- (1.) THE office placed this Misc. Application dated 6-9-2001 filed by the convicted contemner supported by his affidavit in terms of order dated 31-8-2001 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2001 firstly before the Hon'ble C. J. 's Bench on 15-9-2001. Vide Order dated 15-9-2001 Hon'ble C. J. 's Bench directed placing of this application before our Bench on 24-9-2001. THEn the office placed it for our consideration for the first time at 3. 00 p. m. yesterday (may be on account of the fact that one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.), was on Circuit Holding Court at the Lucknow Bench from Monday dated 17th September, 2001 to 22nd September, 2001, praying to accept the apology tendered by him on the ground that it will be expedient in the interest of justice for the reasons and facts given in the accompanying affidavit.
(2.) THE affidavit (excluding the earlier part) reads as follows: " (1) THE the deponent is Respondent/applicant in the above noted contempt and as such he is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to below. (2) That the deponent is sole petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40783 of 1999 and had moved a transfer application in the case transferring the writ petition some other bench, as matter was tied up with bench presided by Hon'ble B. K. Roy, J. (3) That Hon'ble B. K. Roy, J. was pleased to release the case on 8-11-2000. However, issued a notice of contempt to the deponent on the contents of the transfer application aforesaid. (4) That the deponent was conducting his case in person and had also drafted the writ petition and had been from time to time drafting other applications/affidavits to be filed in the Hon'ble Court, although he does not have any law degree or experience of practising as a lawyer and was arguing in the present writ petition against the order of the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, punishing the petitioner by permanently stopping his increments against the alleged non-evaluation of answer scripts, a case in which the petitioner was falsely implicated and Respondents filed false affidavits in the Court. (5) That the petitioner is a teacher and has always been conscious of the dignity and Majesty of the Hon'ble Court and had never any intentions to commit contempt or disregard in any manner the dignity and decorum of the Hon'ble Court, and with this thing in his mind he had made a confidential representation dates September 9, 2000 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court, New Delhi, which was personally handed over by him in the office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on September 11, 2000. A copy of the said representation is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. '1' to this affidavit. (6) That the aforesaid contempt case came for hearing on 10-8-2001 before the bench consisting of Hon'ble B. K. Roy and Hon'ble S. K. Jain, JJ. when the Hon'ble Bench granted time to file show cause/or apology to the deponent by 1. 30 p. m. in Chambers. (7) That the deponent could not file the show cause/or apology to the Hon'ble Court in Chamber on 10- 8-2001 as he was already ill and was suffering from high fever and therefore, requested his Counsel to request the Hon'ble Court to grant time to file the aforesaid show cause/or apology, and seek adjournment due to this reason. (8) That the Counsel of the dependent sought adjournment from Hon'ble Court on the aforesaid reasons but the adjournment was not granted by the Hon'ble Court, and convicted the depondent for 15 days simple imprisonment. (9) That thereafter, the deponent filed a Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2001 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 10-8-2001 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Contempt No. 47 of 2000. And the following interim order dated 21-8-2001 was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court: "upon being mentioned by the Counsel the Court made the following. ORDEr List on the scheduled date. Pending further orders, the contempt proceedings shall remain stayed. S/d-Illegible (N. Annapurna) Court Master, S/d-Illegible (Shelly Sengupta) Court Master" 21. 8. 2001 A Photo copy of the aforesaid order dated 21-8-2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. '2' to this affidavit. (10) That on 31-8-2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order: "upon hearing Counsel the Court made the following. ORDEr Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant will file an apology before the High Court and the High Court may be requested to hear the appellant on that. THE matter is adjourned by three weeks in order to enable the appellant to approach the High Court. If an apology is filed within a week, the High Court should deal with the same. List after three weeks. Interim orders to continue till further orders. Sd/- Illegible (S. L. GOYAL) COURT MASTER" A Photostat copy of the said order dated 31-8-2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. '3' to this affidavit. (11) That the deponent has had never intended nor wished to commit any contempt of Court or to show any disregard during the entire proceedings of the Court in the writ petition as well as the contempt case, aforesaid and never imagined to violate the dignity and decorum of the Hon'ble Court. If this Court feels that the deponent has committed contempt of the Hon'ble Court, the deponent tenders his unqualified apologies. I, the deponent, abovenamed do hereby solemnly affirm and swear and verify that the contents of paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, (partly), 5 (partly), 6, 7, 8, 11 of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge; and those of contents of paragraph Nos. 4 (partly), 5 (partly), 9 and 10 of this affidavit are based on perusal of records; which all I believe to be true and that no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed in it. So help me God. (A. C. Agrawal)" Since we are required to deal with the apology allegedly tendered in terms of the directions made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court we refresh ourselves with the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court as to when it should be accepted. 3. 1. In Mulkh Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197 at 1198 (Paragraph 9) a 4 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemner finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. . . . . . . " 3. 2. In this very judgment, when a litigant sent an application before Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India making allegation against a Judge in a pending case, it was observed in Paragraph 10 (at Page 1198) as follows: "the submission of the appellant that the application was a representation is unmeritorious. It will be most improper for litigants to send applications to the Chief Justice of India concerning pending matters and making allegations against Judges. The dismissal of the appellants application by the High Court was characterised by the appellant in offensive language casting aspersions on the Judges and lowering the dignity and esteem of the judiciary. " 3. 3. In L. D. Jaikwal v. State of U. P. , AIR 1984 SC 1374, when before the High Court the appellant sought to justify his conduct without feeling any remorse or expressing any sorrow and it was only when the contemner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed his sorrow before the Hon'ble Supreme Court saying that he had lost his mental balance, it was observed as follows: "we are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the `slap-say sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying `sorry' does not make the slapper poorer. Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction. xx (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . He appeared before the learned Judge and tendered a written apology wherein he stated that he was doing so "as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. " This circumstance in a way shows that it was a `paper' apology and the expression of sorrow came from his pen, not from his heart. For, it is one thing to "say" sorry it is another to "feel" sorry. . . . . . . . . " xxx (6) 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 a 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 commit contempt of Court with impunity. " 3. 4. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction, (1995) 3 SCC 507 at 523, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "an apology is not a weapon of defence forged to purge the guilt of the offences nor is it intended to operate as a panacea. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness, the manly consciousness of a wrong done, of an injury inflicted, and the earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the wrongdoer's power. " The apology in this case came forth after sensing that `the adventures have turned out to be misadventures, releasing that the contemners have ended up in a cul- de-sac. " 3. 5. In Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 130, it was observed as follows: "the apology of the respondent was only conditional and not an unconditional one. Public interest, therefore, demands that the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented by mere statement of conditional apology or as a fact even unconditional apology. The unconditional apology should be contrite for the acts committed by him. Therefore, the conditional apology would not be a premium to avoid conviction. Though it is open to the Court in an appropriate case to accept an unconditional apology based on factual scenario but accepting the apology and dropping the proceeding of contumacious acts deliberately done to overreach the due process of the law without compunction would amount to a premium to fabricate the Court order with impunity. Therefore, the conditional apology of the respondent has to be rejected. It is a grave and contumacious act and conduct on the part of the respondent which cannot be lightly brushed aside. " 3. 6. In P. Kasilingam v. P. S. G. & Sons Charities, Poolamedu, Coimbatore, 1990 Supreme Court Case (Cri) 626 it was held that offering of an unconditional apology has its due reflection in the quantum of punishment and it cannot completely absolve contempt. In relation to permissibility of transfer of a contempt proceeding initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution, in Sukhdeo Singh Sodhi v. Hon'ble C. J. S. Teja Singh, AIR 1954 SC 186, a three Judges Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that contempt "proceeding cannot be transferred from one Judge to another". This declaration of law made 47 years ago still holds the field inasmuch as it has not been overruled or modified by any larger Bench or explained away by any three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Our Rules, however, permits vesting powers in Hon'ble the Chief Justice to refer a question of law arising even in a pending case to a larger Bench but the law as to when a case is required to be referred to a larger Bench stands well settled through a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court.
(3.) IN Jaswant Singh v. Virendra Singh, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 384, when a transfer petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against a learned Judge of the High Court it was observed that "transfer petition like the application casts aspersions on the learned Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions and has the tendency to scandalise the Court. It was an attempt to browbeat the learned Judge of the High Court and cause interference in the conduct of a fair trial. Not only are the aspersions derogatory, scandalous and uncalled for but they also tend to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect. . . . . . . . . . . bring the Court in disrepute. " In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that filing of false affidavit or making false statement on oath amounts to criminal contempt of Court.;