AHMADI - (1.) I am in complete agreement with my learned brother Agrawal, J. that there is no merit in this appeal but I would like to add a few words of my own.
(2.) THE appellant, a practising Advocate, having failed to persuade the learned Subordinate Judge to grant an ad interim injunction pending filing of a counter by the opposite party, switched gear from persuasive advocacy to derogatory remarks in the fond hope that such tactic would succeed and the learned Judge would be browbeaten into submission. Fortunately the learned Judge was made of sterner stuff and refused to succumb to such unprofessional conduct. Instead he made a record of the disrespectful and derogatory remarks made with intent to tarnish his image as a Judicial Officer and forwarded a report to the District Judge who in turn reported the matter to the High Court to enable it to initiate proceedings for contempt of court against the appellant. THE exact words uttered by the appellant reproduced in the judgment of my learned brother, leave no doubt that the intention of the appellant was to cast aspersions on the integrity of the learned Judge and to lower him in the esteem of others by creating doubts regarding his honesty, judicial impartiality and independence. THE tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned judge but also to the fair name of the judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. THE foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. It is high time that we realise that the much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system. An independent judiciary is of vital importance to any free society. Judicial independence was not achieved overnight. Since we have inherited this concept from the British, it would not be out of place to mention the struggle strong-willed judges like Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and many others had to put up with the Crown as well as the Parliament at considerable personal risk. And when a member of the profession like the appellant who should know better so lightly trifles with the much endeared concept of judicial independence to secure small gains it only betrays a lack of respect for the martyrs of judicial independence and for the institution itself. THEir sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair name of the judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence. And here is a member of the profession who has repeated his performance presumably because he was let off lightly on the first occasion. Soft-justice is not the answer - not that the High Court has been harsh with him - what I mean is he cannot be let off on an apology which is far from sincere. His apology was hollow there was no remorse - no regret - it was only a device to escape the rigour of the law. What he said in his affidavit was that he had not uttered the words attributed to him by the learned Judge; in other words the learned Judge was lying adding insult to injury - and yet if the court finds him guilty (he contested the matter tooth and nail) his unqualified apology may be accepted. This is no apology, it is merely a device to escape. THE High Court rightly did not accept it. That is what this Court had done in a similar situation in L. D. Jaiswal v. State of U.P., (1984) 3 SCC 405 : (AIR 1984 SC 1374). This Court described it as a 'paper' apology and refused to accept it in the following words "We do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest imputations against him has to do is to go ahead and scandalize him, and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs him practically nothing. If such an apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a 'licence' to scandalize courts and issuing and commit contempt of court with impunity. It will be rather difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care for their self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay such a price for it. And no sitting Judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of fear of being scandalised and persecuted by an advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were to be countenanced, advocates who can cow down the Judges, and make them fall in line with their wishes, by threats of character assassination and persecution will be preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of courts." When a member of the Bar is required to be punished for use of contemptuous language it is highly painful - it pleases none - but painful duties have to be performed to uphold the honour and dignity of the individual Judge and his office and the prestige of the institution. Courts are generally slow in using their contempt jurisdiction against erring members of the profession in the hope that the concerned Bar Council will chasten its member for failure to maintain proper ethical norms. If timely action is taken by Bar Councils, the decline in the ethical values can be easily arrested. By refusing to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court this Court is not merely punishing the appellant but is in fact upholding the independence of the judiciary. Let me conclude with the hope that this Court will not be called upon to deal with such a situation in future. For the above reasons I agree that the appeal be dismissed.S.C.AGRAWAL
(3.) THIS appeal filed under S. 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 13/01/1987 where by the appellant has been convicted for having committed contempt of court under S. 2(c)(i) of the Act and has been sentenced to pay Rs. 1,000.00 as fine and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. The appellant, who is practising as an Advocate at Narnaul, was representing the plaintiff in Civil Suit titled Hari Ram v. Municipal Committee. On 20/09/1985, the appellant appeared in the said suit for the plaintiff and orally prayed for ex parte ad interim stay. The said request was declined by the Subordinate Judge, Narnaul, who ordered for issuance of notice to the defendants for 24/09/1985. On Se 24/09/1985, Shri Banwari Lal Sharma appeared for the defendants and requested for a date for filing a reply to the said application which request was not opposed by the appellant but the appellant prayed for ad interim stay in favour of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge told the appellant that the question of ad interim stay would be considered after filing of the reply by the defendants and adjourned the case for 26/09/1985. It appears that the appellant was not satisfied with this order passed by the Subordinate Judge and according to the Subordinate Judge, Shri S. R. Sharma, the appellant uttered the following words in the Court: "You are wholly favouring the Municipal Committee. Are you sitting as Judge or as Administrator of Municipal Committee? To me it seems that you are deciding the case as Administrator of Municipal Committee. You are acting as if you are a contractor of the Municipal Committee. I do not expect any justice from you. I do not think that you will grant stay to me as you are fully siding with the Municipal Committee. You are not granting stay to me as you are in collusion with the Deputy Commissioner and under his (Deputy Commissioner) influence, you do not want to grant stay to me and that he will complain against me to the Hon'ble High Court." ;