2014 (6) TMI 378 - HC - Income Tax

Show cause notice for contempt of court Notice against CA practicing in ITAT Whether on the basis of reference made by only one member of the Division Bench of ITAT, proceedings for criminal contempt can be initiated under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act and whether any case for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the opposite parties is made out - Held that - Proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi-criminal in nature - no action under the Act can be taken unless a clear case of criminal contempt is made out - at the cost of repetition we may state that the circumstances under which the contents of the representation dated 28.08.2012 were read by the opposite party are not difficult to understand - the language applied by the opposite party No.1 in his representation cannot be approved of - the grievance raised in the representation was in respect of a particular member of the ITAT not following the judicial precedence and thus not adhering to the accepted norms and principles of judicial discipline, the acts of opposite parties complained against in the reference would not constitute criminal contempt in its strict sense - notices issued against the opposite parties are liable to be discharged. The lawyers and other representatives of the litigants in the subordinate courts and Tribunals are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which protects the dignity and decorum of the judicial proceedings - the opposite party No.1 in his representation dated 28.08.2012 is not worthy of approval - It is the duty of lawyers to protect the dignity and decorum of the judiciary - If lawyers fail in their duty, the faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a large extent - lawyers are the custodians of civilization - Lawyers have to discharge their duty with dignity, decorum and discipline.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the reference made by only one member of the ITAT Division Bench can initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Whether the actions of the opposite parties constituted criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reference by One Member of ITAT Division Bench:
The court examined whether criminal contempt proceedings could be initiated based on a reference made by only one member of the ITAT Division Bench. The reference was made by the Judicial Member, Sunil Kumar Yadav, without the concurrence of the Accountant Member, B.R. Jain. The court noted that the ITAT Bench comprises two members, and thus, the reference could not be considered a reference by a "subordinate court" as per Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the court stated that it could take suo-motu cognizance of the issue based on the information provided in the reference, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in S.K. Sarkar Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow vs Vinay Chandra Mishra, which allows the High Court to take cognizance of contempt on its own motion.

2. Actions Constituting Criminal Contempt:
The court analyzed whether the actions of the opposite parties amounted to criminal contempt. The allegations involved reading out scandalous and scurrilous content from an adjournment application and a representation in open court, which allegedly scandalized the ITAT and interfered with judicial proceedings. The court noted that criminal contempt under Section 2(c) involves acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the court, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice.

The court found that the representation dated 28.08.2012, made by opposite party No.1 (S.K. Garg), contained complaints against the Judicial Member, S.K. Yadav, and was intended to be confidential. It was alleged that the contents were read in open court by opposite party No.2 (Pradeep Kumar Kapoor) on the direction of the Judicial Member. The court observed that the language used in the representation was not in good taste but did not constitute criminal contempt in its strict sense. The court emphasized that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi-criminal, and a clear case of criminal contempt must be made out for action to be taken.

The court concluded that the circumstances under which the contents were read did not amount to criminal contempt. The grievances raised were related to judicial conduct and did not scandalize the tribunal or interfere with judicial proceedings to the extent required for criminal contempt.

Conclusion:
The court discharged the notices issued against the opposite parties, finding no case for criminal contempt. The court reiterated the importance of lawyers conducting themselves in a manner that protects the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings, quoting the Supreme Court's observations in Hargovind Dayal Srivastava and another Vs. G.N. Verma and others. The case was consigned to record.