- (1.) THIS civil writ petition has been filed by Shri Ram Piara Comrade challenging the vires of Rule 6, Sub-rule (6) of the Contempt of Court (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Rules framed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, From the reading of the petition and rejoinder to the return filed by the High Court, the case of the petitioner, which we have been able to make out, is that Rule 6 (6) is ultra vires of the. provisions of the Act. The grounds urged to support the challenge are that the rule-making power of the High Court has not been properly exercised and it lacks wisdom. It is also one of the grounds in the petition that the Cr. P. C. hereinafter referred to as the Code, does not apply to the cases under the Act as no reference to it is made in the Act and the use of the provisions of the Code in the rule is inconsistent with the Act. In the rejoinder, it is taken as a plea : (5) Therefore not only that provisions of Criminal Procedure Code do not apply but also Rules of Procedure contemplated in Section 23 exclude matters for which provision is made in Section 17. (6) It is seen that 17 covers two classes of persons : (a) those who have received notice but are likely to abscond; (b) those who keep away to avoid and evade service of notice. The Parliament provided for the procedure in Section 17 fully knowing that there are provisions in the Cr. P. C. for effecting arrest and physically bringing the contemnor to the presence of the Court to answer the charge, but it rejected such provisions and devised another provision in Section 17 for securing this appearance viz. by attachment of property-immovable, moveable and every form of asset like degrees, diplomas etc. (7) Not only this, the Act that provides that the Rules of Procedure framed by the Supreme Court and the High Court under Section 23 shall not be inconsistent with Section 17. Rule 6 (6) is patently, not only inconsistent with Section 17 but also abnegates Section 17 in that I was arrested when, if Section 17 conditions are present, proceedings ought to have been taken only with respect to my property. These are the only points worth consideration, as the grounds of attack to the vires of Rule 6 (6) of the Rules, which we have been able to make out of the petition and the rejoinder, which are full of extraneous matters of other cases of the petitioner and scandalous allegations particularly against various sitting and, retired Judges of this Court. These scandalous allegations which have been made, are not relevant or necessary to the relief the petitioner seeks in the petition for striking down Rule 6 (6) nor could it be of any interest to refer to that material in this judgment. These appear to have been made, with a desire to scandalise this Court. The petitioner has referred to his arrest in the cases of contempt of court pending against him. This Court had issued warrants under Rule 6 (6) of the Rules, to secure his presence when he had absented during those proceedings. This seems to be the ground which led the petitioner to file this petition.
(2.) THE Punjab and Haryana High Court in the return, filed through the Registrar of this Court, defended the validity of the Rules. It took a position that the Rules are framed by the High Court under its valid rule-making power by virtue of the delegated powers under Section 23 of the Act. The High Court under the Act has to adopt its own procedure and it is free to adopt the procedure laid down in Section 71 of the Code for the endorsement of the warrants and nothing debars it from applying the provisions of the Code. It was requested in the return that as the petitioner has made unfounded imputations of mala fides, bias and prejudice to the sitting and retired Judges of the Court in their judicial conduct, amounting to scandalizing the court, notice for contempt of court be issued to him.
(3.) WHEN the case was taken up for arguments, the petitioner at the outset submitted a rejoinder referred to in the previous para stating that it contained allegations against this Bench. He further said that we may read the rejoinder so that after going through its contents, we may transfer the case from this Bench. The request was declined as a litigant cannot be given that right to make a defamatory accusation against the Bench for the purpose to seek adjournment or transfer of the case. The petitioner then read the petition and after finishing it again made a request that we should not hear his case. This again was declined on the same ground that the litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the court and hold it under a threat by making defamatory accusations and contemptuous comments. Though the conduct of the petitioner was objectionable but we did not take any notice of it for taking any action against him. The petition, which contained defamatory and scandalous references to the Judges of this Court, present and past, as referred to earlier, was read in court. When the reading of the petition was concluded, Shri H. L. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the High Court, suggested that the challenge in the petition was to the validity of Rule 6 (6) of the Rules and the reading of the return of the High Court, which had defended the rule, and the rejoinder which is full of slanderous and contemptuous comments against the sitting and retired Judges of this Court, need not be gone into, as it will not help the attack on the vires of Rules in any manner, as it was in no way connected with the legal question raised in the petition. The petitioner was bent upon reading the irrelevant matter and refused to further argue his case. The conduct of the petitioner in refusing to argue the case was similar to his conduct earlier, which he has referred to at page 9 of his rejoinder in not arguing his revision. As the vires of the rules, which may be often used by this Court, in contempt matters, were under challenge, we asked Shri H. L. Sibal, learned Counsel for the High Court, to argue the case. The petitioner, however, remained sitting in the Court and occasionally interrupted Shri Sibal in his arguments. At the conclusion of the arguments by Shri Sibal, the petitioner wanted to argue his case. He again insisted on reading the same defamatory material in the rejoinder. He was repeatedly told to reply the arguments of Shri Sibal and adhere to the direction given by the Bench in this regard. He persisted with his insolent behavior to read the rejoinder to derive a sadistic pleasure of repeating the defamatory comments made on several Judges of this Court. He then as a last resort averred that the paper book in the case was not complete. We do not find if this contention of the petitioner is correct. The petition, return and the rejoinder are only the parts of the file. No other document has been filed by any party. This was only a request ostensively made with an idea to drag on the proceedings.;