1995 (3) TMI 467 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take cognizance of contempt of High Courts.
2. Allegations of misconduct by the contemner.
3. Examination of the contemner's defense and request for an inquiry.
4. Determination of guilt and appropriate punishment.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take cognizance of contempt of High Courts:
The Supreme Court addressed the preliminary objection that it cannot take cognizance of contempt of High Courts. The Court clarified that it has the inherent power u/s Article 129 of the Constitution to punish for contempt not only of itself but also of lower courts. This power is independent of Article 129 and is necessary for maintaining the purity of justice. The Court referred to its decision in *All India Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat* to support this view.

2. Allegations of misconduct by the contemner:
Justice S.K. Keshote reported that the contemner, a senior advocate, misbehaved in court by shouting, threatening to get the judge transferred or impeached, and creating a scene. The contemner denied these allegations, claiming that the judge lost his temper and made inappropriate remarks. The contemner also alleged that the judge's behavior amounted to contempt of his own court u/s 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. Examination of the contemner's defense and request for an inquiry:
The contemner requested an inquiry into the allegations and the opportunity to cross-examine the judge. The Court held that for contempt in the face of the court, the procedure is summary and does not require the examination of the judge. The Court provided the contemner with ample opportunity to file affidavits and present his defense, which he did not adequately utilize.

4. Determination of guilt and appropriate punishment:
The Court found the contemner guilty of criminal contempt u/s 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for attempting to overawe and disrespect the court. The Court rejected the contemner's unconditional apology, finding it insincere and an attempt to justify his conduct. The Court emphasized that the dignity and authority of the judiciary must be protected to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

Punishment:
The contemner was sentenced to six weeks of simple imprisonment, suspended for four years, and suspended from practicing as an advocate for three years. All elective and nominated offices held by him as an advocate were vacated. The Court invoked its power u/s Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution to impose this punishment.