When offence of criminal contempt of court is not made out?

It was submitted by learned senior counsel for petitioner that
there was criminal nexus between the then AAG with lawyers of the
accused, Ministers and non-State actors to undermine the
administration of justice. It was submitted that certain replies etc.
which were to be filed in court were shown to Mr. G.Swaminathan
who was completely outsider to the litigation. In our opinion merely
taking somebody’s opinion who is outsider to litigation before filing
the reply in the court would not undermine the administration of
justice in any way and is not indicative of criminal conspiracy. There
are knowledgeable incumbents who can always be consulted and their
opinion obtained. There is nothing improper in it. If some
reply/petition was to be filed in Gujarat court and the same was shown
to the said gentleman for his opinion it would not subvert the course
of justice in any manner. When certain pleading is to be filed in court
there is no legal bar on consultation with the appropriate persons of
confidence or having requisite knowledge. It was submitted by the
petitioner that certain affidavit was sent to the said person in which he
has suggested certain paragraphs to be incorporated but the learned
Solicitor General has shown actual affidavit filed in the case in which
alterations suggested by the said person were not actually inserted.
64. It was also submitted that 9 SIT reports were sent to Mr.
G.Swaminathan in 2010. These reports were submitted by SIT on
11.2.2009 in this Court and copies thereof were ordered to be handed
over to the State of Gujarat on 2.3.2009. On 6.3.2009 the reports were
made available to the counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat. They
were in turn forwarded to the State authorities. This Court has passed
an order on 1.5.2009 in National Human Rights Commission’s case
(supra) vacating the stay on commencement of trial. In the reports
which had been placed on record by petitioner only the action taken by
SIT was mentioned and the stage of investigation or need for
conducting further investigation. These reports did not contain
material/finding for or against any accused person hence no advantage
could be derived therefrom by any accused person. They did not
contain such material disclosure of which may subvert the course of
justice. No case is made out of criminal conspiracy and criminal
contempt or otherwise. It cannot be culled out how the course of
justice has been subverted by the aforesaid disclosure of SIT reports.
Thus charge of criminal contempt cannot be said to be taken home
successfully. Petitioner has not been able to substantiate that the
aforesaid actions interfered or obstructed in the administration of
justice in any manner. Petitioner was not able to establish how the
reports could be of any help to anybody so as to subvert the course of
justice or action otherwise amounts to interference with administration
of justice. The petitioner has himself obtained these SIT reports, as per
the then AAG allegedly in illegal manner whereas as per petitioner by
sharing the e-mails of the then AAG. If they were meant to be
confidential petitioner has also used them and even sent e-mail
particulars of the then AAG to media channels. Therefore the
submission advanced does not lie in his mouth. Overall exchange has
to be considered in the light of sweeping accusations against the State
and its large number of functionaries. The conduct of the then AAG in
the circumstances he was placed, has been unnecessarily adversely
commented upon, the accusation of criminal contempt is not at all
made out.
65. Merely sending some representation which was to be submitted
to the President and Prime Minister of India, and other documents to
an advocate who was a politician also would not tantamount to
criminal contempt unless and until it is shown that the information
was intended to help the accused in any manner whatsoever, it cannot
be said that sharing of information tantamount to criminal contempt.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION [CRIMINAL] NO.135 OF 2011
Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt … Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
[With W.P. (Crl.) No.204/2011]
Dated;October 13, 2015. 
ARUN MISHRA, J.

Print Page

Vilificatory Critisicm Of A Judge Functioning As A Judge Even In Purely Administative Or Non Adjudicatory Matters Amounts To Criminal Contempt

The question whether contemptuous imputations made with reference to the administrative acts of the High Court amount to contempt of court will depend upon whether the amputations affect the administration of justice. This is the basis on which the contempt is punished and must afford the necessary test. [298E]

(b)The mere functions of adjudication between the parties is not the Whole of administration of justice for any court. The presiding judge of a Court embodies in himself the Court. and when engaged in the task of administering justice is assisted by a complement of clerks and ministerial officers. The Acts in which they are engaged are acts in aid of administration of justice. Therefore, when the Chief Justice appoints ministerial officers and assumes disciplinary control over them, that is a function which through described as administrative, is really in the course of administration of justice. Judical integrated function of Judge and cannot suffer any dissection nuance of high standards of rectitude in judical administration administration is an so far as maintain concerned. The whole set up of a court is for who' purpose of administration of justice and the controlwhich the judge exercises over his assistants has also the object of maintaining the purity of administration of justice1

The appellant in his submission, bona fide believed that he had a right to appeal and, in pursuance of the right he thus claimed he had given expression to his grievance or had otherwise acted, not with a view to malign the court or in defiance of it, but with the sole object of obtaining the reversal of the orders passed by the High Court against him. In the second place, Mr. Sen contended, the passages about which the complaint was made did not amount to contempt of court since they did not purport to criticize any judicial' acts of the judges sitting in the seat of justice. It may be that in some places disrespectful references have been made to the Judges which Mr. Sen assures us, he should have, never done. At the same time, in his submission, criticism of administrative acts of the High Court even in vilification terms did not amount to contempt of court. So far as the first part of the argument is concerned, the same must be dismissed as unsubstantial because if, in fact the language used amounts to contempt. of court it will become punishable as criminal contempt. The right of appeal does not give the right to commit contempt of court, nor can it be used as a cover to bring the authority of the High Court into disrespect and disregard.

Supreme Court of India

Baradakanta Mishra vs The Registrar Of Orissa High Court ... on 19 November, 1973

Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 710, 1974 SCR (2) 282

Bench: Palekar, D.G.

BENCH:

PALEKAR, D.G.

RAY, A.N. (CJ)

CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.

BHAGWATI, P.N.

KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

Print Page