- (1.) R. M. Sahai, J.-A member of legal profession known for its dignity and culture has it appears in complete disregard of his responsibility and obligations as an officer of the court has filed these applications under section 16 of Contempt of Courts Act read with Art. 215 of the Constitution of India and has indicated as many as five judges of this court for having interfered with due course of the Judicial proceedings and administration of justice while discharging their duties in violation of their oath administered to them under Schedule III of the Constitution. That such applications have been filed is not as astonishing as individuals can go wary as absolute rather abstruse silence of august body like Bar Association which has high traditions and is looked upon as Champion of Judiciary and o n whose shoulder lies the responsibility of vindicating honour of its two constituents, the Bar and Bench.
(2.) LEGAL issue, if any, that can be said mainly to arise out of these applications is if a Judge while deciding a case does not notice each and every case cited by the learned counsel or does not advert to various submission advanced during arguments or makes observation in course of discussion which may be at variance in the judgment or distinguishes a Supreme Court decision does he interfere with administration of justice and his conduct becomes contumacious within meaning of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act. But before narrating the facts of each application which shall expose its frivolity and high light the misconception raging in mind of applicant, a responsible member of society, on the majesty of law and the solemn and pious responsibility of a member of bar to maintain it, we consider it necessary to dispose of two applications, one filed for recall of our order dated 2nd May, 1988 and other for granting time to move a transfer application in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Taking up the review application directed against order dated 2nd May rejecting the objection raised on behalf of applicant, by Sri Satya Deo Singh, Advocate, appearing on that date in person, that the Chief Justice could not refer the case to Full Bench without any reference by a Division Bench on a question of law it was urged that since case was adjourned due to illness of applicant the bench should not have passed the order without hearing him. Although we did not find any justification for it yet we permitted applicant to argue on validity of constitution of the Bench, in our anxiety, that some aspect of rule 6 of Chapter V, or any decision construing it or any other provisions in the Rules of Court, might have escaped our notice. But to our utter surprise we found that the application was yet another misguided effort of the applicant of making unwarranted allegations this time, against the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this court without any necessity or justification as it was not only uncalled for but based on misconception and misapprehension. More shocking than this was the casualness of the applicant, who probably thought that the application containing accusations against the Chief Justice having been made his responsibility as an Advocate was over as he could not place any decision or rule which could indicate that the order rejecting the objections. against constitution of Bench was erroneous. For convenience the rule is extracted below : "Rule 6. The Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of two or more judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a Bench hearing a case. In the latter event the decision of such Bench on the question so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the case and that Bench shall follow that decision on such question and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any, arising therein." It empowers the Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench in any case, either on his own or on a reference made on a question of law by the Division Bench. Since the power was exercised and the larger bench was constituted under first part of the rule it was in accordance with law. No exception could be taken to it. Moreover, the applicant had been filing contempt applications one after the other not only against the Judges who rejected bail application etc. but even against those Judges who decided Contempt Applications against such order. The Hon'ble Chief Justice must have in the circumstances thought it proper that these applications may be heard by a Bench of three Judges. In doing so be not only acted in accordance with rules but also with propriety and seriousness called for by the situation. It was urged that the rule should be construed in light of its heading. The submission appears to be devoid of any substance. Heading of a Section or rule is resorted to understand its meaning in case of doubt. But where there is no ambiguity and the rule is clear and the two, namely, the heading and the rule are in conformity then the question of interpretation or construction does not arise. But what appeared strange that when applicant was asked if he was supported in his submission by any authority then he kept mum. That left us in no doubt that the applicant was taking matters not with that seriousness as could be expected except that he was relishing in hurling unjustified accusation against Judges. For either of reasons, therefore, namely absence of any error in earlier order and even on merits the application is liable to be rejected. After hearing of review application was over and we declined to pass any order immediately the applicant moved another application for grant of time to move an application in Hon'ble Supreme Court for transfer of these applications to that Hon'ble Court. It was another instance which convinced us that the applicant who claims to be an officer of this Court having put in ten years practice and vitally concerned in the maintenance of dignity of court and rule of law is a victim of self opinionated obsession without the least desire or care to look into the law. Article 215 empowers this court to punish for its contempt. This constitutional power cannot be exercised by any other Court. The controversy was settled as far back as 1954 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdeo Singh v. Chief Justice, AIR 1954 SC 186.
(3.) REVERTING to the contempt applications we propose to take up Criminal Misc. No. 149 and 626 together as the former arises out of order dated 15th Oct., 1987 passed by Judge 'G' rejecting second bail application filed by applicant and latter out of observations made by a Division Bench of 'P and D' while directing Contempt Application No. 149 to be listed before another bench on request of applicant. Criminal Case No. 149 (C) of 1988 : This application was filed in January, 1988 as the Judge while rejecting second bail application on 15th October, 1987 violated his sacred oath and interfered with administration of justice in not following Supreme Court decision or 'tilting' them or ignoring them as they were binding on him under Article 141 of the Constitution. It was urged that arguments advanced by the applicant were not considered. It was submitted that even though bail had been granted to other accused with similar allegations but it was refused to applicant's client. Principle of parity and uniformity were also invoked. Attempt was made to establish that if facts and circumstances would have been appreciated in correct perspective then the applicant's client would have been released on bail. The applicant submitted that the Supreme Court in Hussain Ara Khatoon's case had granted bail as a matter of law and if the facts of the two cases were compared then they being similar the law laid down by Hon'ble Court applied squarely. It was urged that the Judge committed mistake on facts as well as he erroneously mentioned that only two additional grounds were put forward when each and every ground was pressed. The applicant submitted that the order-sheet of lower court was perused by the Judge who passed it on to the Government counsel who conceded yet it was mentioned in the order that no ordersheet was produced. It was submitted that some of the witnesses had filed affidavit before the lower court and even though the same was relied before the Judge but he while rejecting the application did not advert to it. The applicant submitted that veracity of prosecution case was attacked by placing various facts and yet the Judge ignored it. Reliance was also placed on Annexure 8 to the application which was an application filed after the argument had concluded in the bail application praying that the cases mentioned in the application may be considered before passing the order It was submitted that either some of the cases were not adverted to at all or if examined then they were 'tilted' on irrelevant considerations. It was also urged that the Judge was wrong in rejecting the bail to the accused who was in jail for more than a year.;