9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Validity of the appellant's suspension. 2. Contempt of court allegations against the appellant. 3. Disciplinary inquiry against the appellant. 4. Appellant's motion for contempt against the Chief Justice and other judges. 5. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of the Appellant's Suspension The appellant, a member of the Judicial Service of the State of Orissa, was promoted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on 31st July 1968. However, on 30th March 1972, the High Court of Orissa suspended him pending a disciplinary inquiry. The appellant contested this suspension, claiming it was beyond the High Court's authority and appealed to the Governor. The High Court withheld this appeal, asserting that no appeal lay to the Governor against its order of suspension. 2. Contempt of Court Allegations Against the Appellant The appellant forwarded a representation to the Governor on 14th May 1972, which contained statements that scandalized the High Court, constituting criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Consequently, the High Court issued a suo motu notice on 3rd July 1972, initiating contempt proceedings (Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 8 of 1972). The appellant's defense that his statements pertained to administrative, not judicial, functions was rejected. Further contempt allegations arose from statements made in a petition for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, leading to a supplementary notice on 5th January 1973. Ultimately, the Full Bench found the appellant guilty of contempt and sentenced him to two months of simple imprisonment. 3. Disciplinary Inquiry Against the Appellant A disciplinary inquiry was conducted by K. B. Panda, J., who found the appellant guilty of all charges except one. The High Court, after a Full Court meeting, agreed with the findings and reduced the appellant's rank to Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). The appellant argued that the High Court's decision on the disciplinary inquiry pre-judged issues in the pending contempt proceedings, thus constituting contempt by the judges themselves. 4. Appellant's Motion for Contempt Against the Chief Justice and Other Judges Following the contempt ruling against him, the appellant moved for contempt proceedings against the Chief Justice and other judges, alleging they pre-judged issues in the disciplinary inquiry. A Full Bench of three judges dismissed this motion on 13th February 1973, stating no contempt was committed and the appellant lacked the Advocate General's written consent as required by Section 15(4) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. Maintainability of the Appeal Under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 19(1), which allows appeals against "any order or decision of a High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt." The Additional Solicitor General argued that this provision did not cover the High Court's refusal to initiate contempt proceedings. The Court agreed, noting that the jurisdiction to punish for contempt begins only when the Court initiates proceedings. A refusal to initiate does not constitute an exercise of this jurisdiction, and thus, no appeal lies under Section 19(1). The Court emphasized that the contempt jurisdiction is discretionary and primarily between the Court and the alleged contemner. Conclusion The Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection, ruling that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
