- (1.) When the,above miscellaneous application was called on for hearing today, after hearing the petitioner we were inclined to think that since the earlier order dated 16th August, 1991 was passed by a Division Bench comprising our learned brothers S. Ratnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ. It would be more appropriate that this miscellaneous application also be placed before a Bench of which either of them is a party. Just when we had dictated this part of the order that the petitioner addressed the Court in a loud tones; "either he is an anti-national or the Judges are antinationals". He continued to make similar contemptuous statements scandalising the Court and, therefore, we were constrained to direct notice to issue against him for committing contempt. We, therefore, directed notice to be served on the petitioner forthwith to show cause why action for Contempt of Court should not be taken against him. We directed the Registry to forthwith serve the show cause notice on him and further directed that the matter be called out at 12.45 p. m. We also directed the petitioner not to leave the Court and he was present in Court when the notice was served on him. The learned Attorney General who was in Court was also requested to assist this Court and he did so but since he was required in another partheard matter, Mr, G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel assisted this Court for which we are grateful to both of them.
(2.) Exercise of jurisdiction of this nature is in fact a painful duty which this Court is called upon to perform not because any allegation is directed against a Judge or Judges of this Court or to vindicate personal honour but to maintain the dignity and decorum of this Court. That is what this Court observed in a recent judgment in Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406. It has been observed in that case that the object of punishing a contemner is to protect the administration of public justice and not judges personally.
(3.) The notice issued to the contemner to show cause sets out the events that took place in Court this morning. The record of the events is as under: "Let this matter be placed before a Bench of which either Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian or Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jayachanda Reddy is a party. After this order was dictated the petitioner stated that either he is an anti-national or the judges are antinationals. We directed: "Issue notice for contempt of Court against him". The petitioner continues to make statements which are contemptuous, thereby scandalising the court. The notice should be served on the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner is in Court and we direct him not to leave the Court. The Registry will forthwith serve the contempt notice on him and let the matter be called out at 12.45 p.m. We have requested the Attorney-General to assist us" The contemner was asked if he would like to file a written reply to the show cause notice. After answering in the negative initially he said would like to file a reply provided copies are not insisted upon. We permitted him to file a hand written reply as desired by him. It transpiers therefrom that he believes that in the backdrop of the facts of his case he has a fundamental duty under Article51A(j) to behave as he did to defend his case and nothing is an offence if done in good faith. He seems to think that what he said and did was in private defence and is, therefore, not an offence. In other words he thinks he was entitled to behave as he did and utter the derogatory words that he spoke as he was discharging his fundamental duty and was acting in good faith in his own defence. He has set out in his reply to the Show Cause Notice the history regarding his case and the alleged injustice done to him at various stages in the proceedings. He has a grievance against all those who have handled his case and has alleged that by directing the matter to be placed before a Bench of which either Pandian J. or Jayachandra Reddy, J. is a party, one of us (Ahmadi, J.) had individually with concerted efforts and conspiracy' nullified the direction of listing the matter given by Misra, C.J. He seems to have singled out one of us since the order was dictated by him. We are not concerned with the history or merits of his case but we are concerned with his misbehaviour and utterances which are contemptuous per se i.e. in the face of the Court.;