistant. He should at all times pay deferential respect to the Judge,
and scrupulously observe the decorum of the Court room." (Warevelle's
Legal Ethics at p. 182) Of course, it is not a unilateral affair. There
is a reciprocal duty for the Court also to be courteous to the members
of the Bar and to make every endeavour for maintaining and protecting
the respect which members of the Bar are entitled to have from their
clients as well as from the litigant public. Both the Bench and the Bar
are the two inextricable wings of the judicial forum and therefore the
aforesaid mutual respect is sine qua non for the efficient functioning
of the solemn work carried on in Courts of law. But that does not mean
that any advocate or group of them can boycott the courts or any
particular Court and ask the Court to desist from discharging judicial
functions.
Arun Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. through District Judge
[Criminal Appeal No. 1430 of 2010]
Dated 29 May 2013
This
appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the judgment and
order dated 17.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabadin Criminal Contempt No. 13 of 2006, by way of which the High
Court has convicted the appellant for committing the contempt of court
under Section12 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default,
to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two weeks. On
5.9.2005 the appellant moved an application to surrender ChhandraPal @
Badara s/o Shri Mathura under various sections of the Indian Penal Code
in pursuance of the order passed under Section 82 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") by the learned Judicial
Magistrate.
As
the offences mentioned in the application and the process issued under
Section 82 of the Code were different, the court asked are port from the
police station concerned fixing the next date for disposal. About 3.45
p.m., when the Presiding Officer of the Court was in the midst of
dictation of the order to his stenographer in another case, i.e.,
Original Suit No. 200/90 titled Balraj V. Rangpal, the appellant came
inside the Court and shouted loudly uttering as under: - "As to why you
did not take my accused in judicial custody. You have passed arbitrary
orders. Now, my accused would be arrested and he would be encountered.
You have done injustice. I will see you. If you have your official force
I am also having my own force." Apart from the aforesaid loud
threatening utterances the appellant had also used unparliamentarily
language for the said Judicial Officer.
The
Judicial Officer sent a complaint to the High Court against the
appellant through proper channel, the cognizance of which was taken by
the High Court, first on administrative side and, thereafter, on
judicial side. After hearing the parties, the High Court framed the
charges against the contemnor on 6.10.2006 in respect of this incident
dated 5.9.2005 at Khaga Court, District Fatehpur, using abusive language
to Abdul Qayum, learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division/Judicial
Magistrate, Khaga, District Fatehpur) and interrupted him from working
and shouting loudly while he was dictating the order to his stenographer
in other case. To the said charge-sheet, the appellant filed the
counter affidavit dated 20.7.2006 denying all the allegations made in
the report of the Presiding Officer. However, at a later stage by filing
an affidavit dated 14.11.2006 he tendered unconditional apology to the
court.
The
matter was heard at length. The High Court discussed the entire facts
and law and came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case wherein
unconditional apology tendered by the appellant should be accepted and,
thus, considering the gravity of the charge against him, he had been
convicted and sentenced as referred to herein above. We have heard Mr.
T.N. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in detail, who
has argued all the legal and factual aspects before us. However, we can
express our anxiety and displeasure only on the issue that we fail to
understand how the High Court could afford to take such a lenient view
sentencing the appellant for one month's simple imprisonment only. It
has been reiterated by this Court time and again that the Bar and the
Bench are required to maintain the decorum of the Court, for Court is
the temple of justice for all.
No
one has the authority to conduct in a manner which would demean and
disgrace the majesty of justice which is dispensed by a court of law.
The administration of justice is the paramount role of the court and
both Bar and the Bench have an equal role in performance of the said
sacrosanct duty. In this context, we may refer with profit to the
pronouncement in R.K. Garg, Advocate v. State of Himachal Pradesh[1],
wherein the Court has observed thus:- "The Bar and the Bench are an
integral part of the same mechanism which administers justice to the
people. Many members of the Bench are drawn from the Bar and their past
association is a source of inspiration and pride to them.
It
ought to be a matter of equal pride to the Bar. It is unquestionably
true that courtesy breeds courtesy and just as charity has to begin at
home, courtesy must begin with the Judge. A discourteous Judge is like
an ill-tuned instrument in the setting of a court room. But members of
the Bar will do well to remember that such flagrant violations of
professional ethics and cultured conduct will only result in the
ultimate destruction of a system without which no democracy can
survive." In Mahabir Prasad Singh v. M/s. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.[2],
this Court has observed that judicial function cannot and should not be
permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology
whether it is by litigants or by counsel. In the said case the two
learned Judges, after referring to a three-Judge Bench decision in Lt.
Col. S.J. Chaudharyv. State (Delhi Administration)[3], has opined thus: -
"It
was further reminded that "having accepted the brief, he will be
committing a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to attend".
"A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract from the
dignity of the Court, of which he is himself a sworn officer and
assistant. He should at all times pay deferential respect to the Judge,
and scrupulously observe the decorum of the Court room." (Warevelle's
Legal Ethics at p. 182) Of course, it is not a unilateral affair. There
is a reciprocal duty for the Court also to be courteous to the members
of the Bar and to make every endeavour for maintaining and protecting
the respect which members of the Bar are entitled to have from their
clients as well as from the litigant public. Both the Bench and the Bar
are the two inextricable wings of the judicial forum and therefore the
aforesaid mutual respect is sine qua non for the efficient functioning
of the solemn work carried on in Courts of law. But that does not mean
that any advocate or group of them can boycott the courts or any
particular Court and ask the Court to desist from discharging judicial
functions.
At
any rate, no advocate can ask the Court to avoid a case on the ground
that he does not want to appear in that Court." In Re: Sanjiv Datta,
Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi,
Kailash Vasdev, Advocate and Kitty Kumaramanglam(Smt.), Advocate[4]
certain observations were made, though in different context, yet we
think it apt to reproduce the same:- "The legal profession is a solemn
and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong
to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession
can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical
competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its
members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court.
The
legal profession is different from other professions in that what the
lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of
justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a
leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible
citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both
in his professional and in his private and public life. The society has a
right to expect of him such ideal behaviour." In M.B. Sanghi v. High
Court of Punjab and Haryana[5], it has been opined that "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 Judge concerned but also to the fair
name of the judiciary." From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is
clear as noon day that the judicial proceeding has its own solemnity and
sanctity. No one has any authority to sully the same. It is the
obligation of everyone to behave with propriety when a judicial
proceeding is conducted. Any kind of deviancy not only affects the
system but corrodes the faith of the collective at large. Neither any
counsel nor a litigant can afford to behave in this manner. This being
the position, it is really shocking that a counsel who was in his mid
fiftees could afford to behave like that.
Hence,
we have expressed our displeasure. The learned counsel for the
appellant has endeavoured had to impressus that when the appellant had
offered unconditional apology, the same should have been accepted. In
L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P.[6] it has been observed as follows: - "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
[pic]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 the 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 fall 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.
" In
the case at hand, we are absolutely convinced that apology or for that
matter the unconditional apology was neither prompt nor genuine. The
concept of mercy and compassion is ordinarily attracted keeping in view
the infirmities of man's nature and the fragile conduct but in a court
of law a counsel cannot always take shelter under the canopy of mercy,
for the law has to reign supreme. The sanctity of law which is sustained
through dignity of courts cannot be marred by errant behaviour by any
counsel or litigant. Even a Judge is required to maintain the decorum
and dignity of the court. In view of the above, we do not find any force
in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is
directed to surrender and deposit the fine within a period of thirty
days from today, failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur,
shall ensure to give effect to the judgment and order passed by the High
Court.
...................................................J. [Dr. B. S. Chauhan]
...................................................J. [Dipak Misra]
New Delhi;
May 29, 2013
[1] (1981) 3 SCC 166
[2] AIR 1999 SC 287
[3] AIR 1984 SC 618
[4] 1995 (3) SCC 619
[5] (1991) 3 SCC 600
[6] (1984) 3 SCC 405
No comments:
Post a Comment