Meher Chand Mahajan, C. J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of contempt proceedings taken against two very senior members of the Nagpur Bar and one of their clients. Shri Shareef, one of the appellants, at one time was Minister for Law and Justice in the State. Dr. Kathalay, the second appellant, is a Doctor of Laws and an author of legal works. The matter which resulted in the issue of the show cause notices for contempt took a protracted course and has to a certain extent resulted in embittered feelings. What happened was this:
(2.) Shri Zikar who was charged along with the two appellants for contempt made an application under Article 226(1) of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental right, alleging that he was a citizen of Bharat, and that the Custodian of Evacuee Property and the police were taking wrongful action against him and treating him as a national of Pakistan which he never was. He prayed for an interim order of prohibition against the State from deporting him after the expiry of the permit. The High Court granted the interim order of prohibition against the action complained. At the hearing of the case on 11th August, 1950, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State that Zikar had suppressed material facts in the petition filed by him and that the petition was therefore liable to be dismissed without going into the merits. Shri Shareef, who was counsel for Zikar, combated this contention and further submitted that the preliminary objection could not be adequately dealt with, without going into the merits of the case. On behalf of the State another affidavit was filed on 17th August, 1950 stating certain facts, and Zikar was also directed to file an affidavit in reply by the 21st August, 1950 and this he did by that date. The relevant proceedings of that date are recorded in these terms: "Shri Shareef for the petitioner. Shri Naik for the respondent. He files an affidavit and copies of applications dated 25th February, 1949 and 19th January, 1950. Shri Shareef files a statement and an affidavit. His attention was drawn to paragraph 4 of the affidavit and he was asked whether his client has really understood the contents which are in English 'adding that he might change in the Supreme Court' and say that he had not understood them. Shri Shareef then said that he has explained the contents to his client. Paragraph 6 of the statement and the affidavit is uncalled for as the applt. only desired to file an affidavit with reference to paragraph 10 of the affidavit of the non-applicant:'Vide' order sheet dated 17th August, 1950. 'A remark was made by one of us "Whether paragraph 6 was inserted for founding an argument before the Supreme Court'". Shri Shareef replied he has stated facts********* Thereafter Shri Naik continued his arguments on the preliminary point till we rose for lunch. When we reassembled Shri Shareef informed us that he wants time to apply for transfer of this case to another Bench because of the observations made by us regarding paragraphs 4 and 6 of his affidavit. Case is therefore adjourned to 25th August, 1950 to enable Shri Shareef to make an application in the meanwhile."
(3.) On the 23rd August, 1950 an application for the transfer of the case from the Bench hearing it to another Bench of the High Court was made on the following grounds: "1. The observations and references to the Supreme Court by Rao and Deo, JJ. created a bona fide belief in the applicant's mind that they were prejudiced against him and had made up their minds and indicated that he shall have to go in appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. The observations and references to the Supreme Court were absolutely unnecessary and left no doubt in the applicant's mind that he would not receive justice at the hands of the Hon'ble Judges. Prayer:In the interests of dispensation of impartial justice, the case be transferred to another Civil Division Bench for disposal." This application was not only signed by Zikar but also by the two appellants as counsel for the applicant and was rejected in due course and with that matter we are no longer concerned. The preliminary objection raised by the State was upheld and the petition under Article 226 was dismissed. The learned Judges then ordered notices to issue to the applicant and his two counsel to show cause why they should not all be committed for contempt for scandalizing the Court, with a view to perverting the due course of justice by making statements in the transfer application impeaching the impartiality of the Judges.;