Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) WHAT would have been the end of this case has become its beginning The matter which she Corns was given so understand, may end with an apology has not and will not.
(2.) THE subject matter of this case is contempt of Court. Many cases where contempt is alleged see the end of it with retraction to the correct position followed by an unconditional apology and forgiveness had from the Court. As the end is the beginning of this case, the facts will need to be noticed in that order. Amongst certain other facts of the controversies the matter of apology was connected with indulgence sought from the Court to retract certain statements made on record in the pleadings of the opposite party. Permission to retract the statement was sought by learned Senior counsel appearing for the opposite party after the record of the case had been seen, thereadbare, upon which deliberations had been made over a protracted hearing. This indulgence was not sought right at the beginning when the return to the allegation in the contempt petition had been filed but sought after the defence of the opposite party had been presented on record by a counter affidavit and, otherwise, offered as arguments and that also after the arguments had concluded. One set of counsel appeared for the opposite party initially, represented by a senior member of the Bar who, whatever may be the reason, either withdrew from the case or may have declined to appear, THE opposite party was represented by the first set of counsel through Mr. R. N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate. Additionai Advocate, General, assisted by Mr. Shitla Prasad, Advocare Additional Chief Standing Counsel. THEy were replaced by Mr. S. N. Verma Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. G. L. Tripathi, Advocate and Standing Counsel THE reason why the first set withdrew, the Court does not know. One thing is on record that after the defence had been offered complete and total opportunity over a prolonged hearing Mr. S. N. Verma, Senior Advocate, made a mention on July 26, 1991 to seek indulgence from the Court, appropriately, as the case [had already been argued on behalf of the opposite party, that while the rejoinder argument, on behalf of the petitioner, is being considered by the Court, he seeks permission of the Court to file a retraction of certain statements made by the opposite party with an apology for having made these statements, which the felt ought to have been avoided. THE statement in question has been the subject matter of a very serious debate at the Bar of this Court. When the mention was made seeking Indulgence to withdraw the statements the Court declared by an order that its doors will always remain open for any party, subject to objections from the other side and within the constraints of law, to consider retraction of inappropriate expressions, understood to be such by learned counsel for the opposite party, or to consider an apology, even if it is made late. The order of that date reads :- "Mr. S. N. Verma, Senior Advocate had concluded his arguments in counter and defence of the opposite party. Mrs. S. S. Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate has begun arguments in rejoinder. Mr. S. N. Verma, Senior Advocate soughs indulgence of the Court to make a mention to the effect, that the Court be pleased to grant leave and liberty to submit an affidavit of retraction and regret of the particular sentence as is reproduced and referred to in parti 9 of the Contempt Petition. He explained the reasons for seeking this lease and liberty because firstly he had concluded his arguments and secondly be would need to discuss the matter with the Opposite party. The Court indicated to Mr. S N. Verma, Senior Advocate, that subject to any objections which may be raised on behalf of the petitioner the doors of this Court will always be open if any party desires to withdraw any statement which he feels ought not to be made in contempt proceedings. Suffice it to say What the matter would be considered in totality. Heard. Put up on Tuesday, 3rd July, 1991 as Mr. S. S. Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate has mentioned that he may not be in Allahabad on Monday". What are these expressions which even learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party agrees ought not to have been made and who made them are equally important. The statement is about the High Court as an institution. The person making it, the opposite party, was a Judicial Secretary and Legal Remembrancer to the State Government. is Uttar Pradesh. At that time he was otherwise a judicial officer and a senior District Judge. Should a person in such a position say, in effect, that the decision of the High Court taken administratively "cannot be treated to be a judicial verdict of the Hon'ble High Court". If this in itself is not bad, the statement continues to declare by implication that the State Government is not bound by it or not to act on it as it "cannot be said to be in defiance of the High Court's order." The opposite party, it is alleged, amongst other aspects of the case, does not recognise the High Court in Its administration as a functional institution to be reckoned with and its decisions taken administratively, to put in it very simple terms, are not obliged to be carried out by the State Government.
(3.) THE questions which arise in this contempt proceeding are what is a Court ? THE difference between the State and the State Government ? THE position of the Secretary to the Government and furthermore a Judicial (Law) Secretary and a Legal Remembrancer to the State on deputation from amongst District Judges, the subordinate judiciary ? Another aspect which will need to be considered is whether a judicial officer ought to make submissions of the nature which he has '? That any one else may will be an entirely different perspective but a person whose exclusive business is to uphold the rule of law and strive to maintain the delicate balance between three working institutions of the government and belonging to she judicial cadre, should such an officer express and declare that the High Court's administrative decisions need not be followed by the Government ? This expression of policy or otherwise, is not on record of government files, nor in any communication addressed to the High Court, but at the Bar of tile Court in a counter affidavit in writ petition. It lies as a statement sworn on an affidavit on personal knowledge, in a writ petition now decided, against which decision a Special Appeal Is pending in this Court. The argument before the Court has been that the statement must be seen in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court shall consider the statement, as suggested, in the facts and circumstances of the case as also the Implication the statement may carry. The Court will now notice the facts and the origins of the controversy. ;