In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey v.

1. The contemner is a practising advocate. He filed Complaint Case No. 451 of 1994 in the Court of VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow against Shri Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow for offences under Sections 499/500 IPC. Mr Mahesh Giri, at the relevant time, was the Government Counsel deputed to work for the prosecution in criminal cases in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow. It was alleged in the complaint (read with notice which preceded it as also contemners statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC) that the accused namely, Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow had imputed sexual relations between the contemner and Ms Saroj Bala which had defamed the contemner and, therefore, he prayed that the accused be tried for the said offences. The statement of the contemner was recorded under Section 200 CrPC on 21-9-1994 but it remained inconclusive. The statement was finally recorded on 26-10-1994 and, thereafter, the case was adjourned for enquiry under Section 202 CrPC. It was stated that the petitioner moved an application that the witnesses whom the contemner wanted to examine under Section 202 CrPC may be summoned by the Court as almost all of them were practising advocates and influential persons but the complaint itself was dismissed by the Magistrate on 16-11-1994. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a criminal revision against the aforesaid order in the High Court but it was dismissed on 15-2-1995. Honble Virendra Saran, J.

of the Allahabad High Court who disposed of the revision observed, inter alia, as under

"It is well settled that if the veiled object of a lame prosecution is to disgrace, humiliate or cause harassment to the accused, the High Court must put an end to the mischief by quashing such criminal proceedings. The facts of the record of the instant case give a horrendous account of a framed-up case against a responsible member of the lower judiciary holding the post of an Additional Sessions Judge at Lucknow and hence, even if the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code be not wholly justified in law, it is not a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary revisional jurisdiction. There can be no doubt that the prosecution case unfolded in the complaint and the statement of the applicant is nothing but an intricate web of perfidious fabric. It appears that the aim of the applicant is to malign the learned Judge (Smt Saroj Bala) and hold her at ransom. The applicant emphatically and repeatedly read out the lewd passages from his deposition while arguing the revision, but the palpably scurrilous, indecent and abominable recitals are not worth reproduction in the judgment. Suffice it to observe that the arguments of the applicant, so vehement and pungent, marked with sarcasm and sneer, do not impart any strength to his case which is inherently unbelievable. They are submissions directed more towards vilification than substantiation of the pivotal points of the case. I was constrained to ask the applicant not to make savage additions to the evidence and show restraint in his colloquy." *

2. The contemner, thereafter, filed SLPs (Crl) Nos. 819-20 of 1996 against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15-2-1995 of Honble Virendra Saran, J. in this Court in which he impleaded only State of U.P. as pro forma respondent

3. A similar complaint under Sections 500 and 504 IPC was also filed by the contemner against (1) Shri Prakash Narayan Awasthi, Advocate (2) Shri R. P. Misra, Advocate (3) Shri Vishambhar Singh, Advocate (4) Shri T. N. Misra, Advocate (5) Shri Srikant Verma, Advocate (6) Shri Pankaj Sinha, Advocate, and (7) Shri N. C. Pradhan, Advocate in which again it was alleged that similar imputations were made by the aforesaid advocates between contemner and Ms Saroj Bala. This was registered as Complaint Case No. 101 of 1995 in which petitioners statement was recorded under Section 200 CrPC. In order to produce witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, the contemner gave a list of 31 advocates, practising at Lucknow, for being summoned by the Court as witnesses but the application was rejected. It was against this Order that the petitioner filed SLP (Crl) No. 4114 of 1995 directly in this Court. The contemner also, in the meantime, filed Contempt Petition (Crl) Dy. No. 16199 of 1995 against Honble Mr Justice Virendra Saran of the Allahabad High Court, Contempt Petition (Crl) Dy. No. 17021 of 1995 against Ms Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow, Shri Udai Raj, V ACJM, Lucknow, Shri R. P. Misra, VI Additional CJM, Lucknow and Contempt Petition (Crl) Dy. No. 17022 of 1995 against Shri J. C. Mishra, District Judge, Lucknow (now Judge of the Allahabad High Court), Shri K. N. Ojha, II Additional District Judge, Lucknow, Shri Shailendra Saxena, III Additional District Judge, Lucknow and Shri B. N. Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow. All the above matters were listed in Court No. 9 before Honble Dr Justice A. S. Anand and Honble Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee on 15-12-1995 when the following Order was passed

"In all these petitions, we find that attack in indecent, wild, intemperate and even abusive language on the named Judges has been made at various places in each one of the petitions. The petitioner, who is an advocate, has permitted himself the liberty of using such expressions, which prima facie tend to scandalize the court in relation to judicial matters and thus have the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. We are inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner, but, on his request grant him six weeks time to delete all the objectionable expressions used in the petitions and file fresh petitions. He shall also remove the other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he files the fresh petitions. If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks. Otherwise, these petitions shall be put up for drawing up contempt proceedings against the petitioner, after eight weeks." *

4. The contemner, however, did not avail of the above opportunity and filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 132 of 1995 in paras 4, 5 and 6 whereof he stated as under

"4. That today, the matter was listed in Court No. 9 along with all petitions at Sl. Nos. 28 and 42 and when the petitioner tried to start his argument the court openly harassed him and compelled him to withdraw the petition or remove all the facts but the petitioner refused to do so in view of the facts that he has only written the facts according to Sections 167, 219, 480 and 463 along with Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 44 and 165 of the Evidence Act along with Section 2-C and Sections 16 and 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Indian Constitution

5. That the Court has not allowed the petitioner to submit his argument and passed an order to remove all the facts from the petition and file the fresh petitions and also ordered for listing the matter after 8 weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner mentioned and also tried to give in writing that he is not in a position to remove anything and file fresh petitions in view of the fact that he wrote only truth and the Court is bound to hear the petition and decide the same according to the Constitution and Contempt of Courts Act and other laws as challenged by the petitioner but the Court without saying anything retired to its chamber

6. That the petitioner is not in a position to remove anything and the deliberate injustice, fraud, cheating etc. had been done by the contemners for concealing their nefarious acts and even they had gone to this extent to destroy the judicial records and fabricated some judicial papers."

5. This application was considered by the Court (Honble Dr Justice A. S. Anand and Honble Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee) on 20-2-1996 and in the Order passed thereon it was, inter alia, stated as under

"In spite of the petitioners attention having been drawn to the above-noted passages on 15-12-1995, which we felt prima facie, tended to scandalise the court/courts in relation to the judicial matters and had the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice and that the attack against the Judges was indecent, wild, intemperate and abusive, the petitioner refused to remove these objectionable passages and on the contrary, in his petition (Crl MP No. 132 of 1996), he has asserted that he is not prepared to remove the objectionable passages/sentences. On the other hand the petitioner asserts that this Court is bound to hear the petitioner and decide the same without the petitioner being obliged to remove the objectionable passages. This clearly discloses the adamant and defiant attitude of the petitioner

We, therefore, direct that a rule be issued against the petitioner asking him to show cause why he should not be punished for committing criminal contempt of court for the use of the objectionable language in this petition and the subsequent application. The petitioner should file his reply to the rule within eight weeks

List on 26th April, 1996

The petitioner-in-person has been informed of the date and has been bound down to appear on the next date. No fresh notice, therefore, need be issued to himA copy of the order issuing the rule shall be handed over to the petitioner-in-person

We request the Solicitor General, Shri Dipankar Gupta to assist the Court in these proceedings either himself or by nominating some other law officer

The record of the case may be forwarded to the learned Solicitor General

This special leave petition is dismissed in view of what we have noticed above as also on merits. The contempt proceedings shall be separately numbered."

6. The contempt matter has since been registered as Contempt Petition (Crl) No. 2 of 1996. The contemner, in the meantime, moved application for recall/review of the Order dated 20-2-1996 but the application was rejected by Order dated 9-8-1996. The contemner also filed a Contempt Petition (Crl) No. 13 of 1996 against Honble Dr Justice A. S. Anand and Honble Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee which was rejected by this Court (Honble Mr Justice J. S. Verma and Honble Mr Justice B. N. Kirpal) on 5-8-1996 by the following Order

"We regret to find that the petitioner who is a practising lawyer of some standing has chosen to resort to such a proceeding which in our view, is misconceived. We find no merit in the same, but before dictating this order, we have tried to explain this position to the petitioner with the hope that he will appreciate that as a member of the Bar, he is expected to utilise his time in a better manner to assist in the administration of justice. The contempt petition is dismissed." *

7. The contemner has since filed an application for recall of the above order and for deciding the criminal contempt petition on merits. In the affidavit accompanying this application, it is stated that if all matters are not decided on merits, the contemner would be compelled to observe continuous hunger strike from 25-9-1996. A copy of the application to the President of India for permission to prosecute Honble Dr Justice A. S. Anand and Honble Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee, for their behaviour in Court on 15-12-1995, as also two months notice to the President, were filed with this application

8. The Contempt Petition No. 2 of 1996 in SLP (Crl) No. 4114 of 1996 was taken up on 9-8-1996 in which the following Order was passed by Honble Dr Justice A. S. Anand and Honble Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee

"On 20-2-1996, we directed a rule to be issued to the applicant asking him to show cause why he should not be punished for committing criminal contempt of the court for use of objectionable language in the SLP and the applications. He was given eight weeks time to file his reply to the rule. Instead of filing a reply to the rule, through these two applications, the applicant seeks recall/review of the order dated 20-2-1996 passed in SLP (Crl) No. 4114 of 1995, Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 6242-6243 of 1995 and SLPs (Crl) Nos. 819-820 of 1996 which were dismissed by this Court and of the rule issued to him. We do not find any reason to recall or review that order. There is no merit in these applications which also bristle with scandalous remarks and are couched in objectionable language. The criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the applicant on 24-2-1996 are, therefore, dismissed

In our order dated 20-2-1996, we had directed the issuance of rule and to number the contempt proceedings against the applicant separately. Those have since been numbered as Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 1996

The prayer of the applicant to transfer the case to another Bench as he does not wish to appear before this Bench apart from being itself contumacious is rejected because a litigant cannot be permitted forum shopping. The case stands assigned to this Bench

Since the applicant has not filed his reply to the notice to show cause why he should not be punished for committing criminal contempt of court, we, as a matter of indulgence, grant him another opportunity to file the reply, if any, within six weeks. List the matter for further proceedings and hearing on 27-9-1996. The alleged contemner Ajay Kumar Pandey, who is present in court, has been informed of the date of hearing is directed to remain present on the next date of hearing, i.e. 27-9-1996, whether or not he files his reply to the show-cause notice. No fresh notice shall be issued to him for his appearanceSince Shri Dipankar Gupta has resigned, the Solicitor General of India is requested to assist the court in the contempt proceedings either himself or by nominating any other law officer."

9. The petitioner subsequently moved an application dated 12-8-1996 for recall of the aforesaid order at the end of which he put a note as under

"If this Honble Court would not hear and decide the matter on their merits then the petitioner will be compelled to observe the continuous hunger strike in Supreme Court premises since 25-9-1996." *

10. In this application he indicated that he had already given to the President of India an application dated 19-12-1995 in which he, inter alia, stated as under

"Thereafter, they harassed, compelled and threatened me for withdrawing the petitions or removing all things and filing the fresh petitions and also did not allow me to submit the arguments although the matter was fresh and two petitions had to dispose of finally according to the settled law and passed an order in hasty manner to this effect, The petitioner will remove all the allegations from petitions and file the fresh petitions and thereafter the matter will be listed after 8 weeks otherwise the contempt proceedings be drawn against him etc." *

Thereafter I again mentioned the matter at 2 p.m. and clearly said, I am not in a position to remove anything and file the fresh petitions and my petitions may be heard immediately as it is because I wrote only facts and made the grounds according to the Indian Penal Code, Contempt of Courts Act, Evidence Act and the Constitution, etc. but they without saying retired to their chambers. Then I immediately moved an application in the Registry of the Court and clearly said about each and everything and also said, I am not in a position to remove anything and the Court is bound to hear the same and decide the same according to law and settled norms of justice.I am bringing the facts in the knowledge of Your Excellency that the Supreme Court has heard the contempt petitions against many citizens of the country i.e. advocates, bureaucrats, leaders and police officers, etc. and has punished them but when I filed the contempt petitions against some corrupt people who had defrauded and cheated me and destroyed/fabricated some judicial records to conceal their nefarious acts by exercising their judicial powers then Mr Justice A. S. Anand and Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee harassed, compelled and threatened me in open court and also did not allow me to submit the arguments and even they had gone in saying that they would see me and forfeit my licence for advocacy despite the fact that I have been appearing in person and the matter had no connection with my profession or professional capacity

I am saying with great sorrow and the matter is also very serious that the above two Judges consider themselves the lord paramount/almighty and attacked at the integrity and dignity at a human being/litigant and also threatened a young Advocate/boy although, the God is one and only who makes everybody either he is king or ordinary man and every human being is also equal along with equality before law and the court is bound (the paramount duty) to hear the case as it is despite the fact that who is O.P. (King or Judge or ordinary man), but it is very unfortunate and horrendous that the above two Judges have fully forgotten that the God is seeing the acts of everybody by his spiritual eyes and almighty lives in every soul and attacking on any people is amounted to insult the God

I am also saying that both the Judges broke the decorum of the court, dismantled the temple of justice and thus embarrassed the Goddess of justice. Their hurling upon me is attack at the human dignity, and fundamental and legal rights of a honest and genuine litigant and also restraining a poor litigant to pursue his case and obstruction in the way of justice/holy stream of justiceI am requesting to Your Excellency that being the head of the nation/the highest constitutional authority, kindly suggest Mr Justice A. S. Anand and Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee of the Supreme Court to feel sorry before me for their highly objectionable behaviour with me on 15-12-1995 otherwise I will be at liberty to take any action according to law and in that case the whole world will see the power of truth/dharma and they will be responsible not I."

11. This application was given to the President of India for sanction to prosecute the two Judges (Honble Dr Justice A. S. Anand and Honble Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee) for offences under Sections 167, 504 and 506 IPC with two months notice to the President indicating therein that if the sanction was not granted within two months, it shall be deemed to have been granted

12. He further stated in paras 5 and 6 of the application as under

"5. That the petitioner had received the letter dated 11-3-1996 and No. P1-999 from the Rashtrapati Bhavan and according to that His Excellency sought the opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice in the matter. The copy of letter dated 11-3-1996 is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this application for the perusal of this Honble Court

6. That on the expiry of two months from 1-3-1996 i.e. from the date of notice to His Excellency, the petitioner had obtained the formal sanction under Section 197 to prosecute Mr A. S. Anand and Mr M. K. Mukherjee." *

13. He ultimately prayed as under

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to recall the Order dated 9-8-1996 passed in the case mentioned above and hear all the matters immediately by constituting a larger Bench/Constitution Bench otherwise great injury would be caused to the applicant." *

14. The contemner, thereafter, filed on 23-9-1996 Complaint Case No. 122/1 of 1996 in the Court of Shri Nepal Singh, ACMM, New Delhi against Honble Dr Justice A. S. Anand and Honble Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee for offences under Sections 167, 504 and 506 IPC. In this complaint, it was stated by the contemner as under

"1. That the complainant had filed SLP (Crl) No. 4114 of 1995 and Crl MPs. Nos. 6242-43 of 1995 along with Crl. Contempt Petitions/Diary Nos. 16199, 17021 and 17022/95, in the Supreme Court of India in the month of October/November 1995 and they were first come up for hearing on 4-12-1995, before the Court No. 2 of the Apex Court and the Bench concerned after some time hearing ordered to this effect, List these matters before some other Bench.

2. That thereupon the petitions had come up for hearing on the 15th day of December, 1995, before Court No. 9 at Serial Nos. 28 and 42 and on that day the accused were on the Bench there

3. That on the calling of the matter on that day, the complainant who reached from Lucknow, stood before the Court but as soon as he stood the accused without any authority, basis, immorally and illegally hurled upon him with highly derogatory, insulting, offending and threatening remarks with the following sentences

The Accused 1 hurled, You filed the petitions against the High Court Judge etc. You will withdraw your petitions otherwise we will take action against you and start the contempt proceedings. The complainant requested, Let me argue, then Accused 1 again hurled, We will send you in jail otherwise withdraw the petitions or remove all things from the petitions and file the fresh petitions. The complainant refused to comply with their illegal and offending directions and again said, Let me argue. Then Accused 2 hurled upon the complainant in a highly objectionable manner, You do the practice in Lucknow, you understand yourself very competent and intelligent, you abused your professional privilege, we will see you and forfeit your licence. The complainant again prayed, submit me arguments. Thereupon Accused 1 again hurled, we will not allow you to submit the arguments on the points which you raised and give the chance to the audience to hear the same otherwise everybody will know the matters." *

15. In para 4 of the complaint, the contemner reproduced the Order passed by Honble Dr Justice A. S. Anand and Honble Mr Justice M. K. Mukherjee as under

"4. That thereafter the accused passed the following order in a hasty manner

In all the petitions, we find that attack in indecent, wild, intemperate, and even abusive language on the named Judges has been made at various places in each one of the petitions. The petitioner, who is an advocate, has permitted himself the liberty of using such expression, which prima facie tend to scandalize the court in relation to judicial matters and thus have the tendency to interfere with the administration of the justice. We are inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner, but on his request grant him 6 weeks time to delete all the objectionable expressions used in the petitions and file the fresh petitions. He shall also remove other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he files the fresh petitions. If the fresh petitions are filed, the same shall be listed after eight weeks. Otherwise, these petitions shall be put up for drawing up contempt proceedings against the petitioner after eight weeks." *

16. In paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the complaint, it was stated

"5. That on the such goondaism of the accused, the complainant left the courtroom and again he gone there at 2 p.m. and mentioned and also tried to give in writing, I am not in a position to remove anything and file the fresh petitions and my petitions be heard as it is immediately because I wrote only the truth but the accuseds retired to their chambers without saying anything. It is the most important to mention here that the complainant never prayed to grant 6 weeks time for removing anything from the petitions, filing fresh cases and the accused dictated the orders in this regard by their own falsely, only with the sole motive to waste the money and valuable time of the complainant, anyhow harass him coupled with hide the sins/corruption of their subordinate people

6. That thereafter the complainant had immediately moved an Application No. 132 of 1995 in the Registry of the Apex Court and clearly said about his harassment by the accused and their open goondaism and also prayed for hearing of his petitions as it is and decide the same according to the settled norms of justice

7. That the complainant also informed the Honble President of India about the goondaism of the accused through registered letter No. 162 and dated 21-12-1995 along with copies to Honble the Vice-President of India/Chief Justice of India through the certificate of posting

8. That since the acts of the accused were offences as per the mandate and by virtue of the Indian Penal Code so an application under Section 197 of CrPC along with two months specific notice to accord the sanction to prosecute the accused under Sections 167, 500, 504 and 506 of IPC had also been sent to His Excellency vide registered post receipt No. C-2174 and dated 2-3-1996. It is the most important to mention here again that although the offences as stated in preceding para dont come in any manner whatsoever within the judicial acts/never did while the accused had been discharging their judicial duties but in spite of this fact and for saving any future complication in the matter, the complainant filed the application before Honble the President and requested His Excellency to decide the matter in two months from the date of notice

9. That in response to the above notice/application the complainant had received a letter dated 11-3-1996 and No. P1-999 from the Rashtrapati Bhavan and according to the contents of the same His Excellency sought the opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice in the matter. The said letter was received by the complainant in the third week of March 1996

10. That the complainant had also given registered notice to the accused to tender unconditional apology in writing to him for their misdeeds on 15-12-1995 and gave him one month time for making the unconditional apology from the date of notice. The registered notices were sent to both the accused on 10-8-1996 vide registered letters Nos. 2888 and 2889 dated 10-8-1996 but they did not think fit and proper/necessary to response the notices and tender the unconditional apology, however, served on 12-8-1996

11. That the accused committed the offences as contemplated in the Indian Penal Code and liable to be dealt with strictly and exemplary otherwise it will be licensed to the judicial goondaism and the courts/law would have become the instrumentality of the people like the accused and so the interest of the litigants will be jeopardised which is not permissible in law."

17. He made the following prayer in the complaint

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to take cognizance of the above-mentioned offences and punish the accused deterrently and severely under the above-stated circumstances and facts along with pass other necessary orders in the matter and for which act of kindness the complainant shall ever pray as in duty-bound." *

18. A copy of this complaint was filed by the petitioner himself on 24-9-1996 before the Registrar in Criminal Contempt Case No. 2 of 1996. In his letter addressed to the Registrar, he stated as under

"I filed some papers in the cases mentioned above and the same are the important documents. Since the matter is listed in Court on 27-9-1996 so the papers be circulated for the perusal of the Honble Court and read as part of the petitions." *

19. As stated by the contemner himself in his aforesaid complaint, he had issued a notice dated 10-8-1996 to both the learned Judges in which he, inter alia, stated as under

"2. That thereafter the above petitions had been listed before the Court No. 9 on 15-12-1995 and both of you were on the Bench. On the calling of the matter on that day, I who reached from Lucknow, as soon as stood before the Court to argue, then both of you without any authority, basis, immorally and illegally hurled upon me with highly derogatory, insulting, offending and contemptuous remarks with the following sentences

The addressee number 1 hurled, you filed the petitions against the High Court Judge etc. You will withdraw your petitions otherwise we will take action against you and start the contempt proceedings. I requested, Let me argue. You, Addressee No. 1 hurled, we will send you in jail otherwise withdraw the petitions or remove all things from the petitions and file fresh petitions. I refused to do so and said, Let me argue. Then you the Addressee No. 1 hurled upon me in a highly objectionable manner, You do the practice in Lucknow, you understand yourself very competent and intelligent, you abused your professional privilege, we will see you and forfeit your licence, then I again prayed, submit me arguments, then you, Addressee No. 1 again hurled, we will not allow you to submit the arguments on the points which you raised and give the chance to the audience to hear the same otherwise everybody will know the matter.

4. That on the above happening I left the courtroom and again had gone there at 2 p.m. and mentioned and also tried to give in writing, I am not in a position to remove anything and file the fresh petitions and my petitions be heard as it is immediately because I wrote only the truth but both of you without saying anything retired to your chambers. It is most important to mention here that I had never prayed to grant six weeks time for removing anything from the petitions, filing the fresh petitions and you dictated absolutely false in your order in this regard only with the sole motive to waste the money and valuable time of the petitioner and anyhow harass me along with hide the corruption, fraud, cheating and forgery etc. in a short word, sins of the people who are the contemners in the abovesaid petitions." *

20. In paras, 5, 6 and 7 he, inter alia, stated as under

"5. But I am also warning you that the said application was moved before His Excellency only to avoid any future complications in the matter otherwise according to the settled law viz. judicial precedents, as you also know very well, the acts mentioned in paras 2 and 3 of this notice were your personal acts and neither come in the definition of the official acts nor were come in your judicial duties rendered by you. As you know very well and according to the Indian Penal Code, your acts were offences according to Sections 167, 500, 504 and 506 and due to your falsity, 1 suffered from a heavy financial loss

6. That it is not worthy that due to your falsity I suffered from the loss of Rupees two thousand (Rs. 2000) for appearing on that day in the case so I also entitled for the compensation from you

7. That I am warning you that from the date of this notice, both of you tender unconditional written apology to me for your offences on 15-12-1995 in the Court No. 9 of the Supreme Court of India coupled with the compensation of Rupees two thousand (Rs. 2000) and a handsome amount for my mental harassment. The written apology along with compensation be paid by you in a month from the date of this notice otherwise I will be compelled to initiate the criminal proceedings against you in the competent criminal court and you will be responsible for all cost and consequences." *

21. The aforesaid notice constitutes the basis of Contempt Petition (Crl) No. 55 of 1996 while the complaint filed by the contemner against the two Honble Judges of this Court is the basis of Contempt Petition (Crl) No. 56 of 1996

22. The notice issued to as also the complaint subsequently filed against the two Honble Judges of this Court were placed before Honble the Chief Justice of India who directed the same to be placed before the Court. That is how these matters have come before us

23. The aforesaid notice dated 10-8-1996 issued by the contemner to the two Honble Judges calling upon them to tender unconditional written apology to him and also to pay compensation, was placed with the office report dated 12-9-1996 before the Court when the following order was passed on 16-9-1996

"Mr Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, C-2230, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016 has sent registered letters dated August 10, 1996 to two Honble Judges of this Court. The language and the tenor of the letter prima facie amounts to scandalising and lowering the authority of this Court. We issue contempt notice to Mr Pandey, returnable on 30th September, 1996. He may show cause why he be not held guilty of the contempt of court and punished suitably. Registry to serve the respondent through the Additional Registrar of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Mr Pandey shall be personally present in Court on 30th September, 1996 at 10.30 a.m." *

24. When the matter was taken up on 30-9-1996, the following order was passed

"Mr Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, the contemnor is present before us. Initially, he had refused to accept summons of this Court but later on he himself contacted the Registry of this Court on September 27, 1996 and obtained the summons. Apart from derogatory and scandalous language written in the letter addressed to two Honble Judges of this Court he also threatened them that he would file criminal complaints against them. He has, as a matter of fact, filed Complaint Case No. 122/1/96 on September 23, 1996. The contents of the complaint, in totality, relate to the proceedings conducted in Court No. 9 of this Court. The complaint is full of scandalous and abusive language. We issue notice to Mr Ajay K. Pandey why he should not be held guilty of contempt of court and be punished suitably for filing this scandalous complaint before Mr Nepal Singh, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. We take suo motu notice of the complaint filed before the ACMM. The complaint is wholly frivolous and amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court. We quash the complaint. We are told that the ACMM has further marked that complaint to Ms Renu Bhatnagar, Metropolitan Magistrate who has fixed the date some time in March 1997. We quash the complaint and the proceedings before Ms Renu Bhatnagar, MM. Mr Ajay K. Pandey, standing before us, has fairly stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the complaint. We are further of the view that ACMM and MM who have dealt with this complaint have acted without any application of mind. It seems that they have not even read the contents of the complaint. We issue notice to both of them to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against themMr Pandey may file his reply within one week from today in this Court in both the contempt petitions. He may file all the documents, affidavits of himself or of any other person he wishes to file in support of his defence along with the reply. The contempt petitions shall be heard on 10-10-1996 at 10.30 a.m

On our suggestion, Mr Pandey states that he would not mind having the assistance of a counsel. Mr Mukul Mudgal, learned counsel present in Court states that he would request Ms Manju Goel, Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to assign a counsel to assist this Court on behalf of the contemner. We request Mr G. L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel to assist this Court. A set of papers be sent to Mr G. L. Sanghi, learned counsel

The matter regarding contempt notice to Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrates be listed on 30-10-1996. They shall be personally present in Court."

25. Separate notices for contempt were issued to the two Magistrates, who are being dealt with separately

26. When the matter was taken up on 10-10-1996, the contemner filed unqualified and unconditional apology to the following effect

"I, Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, the respondent-contemner herein do hereby tender my unqualified and unconditional apology to this Honble Court for addressing registered letters dated 10-8-1996 to two Honble Judges of this Honble Court, for the language and contents of the said letters, for filing a criminal complaint dated 23-9-1996 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, against two Honble Judges of this Honble Court and for the language and contents of the said complaint. I respectfully submit that these actions of mine and the language used by me in relation to the Judges of this Honble Court were as a result of my losing control over myself for which I am genuinely repentant. I humbly seek forgiveness from this Honble Court and pray to this Honble Court to accept my apology and show mercy on me. I undertake not to repeat such conduct in the future." *

27. The Court, however, passed the following order on that date

"We have heard Mr Raju Ramachandran. On our request he is appearing for the contemnor, A. K. Pandey. We have also heard Mr G. L. Sanghi, who on our request is appearing to assist the Court. We have also heard Mr A. K. Pandey. Initially Mr Pandey stated that he could not file reply because the Registry declined to permit him to inspect all the records. We placed the records before him and permitted him to examine the same. Mr Pandey, who is present in Court states that he does not want to inspect the records. Mr Pandey has filed unqualified and unconditional apology. This may be taken on record

We adjourn the hearing of this case to October 30, 1996. Meanwhile, Mr Pandey may file his reply to the contempt petition, if he so wishes. The application and the apology which are already on the record shall be taken into consideration on the next date of hearing. The contemner to be present in Court on October 30, 1996." *

28. On 30-10-1996 when the case was next taken up, the Court passed the following order

"Mr Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate, represents Mr Nepal Singh, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Ms Renu Bhatnagar, Metropolitan Magistrate is represented by Mr Rajiv Garg, Advocate. Both the contemners are present in Court. To enable them to file affidavits in reply to the contempt notice, we adjourn the hearing to 4th November, 1996. Meanwhile, we direct Registrar of Delhi High Court to send the personal files of these two officers to this Court. We are told that Justice J. K. Mehra and Justice S. N. Kapoor are the inspecting Judges so far as these two judicial officers are concerned. We would request Honble Judges to give their comments regarding these two officers. The earlier orders of this Court in this case may also be sent to the Registry of the Delhi High CourtTo come up on 4th November, 1996

Orders to be pronounced on 4th November, 1996 in respect of Mr Ajay Kumar Pandey."

29. The background facts set out above would indicate that the contemner is a practising advocate who himself had filed criminal complaint against a brother advocate (Mr Mahesh Giri) and Ms Saroj Bala who was a member of the lower judiciary posted as VII Additional District Judge at Lucknow, after giving them a notice demanding compensation for having defamed him by publicly saying that he had sexual relations with one of them, namely, Ms Saroj Bala. This complaint was dismissed at the initial stage as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment, but he raised a number of controversies, including a demand for enquiry to be set up by the then District Judge, Lucknow, Mr J. C. Mishra, who is now a sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The contemner filed a revision before the High Court against the order by which his complaint was dismissed and the application for summoning the witnesses through court process was rejected. This revision, as pointed out earlier, was dismissed by Mr Justice Virendra Saran. In the special leave petition filed against that judgment, the contemner has criticised Justice Virendra Saran in intemperate language and termed his judgment as forged and fictitious, besides imputing bad motive

30. When this Court noticed the scandalous and even abusive language by the contemner used against Mr Virendra Saran and other officers of the judiciary, it required the contemner to delete those sentences or portions and/or file a fresh petition. Not satisfied, the contemner moved an application for recall of the order and in that application he again used intemperate language and thereafter started making efforts to avoid the Court (Honble Anand and Mukherjee, JJ.) and for this purpose, he adopted derogatory and bad tactics. He gave notice to the two Honble Judges seeking unconditional apology from them for their conduct and behaviour in the Court and also demanded compensation from them. He wrote to the President of India for sanction to prosecute the Honble Judges for offences under Sections 167, 500, 504 and 506 IPC giving two months time to the President of grant sanction or else he would treat the sanction to have been granted to him. He also threatened to go on hunger strike before the Supreme Court with effect from 25-9-1996. He then filed a complaint against the Honble Judges branding their conduct as "goondaism". He pleaded for his case to be listed before some other Bench or to be referred to the Constitution Bench on the ground that both the Honble Judges were personally involved in the case and, therefore, they need not hear the matter, but he was unsuccessful

31. This Court, as the highest court of the land, has not only the right to protect itself from being denigrated, but has also the right, jurisdiction and authority to protect the High Courts and the subordinate courts from being insulted, abused or in any other way denigrated. All the courts, be they the lower or the highest, function for the noble cause of dispensing justice. Since they have to decide litigation between two contesting parties, it is obvious that they have to have full freedom and independence in settling the litigation. The Presiding Officers who run the courts and conduct the proceedings therein have to act fearlessly. Any action on the part of any person or litigant or lawyer, which tends to interfere or obstruct the process of justice, has to be deprecated so that the proceedings may be held in an orderly fashion and everyone who participates in those proceedings may have the feeling of liberty to address the court for proper adjudication of his case

32. An advocate, as a citizen of this country, has the fundamental right of freedom of expression and speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. This right is also guaranteed to him under the Advocates Act. Apart from that, the legal profession has the inherent right to express itself in the best manner possible in uninhibited language, but the right to express also carries with it the duty to be dignified in the use of expression and to maintain decorum and peace in the court proceedings

33. In D. C. Saxena (Dr) v. Honble the Chief Justice of India [ 1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ] this Court observed, inter alia, as under : (SCC pp. 244-45, para 35)

"Advocacy touches and asserts the primary value of freedom of expression. It is a practical manifestation of the principle of freedom of speech .... Freedom of expression in arguments encourages the development of judicial dignity, forensic skills of advocacy and enables protection of fraternity, equality and justice. It plays its part in helping to secure the protection of other fundamental human rights. ... Freedom of expression, therefore, is one of the basic conditions for the progress of advocacy and for the development of every man including legal fraternity practising the profession of law. Freedom of expression, therefore, is vital to the maintenance of free society. It is essential to the rule of law and liberty of the citizens. The advocate or the party appearing in person, therefore, is given liberty of expression. [But] they equally owe countervailing duty to maintain dignity, decorum and order in the court proceedings or judicial process. The liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with licence to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the judiciary." *

34. It was further observed in that above case as under : (SCC p. 247, para 40)

"Scandalising the court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. Any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of the court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice. It would, therefore, be scandalising the judge as a judge, in other words, imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation of the court and would be contempt of the court. Even imputation of lack of impartiality or fairness to a judge in the discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt. The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to the majesty of justice. When the contemner challenges the authority of the court, he interferes with the performance of duties of judges office or judicial process or administration of justice or generation or production of tendency bringing the judge or judiciary into contempt." *

35. In the present case, we are concerned with the notice issued by the contemner to the two Honble Judges demanding apology and compensation, and the subsequent complaint filed by him in the Court of ACMM, Delhi, and the contents thereof. The notice relates to the proceedings of the Court on 15-12-1995. It is said that both the Judges, "without any authority, basis, immorally and illegally hurled upon me with highly derogatory, insulting, offending and contemptuous remarks"

36. After setting out what the Judges allegedly said, it is mentioned in the notice as under

"It is most important to mention here that I had never prayed to grant six weeks time for removing anything from the petitions, filing the fresh petitions and you dictated absolutely false in your order in this regard only with the sole motive to waste the money and valuable time of the petitioner and anyhow harass me along with hide the corruption, fraud, cheating and forgery etc. in a short word, sins." *

37. The notice also mentions his application to the President of India for sanction and in it he held out a threat to the two Honble Judges that if they did not tender unconditional written apology to him he would initiate criminal proceedings in the competent criminal court

38. The criminal contempt is defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as under

"2. (c) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever ..." *

According to the definition reproduced above, the first precondition is the publication or doing of any other act and the second is that the publication or doing of the act has resulted in the consequences set out in Section 2(c)(i), (ii) and (iii), namely

(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."

39. In view of the definition, the contemptuous conduct may be either due to the publication or consists in the doing of any other act

40. In Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat [ 1991 (4) SCC 406 [LQ/SC/1991/455] ], it was observed by this Court that : (SCC pp. 456-57, para 42)

"... The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of court. The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but, to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with." *

41. In Dr D. C. Saxena case [ 1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ">1996 (5) SCC 216 [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] [LQ/SC/1996/1302 ;] ], this Court has already laid down that if a Judge, on account of the proceedings conducted by him in his court, is threatened that he would be prosecuted in a court of law for the judicial act done by him, it amounts to criminal contempt as it lowers and tends to lower the dignity of the court

42. We are also of the same opinion. We may observe that any threat of filing a complaint against the Judge in respect of the judicial proceedings conducted by him in his own court is a positive attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice. In order that the Judges may fearlessly and independently act in the discharge of their judicial functions, it is necessary that they should have full liberty to act within the sphere of their activity. If, however, litigants and their counsel start threatening the Judge or launch prosecution against him for what he has honestly and bona fide done in his court, the judicial independence would vanish eroding the very edifice on which the institution of justice stands. It would also be in violation of the statutory protection available to the Judges and Magistrates under the Judicial Officers (Protection) Act as also the Judges (Protection) Act

43. Having seen the entire record, we are fully satisfied that the contemner, by questioning the conduct of the Judges through his notice and demanding apology and compensation from them as also the complaint lodged against them, especially in the language employed by him, is guilty of the criminal contempt and is liable to be punished therefor in both the cases

44. In relation to the quantum of punishment, we may observe that the contemner, who is a practising advocate and is young in age, had on 10-10-1996, tendered before us an unconditional and unqualified apology in writing, withdrawing all the objectionable remarks, sentences and words used by him in the application, notice and complaint and had expressed his regrets. The Court, however, is not bound to accept the apology unless there is real feeling of repentance in the contemner. The contemner had already been given an opportunity at the initial stage by both the learned Judges to withdraw his remarks against a Judge of the Allahabad High Court and other officers of the lower judiciary, but he insisted to proceed with the case. He even initiated contempt proceedings against both the Honble Judges. But this Court took a lenient view and instead of initiating any other action against him, dismissed the criminal contempt petition by order dated 5-8-1996, passed by Honble J. S. Verma and Honble B. N. Kirpal, JJ

45. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution is independent of the Contempt of Courts Act and the power under Article 129 cannot be denuded, restricted or limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus there is no restriction or limitation on the nature of punishment that this Court may award while exercising its contempt jurisdiction. But we do not intend to travel far and beyond

46. Having convicted the contemner for obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten and overawe the Court by using insulting and disrespectful language and issuing notices and also launching criminal prosecution against two Honble Judges, we sentence the contemner for the offence of criminal contempt as under

(a) The contemner Ajay Kumar Pandey is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. On serving this sentence for two weeks, the remaining sentence shall stand suspended for a period of two years and may be activated in case the contemner is convicted for any other offence of contempt of court within the said period. He shall be taken into custody forthwith but will be released after two weeks, to be taken into custody again if and when his remaining sentence stands activated

47. The contempt petitions are disposed of accordingly.