9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing which the petitioner shall initiate appropriate action against the counsel before the High Court or before the Bar Council of Delhi. On perusal of the aforementioned notice issued by the petitioner, this Court issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of court proceedings for violation of and obstruction of the Courts of Justice. The petitioner was called upon to file his reply within one week and the matter was adjourned to 16th October, 2006. 2. As the court has taken action on its own motion in the present case, the nature of contempt of which the petitioner was prima facie found guilty, was specifically put to him to enable him to make his submissions and file his reply to show cause in the said context. 3. On 16th October, 2006, the petitioner justified his action of issuing notice to Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate and stated that he had filed his reply to the show cause notice and at the same time claimed that he had already apologized to the Advocate. A perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner makes it apparent that the apology, if any, tendered by him was far from unqualified and in fact in the reply to the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and consequently the filing the application before Hon'ble High Court should not amount to obstruction of justice as every citizen has a fundamental right to issue a notice and to file case before court. It is in fact making deliberate false proposition of law by Sh. B.L. Wali should amount to obstruction of justice. There is no law or rule that counsels of high court cannot be served with notice for professional misconduct. Counsels are not above law and are liable for legal proceedings for professional misconduct.... As per Advocates Act and bar council rules an advocate has duty toward court and client and the opponent. Shri B.L. Wali has violated the duty to the opponent petitioner by making false proposition of law and deliberate misleading statements. Hence Shri B.L. Wali has violated bar council rules. Bar council rules clearly says that the advocate should not act mouth piece of the client. Shri B.L. Wali has acted as mouth piece of his client by violating the duty to the opponent petitioner by making false proposition of law and deliberate misleading statements. Hence Shri B.L. Wali has violated bar council rules and professional ethics.... Even if there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was, Therefore, advised to seek legal assistance and in case it was beyond his means to engage a counsel, he was given liberty to approach the Delhi Legal Services Authority and seek free legal services of an Advocate. However, on the next date of hearing, the petitioner submitted that he was not interested in engaging a counsel and wanted to argue his case himself. While perusing the records, we find that apart from the notice dated 28th April, 2006 issued by the petitioner to Mr. B.L. Wali, as referred to hereinabove, even earlier, the petitioner had issued a similar notice dated 17th March, 2005 addressed to Sh. B.L. Wali, Advocate for the respondent as also to two others. In the said notice, annexed as Annexure-C/2 to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), wherein the petitioner has sought initiation of criminal contempt proceedings not only against the respondent but also the counsel for the respondents on the allegations that false and misleading affidavits have been filed and that the counsel for the respondents has indulged in grave professional misconduct for which the Bar Council of Delhi should be directed to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruction to or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice. We have no manner of doubt in our mind that it is the right of every litigant to take before the court every legitimate plea available to him in his defense. If the pleas are found to be patently false, contrary to law, an attempt to mislead the court, irrelevant, immaterial, scandalous or extraneous, the courts are not powerless. The courts have sufficient power not only to reject such false pleadings, but also to have such irrelevant, immaterial, scandalous or extraneous pleas struck out from the record either on an application being made to the court or even on its own. However, any attempt made by a party to pressurize the opposite party or its advocate to withdraw a plea taken in the course of proceedings pending in court, amounts to direct interference with the administration of justice. Such an attempt, in our opinion, also takes in its fold, issuance of notices and filing of applications, etc., containing scurrilous, disparaging and derogatory remarks against the opposite party and its advocate. In preventing the respondent from putting forward its defense and pleas as may be deemed by it to be relevant for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinions and activities would in no way be contempt of Court; but comment upon an advocate which has reference to the conduct of his cases may amount to contempt of court on exactly the same principle, that while criticism of a Judge and even of a Judges judgment in Court is permissible, criticism is not permissible if it is made at the time and in such circumstances or is of such a character that it tends to interfere with the due course of justice. 12. In Telhara Cotton Ginning Co.Ltd. (supra), while holding the contemnor guilty of contempt for the reason that the contemnor sent a letter containing threats to the applicant's counsel thus making clear invasion on the counsel's right to represent his client's case loyally and properly and further interfered with the due performance of his duty towards his clients, it was observed that the said action was calculated to interfere with and to obstruct or divert the course of justice. The Court while holding so, observed as below: The law of contempt covers the whole field of litigation itself. The real end of a judicial proceeding, civil or criminal, is to ascertain the true facts and dispense justice. Various person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will constitute contempts. Offences of this nature are of three kinds, namely, those which (1) scandalise the Court, or (2) abuse the parties concerned in causes there, or (3) prejudices mankind against persons before the cause is heard. Under the first head fall libels on the integrity of the Court, its Judges, officers or proceedings; under the second and third heads anything which tends to excite prejudice against the parties, or their litigation, while it is pending. For example, attacks on or abuse of a party, not amounting to an interference with the course of justice, does not amount to contempt, the party being left to his remedy by action. Para 11: This decision relied on by Oswald is-`French v. French' (1824) 1 Hog 138, which appears to be a case of an insult to a counsel while he was attending in the Master's office, the insult Therefore having been offered within the precincts of the Court. Advocates who appear for the parties being officers of the Court, any abuse or insult or aspersions cast on them, which would interfere with the course of administration of justice, must necessarily be held to amount to contempt of court. A learned Judge of the Nagpur Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that would amount to a direct interference with the administration of justice. But what we hasten to add, in a given case, when a threat is offered to an advocate which would pressurize him from appearing in a Court of law on behalf of his client, under law, would amount to interference of administration of justice. 16. In Bhola Nath Chaudhary (supra), it was held as under: If aspersions were cast upon an advocate of a party it might be that some of them had an effect intending to deter the advocate from continuing his duties for his client and in certain circumstances in embarrassing him in the discharge of those duties. Therefore comment upon an advocate which had reference to the conduct of his cases might amount to contempt of court on exactly the same principle which was applicable with regard to the criticism of a judge or the judgment: AIR1931Cal257 Ananta Lal Singh and ors. v. Alfred Henry Watson and Ors. and AIR 1945 PC 134, Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. Emperor. 17. In Mrs. Damayanti G. Chandiramani v. S. Vaney reported as AIR1966Bom19 , in the presence of the court, the defendant threatened to prosecute the plaintiff's advocate for defamation in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpt to indulge in mudslinging against the advocates, the Court itself and also other constitutional institutions which clearly gave the impression that the petitioner intended to denigrate the Supreme Court in the esteem of the people of India and thus the Court directed drawing up of appropriate proceedings for contempt against the petitioner. 19. Thus, it is crystal clear that casting aspersions and extending threats by issuing notices to the Advocate for the opposite side containing disparaging and derogatory remarks has the effect of deterring an Advocate from conducting his duties towards his client and embarrassing him in the discharge of his duties and thus amounts to contempt of court on the very same principles which are applicable with regard to the criticism of a judge or a judgment as in each such instance, the tendency is to poison the fountain of justice, sully the stream of judicial administration, by creating distrust, and pressurizing the advocates as officers of the court from discharging their professional duties as enjoined upon them towards their clients for protecting their rights and liberties. 20. The Courts are under an obligation not only to protect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fact, one of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, namely, Pratap Singh (supra) only reiterates what has been stated hereinabove with regard to obstructing the court and perverting the course of justice amounting to contempt. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court while holding that initiation of departmental proceedings in terms of circular issued by the Government to the effect that it is improper for Government servant to take recourse to court of law before exhausting normal official channels of redress, amounts to contempt of Court, observed below: Para 10: ...There are many ways of obstructing the Court and any conduct by which the course justice is perverted, either by a party or a stranger, is a contempt; thus the use of threats, by letter or otherwise, to a party while his suit is pending; or abusing a party in letters to persons likely to be witnesses in the cause, have been held to be contempts. (Oswald's Contempt of Court, 3rd Edn. p.87). the Question is not whether the action in fact interfered, but whether it had a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice. The action taken in this case against the respondent by way of a proceeding agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was a mere device adopted to escape the punishment of his conduct. He is not feeling repentant or remorseful for his conduct. In any case, such an apology which has been tendered by the petitioner in one breath while in other breath, it is coupled with fresh allegations against the counsel for the respondents, cannot be accepted or taken note of. It is beyond any cavil that, an apology by a contemner does not entitle him to an order of discharge and it merely mitigates the offence in certain circumstances and indeed, the court has to consider the matter only from the point of view of administration of justice. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of State v. Bhavani Singh reported as AIR1968Delhi208a observed as below: ...In order to be a mitigating factor, the apology must be tendered at the earliest opportunity and it must be outpouring of a penitent heart moved by a genuine feeling of remorse and overcome by a sense of one's guilt. It should not be merely an apology for an apology or a convenient device to escape punishment. Belated apology as an after-thought thus serves no purpose. It must be indicative of repentant regret and contrition tendered at the earliest op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a settled principle of law that an apology besides being expressed in words literally should be bona fide and a real repentance of the offending acts. Normally, offer of an apology should be right at the initial stages besides being bona fide and upon complete realisation of the mistakes done, should also be unequivocal declaration of genuine concern for due course of administration of justice and upholding of the dignity. If any of these ingredients are missing, the apology may not be accepted by the Court as it lacks real intent of bona fide. 31. To the same effect are the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jaikwal v. State of UP reported as 1984CriLJ993 and M.V. Shareef and Ors. v. the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors. reported as AIR 1995 SC 19. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner has brought himself within the ambit of contempt of Court and he is accordingly found guilty of criminal contempt of the court. As regards the quantum of punishment, we have taken into consideration certain relevant factors. As stated above, the apology tendered by the petitioner is not unconditional nor is it suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
