Janardan Sahai, V.K.Shukla, A.P.Sahi, Vikram Nath and S.K.Jain, JJ. - (1.) LONG before our late Prime Minister Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru had within the portals of the Parliament trumpeted the creation of a free Nation in 1947 proclaiming that India was making her tryst with destiny, the Queen Empress Victoria, through a solemn Royal Charter in the year 1866, laid the surest and firm foundations of this institution representing what every free human being desires, the rule and majesty of law in a civilized Society. This acknowledged the supremacy of law to a great extent even in the British ruled dominions that held sway over almost every part of the Globe. This authenticated document which is still preserved in original and housed in the Museum of our Court, heralded a new era of dispensation of justice with new hopes of preservation of the rule of law. The monarchy came to an end and then dawned a new republic. With the birth of a new nation, we gave ourselves a New Constitution with a pledge to preserve the rule of law in a new democracy.
(2.) HOLDING on to the heritage of Judicial System with its colonial background and imperial authority, but with a new backbone and with visions that stood enshrined and engrafted firmly therein, this "Indian Magna Carta" also contains Article 215 empowering the Higher Judiciary of the States to punish for contempt. This empowerment is the confidence reposed in this institution by our own people who have given unto themselves the Constitution. Such confidence was thought to be necessarily expressed to aid and support the cherished principle of upholding the rule of law and to revere the "sense of justice" that is inherently in every human being. The roots of such pure thoughts travel far beyond our Constitution and the Laws and also the Royal Charter. They are to be found in Manu Smriti and Srimad Bhagwat Gita, in the Bible and the Quran and even in the documents of Atheists. It has an ethical and philosophical support that has enabled it to survive the test of time. Armed and supported with such eternally firm principles, we are reminded of the indestructibility of this bastion of democracy in the words of Late Pt. Kanahiya Lal Mishra, while delivering his impromptu speech in the presence of late Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, the then President of India, on the occasion of the centenary celebrations of this Court in 1966, which is quoted below : "It is a part of the life of a lawyer to be prepared for surprises ; and when I was called upon suddenly a few minutes ago to speak on this occasion, I felt that, because what I have to say will not be any different from what others might say, I should not hesitate. We are today celebrating the lapse of a hundred years. A period of hundred years in the history of the Universe is a speck of dust in the vast expanse of the sky, but in recorded human history a period of hundred years, particularly the period that has passed between 1866 and 1966, is of considerable importance. This period has seen changes so vast that the institutions of a hundred years ago - the institutions that man creates and demolishes - have become almost unrecognisable. Monarchies have tumbled. There have been two world wars. In our own country this period of hundred years began almost with the commencement of the rules of British Crown and that rule had disappeared. It is surprising that the fondness with which man creates institutions, the importance that he attaches to them, the permanency that he attributes to them, are all based upon a lack of foresight. This is because institutions grow out of certain ideas which form the bases of these institutions. In the world of Science, the most amazing discoveries, that appear to open out new vistas of knowledge, become after a lapse of time, outdated and are thrown away on the refuse and rubbish bins of time. Institutions come and go and the history of man changes and all that is held near and dear passes away into the void of eternity. When the greatest scientific truths become outdated and worn out, they also pass away into oblivion. But, an institution, like the High Court, retains its place in the life of the nation, without being affected. That is because there are certain things basic and everlasting in man. These are affection and feeling of brotherhood of man for man and above all the sense of justice. And that is why the Temple of Justice is the most permanent of all the temples on earth. That is why we are able to stand today and say that this institution - above all other institutions in our country has successful buffeted all the vagaries of time............" (Vol. I Pg. 65 of Centenary Celebrations Commemoration - 1966). Such aspirations and hopes which have been nurtured throughout should not be allowed to be shattered either by its guardians or its soldiers.
(3.) THIS year saw the Bar Association of our Court celebrating the Golden Jubilee of its registered creation. What would happen if any officer of this Court, as we usually address lawyers, stands up in defiance of preservation of this highly cherished ideal "Sense of Justice" and attempts to send a message that would destroy the faith of the people ? It would be nothing else but destruction of this temple, and chaos, that would lead to something like what has been described by William Shakespeare in one of his classics, Troilus and Cressida (Act I Scene III) where Ulysses depicts what a world would be without law and order : "Take but degree away, untune that string And hark, what discord follows ; Each thing meets in mere oppugnancy the bounded waters should lift their bosoms higher than the shores And make sop of all this solid globe. Strength should be lord of imbecility, And the rude son should strike his father dead, Force should be right' or rather, right and wrong, between whose endless jar justice resides, Should lose her names, and so should justice, too. Then everything includes itself in power, Power into will, will into appetite, And appetite, a universal wolf, So doubly seconded with will and power Must make perforce a universal prey And last eat up himself." It is because of an unfortunate incident that took place on 10th of December, 2007 and events thereafter, that today we are called upon in this Full Bench to lay down the parameters within which the Officers of the Court, namely the Lawyers, have to operate so that, they even, do not transgress the defined limits of law and the minimum of respect that it deserves. With the advent of the Constitution incorporating Article 215 of the Constitution of India, which has its predecessor in the Government of India Act and Laws that were enforced even prior to that, coupled with the regulations framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred as "the 1971 Act"), the power of the Superior Courts to draw contempt in the event of its majesty being violated appears to have been re -affirmed. This matter also brings into focus the powers of the Court to regulate its own functioning in view of the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed by the Bar Council which provide for taking disciplinary action against an erring Lawyer. Once again the debate has arisen as to whether the Court has the power to debar a Lawyer from practicing in Court or not, even though the learned counsel for the contemnor has conceded this position that such a power exists with the High Court which stands recorded in our order dated 3.12.2008.;