Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J. - (1.) THIS contempt notice was issued by this Court on the report of Shri R.S. Gupta, District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani to Shri Balbir Sharma, Respondent No. 1 and Shri Dev Barat Vashishth, Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 was being proceeded against in a criminal case in the Court of Shri R. N. Singal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani. Shri Balbir Sharma filed an application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani for the transfer of his case from the Court of Shri R. N. Singal. With that application Respondent No. 1, Shri Balbir Sharma, attached a leaflet, printed on May 8,1975. The English translation of this leaflet is as under: - Tumahare Zulam Ki Tumhise Ham Fariad Karte Hain. Mohabat Ka Naya Pahlu Yeh Aik Ijad Karte Hain. Shri R.N. Singal a Judge or a Dictator. Ever since Shri R.N. Singal has been appointed a Judge at Bhiwani, the atmosphere of the Court at Bhiwani has changed. Whosoever visits the Court for any purpose he is maltreated. So much so he also uses filthy language, Even the Advocates have not escaped from his anger. A few days back Pt. Deep Chand Advocate of Hansi was insulted in the Court and he was directed to go out of the Court. When nothing could be done to him even after insulting the Advocate, his attitude became more stiff(sic) and the public while attending his Court do not consider their self -respect safe. Shri R. N. Singal considers himself to be the right hand of the Government and after taking action in accordance with the orders of Shri Surinder Singh, he is of the opinion that there is none to cause any harm to him even after insulting any person from the public. The public is very much upset with the attitude of Shri Singal. Hence the authorities might look into it. Dated 8th May, 1975. YoursBalbir Sharma,Mantri, Bhartiya Lok Dal,Bhiwani. Chetna PressBhiwani. The leaflet was printed at Chetna Press Bhiwani of which Dev Brat Vashishtha, Respondent No. 2, is the proprietor.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1, Balbir Sharma, in his reply to the notice submitted that be held the Courts in a very high esteem as people go there with a feeling the next to God they can get justice only from there. He was implicated in many cases falsely by the executive and always got justice from the Courts and was grateful for that. He was greatly hurt when he found that Shri R. N. Singal was acting in a very rude and undignified manner. The attitude of Shri R.N Singal towards the litigants and a large number of the members of the Bar was highly contemptuous, undignified and rude. Shri R. N. Singal, according to Respondent No. 1, was not only lowering the dignity of his Court but also of the judiciary as a whole. He further submitted - He was giving out the impression perhaps deliberately that he enjoyed the support of the executive authority. In his Court Shri Surinder Singh son of Shri Bansi Lal and other advocates related to Shri Bansi Lal are being supported by him, enjoyed a favourite position. On the other hand, other Advocates, like Thakur Bir Singh, his brother and son and others were being insulted and humiliated by him every day. The Respondent submitted that as political worker he was inspired by a motive of eulogising the dignity of the judicial system by pointing out the misbehaviour of Shri R. N. Singal, who was a stigma on the judiciary. Respondent No. 1 further stated that be learnt that Shri Deep Chand, Advocate, who had been insulted by Shri R. N. Singal, bad filed a complaint in the High Court which was found correct and Shri R. N. Singal was transferred, but the transfer was later on cancelled. After defending the matter in the leaflet the Respondent stated that he bad not committed any contempt "but if this Hon'ble Court finds that it does fell within the ambit of law of contempt he offers an unqualified and unconditional apology for the same." Respondent No. 2, in his reply repeated the words used by Respondent No. 1 in his reply about the esteem in which he held the Courts and the judiciary. About the leaflet he took the plea that it was printed at his press in routine and he did not know the legal implications involved. He tendered apology in these words: - I tender an unqualified apology for having printed it if this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the printing of this pamphlet amounts to contempt of Court. The Respondent has, how -ever, been advised that it does not amount to the contempt of Court." Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines "Criminal contempt" as under: - criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which - (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court ; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding: or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or fends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
(3.) EVERY libel, spoken or written, about a Judge does not amount to contempt of Court unless it has the effect of besmearing bis judicial image in public calculated to cause apprehension in the minds of the general public that they would not get fair and proper justice in that Court thus amounting to interference or obstruction in the administration of justice. It would only fall within the ambit of the Contempt of Court if it scandalises or tends to scandalise the Court. If it amounts to a libel, pure and simple about the Judge then be can have his own remedy permitted by law. Law of contempt does not act for defending the Judges against the disparaging remarks which do not amount to reflection on their conduct in the discharge of their judicial functions. Distinction must be made between a mere libel or defamation of a Judge and what amounts to contempt of Court. Contempt proceedings are taken in public interest and not to relieve a feeling of a particular Judge It has, therefore, to be seen whether the matter printed in the leaflet amounts to scandalising the Court of Shri R. N. Singal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani or has the effect of interference or obstruction in the justice administered or to be administered by him.;