- (1.) Heard the learned Advocate General for State. This Court has also heard some other learned counsel, viz. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ganguly, Mr. Chitta Ranjan Panda, Mr. Sumanta Chakraborty, Mr. Supradip Roy, Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay, 1595 Mr. Kallol Guha Thakurta, Mr. Idris All, even though the parties for which those counsel addressed this Court, are not on record. This Court has heard those learned counsel since the matter has generated some amount of public interest.
(2.) This appeal has been filed by the State under Clause 16 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29th September, 2003, passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of suo motu power, under the contempt of Courts Act. An application has also been filed for stay of the said order. The learned Advocate General while arguing in support of the appeal and the application for stay has made it clear that the contempt proceedings, which have been initiated against the police authorities, are not maintainable in law. The learned Advocate General further submitted that in the said proceedings, which are not maintainable, the learned Judge has Issued certain directions which are virtually directions on the State. As the State is finding difficulties to carry out those directions, this appeal has been filed. We have looked into the records and found that on 2nd October, 2003, another Division Bench, during vacation, was moved against the very same order and an application for stay was also filed. But the learned Division Bench did not have the benefit of perusing the reasoned order, passed by the learned single Judge and, as such, the learned Judges of the Division Bench, did not consider the question of stay of the said order, except however, making some modifications and the directions given in the order under appeal were relaxed in so far the religious processions are concerned. Now, the order of the learned single Judge has been placed before us and the learned Advocate General has also filed additional grounds of appeal as also a Supplementary Affidavit, containing additional averments. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, it appears that on 24th September, 2003, while the learned single Judge was coming to High Court, the learned Judge's car was caught in a traffic snarl and the car could not move further. From the facts stated in the judgment and order under appeal, it appears that security personnel of the learned Judge made a reuest to the police officer on duty so that the car can proceed towards the High Court. The police officer on duty asked the personal security of the learned Judge to wait a little and even reportedly requested the personal security of the learned Judge to control the traffic dislocation. However, the learned Judge had to wait in his car for sometime and the learned Judge felt humiliated. After waiting in the car for sometime, when the movement of the traffic on the road became normal, the learned Judge proceeded towards the High Court. The learned Judge has also recorded in the order that when the learned Judge sat in Court, the learned Judge found that the attendance in the Court was not usual like other days. The attendance was rather thin and on enquiry, the learned Judge came to know that because of the same procession which blocked the movement of learned Judge's car, the members of the Bar were also inconvenienced and there was delay on their part in coming to Court. This is broadly the factual background of the case and in the learned Judge's order it has been recorded that his Lordship's car was blocked in front of Akashbani Bhawan, which is at some distance from the High Court. The learned Judge in the aforesaid factual background exercised his Lordship's suo motu power under the Contempt jurisdiction and in doing so, the learned Judge made the following observation. "Every Judge is a citizen of the country but every citizen is not the Judge. A Judge has at least two compartments of mind. One is personal mind and another is Judge's mind. Judge's mind is based on reasons and applicable not only to the others' cause but also to his own cause. The own cause does not mean any private cause public cause. This is the source of suo motu power of contempt".
(3.) Again, the learned Judge made some observations about the source of Court's contempt power at page 4 of his Lordship's judgment, which are set out hereinbelow : "I am not unmindful about the source of power of the Court given under the Constitution particularly under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with various Sections, Rules and Appendix. However the Constitutional authorities have Inherent 1596 power to uphold the dignity and majesty of the Court of law. The line between Civil and Criminal Contempt is very hazy. Whether it is civil contempt or criminal contempt or whether it is a public interest litigation or ordinary writ is only the input but not the output. The output is to give appropriate relief in the circumstances".;