9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court by Advocates 2. Apology Tendered by Contemners 3. Appropriate Sentence or Direction Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Contempt of Court by Advocates: The contemners, a group of advocates, disrupted court proceedings on 26th September 1991 by storming courtrooms, standing on chairs and tables, and shouting slogans against the Chief Justice and Judges. They prevented lawyers and litigants from conducting their cases and insisted on reading a scandalous memorandum in the Chief Justice's Court. This act was seen as a gross interference with the administration of justice and was considered the gravest possible contempt of court. The court noted that such behavior from members of the Bar, who are integral to the administration of justice, was unacceptable and undermined public faith in the judiciary. 2. Apology Tendered by Contemners: Initially, the contemners contested the show cause notice and sought time to file detailed replies. On 4th October 1991, Sh. B.D. Kaushik expressed moral responsibility and regret for the incident, followed by other contemners. However, the court found the use of the word 'regret' insufficient and questioned whether it amounted to an apology. Eventually, the contemners stated that their regret amounted to an apology, which was presented as unconditional and unqualified. Despite this, the court was not convinced of the sincerity of the apology, noting that it came late and appeared to be a tactical move rather than genuine repentance. 3. Appropriate Sentence or Direction: The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the contemners, considering their unqualified apology. The judgment highlighted the need for a balance between mercy and the seriousness of the contempt. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in re: S. Mulgaokar and L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., emphasizing that not all apologies should lead to leniency, especially when the contempt is grave and deliberate. Ultimately, the court decided to defer the sentence for one year, during which the contemners' conduct would be monitored. If they maintained good behavior and did not repeat such acts, the rule would be discharged; otherwise, they would be called to receive the sentence. Separate Judgments: - S.B. Wad, J.: Emphasized the gravity of the contempt and the need for a strong response to maintain the judiciary's dignity. Proposed a sentence of one month imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 for each contemner. - D.P. Wadhwa, J.: Agreed with the need for severe punishment, noting that the apology was not sincere and the contemners' actions were premeditated and deliberate. - Sunanda Bhandare, J.: Highlighted the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and the need for timely action to uphold discipline. - Arun B. Saharya, J.: Stressed the ongoing strike by the contemners and the need to restore the administration of justice. - Y.K. Sabharwal, J.: Noted the high responsibilities of the legal profession and the grave impact of the contemners' actions on the judiciary. - Anil Dev Singh, J.: Suggested a lenient approach, proposing suspension of the sentence subject to good behavior for one year. - Jaspal Singh, J.: Criticized the so-called apology as insincere and highlighted the need for a strong punitive response. - C.M. Nayar, J.: Agreed with the conclusions regarding guilt and deferred sentence, emphasizing the need for the Bar to avoid strikes and maintain the judicial system's image. Order of the Court: The majority decision was to defer the sentence for one year, monitoring the contemners' conduct. If they maintained good behavior, the rule would be discharged; otherwise, they would receive the sentence.
|
