- (1.) THE only question that requires determination in this case is whether or not a person who attacks the integrity of a recently retired Judge of this Court in the course of his judicial duties after the Judge has retired, can be held guilty of contempt of Court.
(2.) THIS question has arisen in the application filed by Shri Gyan Singh Vohra, an Advocate of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 against Malik Ram Bheja Lal another advocate of this Court. The history sheet of the events leading to this application has been given by Mehr Singh J. , in some detail. It will be convenient to give a few salient facts which are relevant for the purposes of deciding this question.
(3.) BEFORE partition of the country the two Advocates were settled in Lahore. They migrated to delhi in 1947, One Sardul Singh' Caveeshar was the Managing Director of (i) the New hindustan Bank Ltd. and of (ii) the Peoples Insurance Co. Ltd. The Bank went into voluntary liquidation and some time in April, 1948, Shri M. L. Sethi and Shri Kartar Singh were appointed joint liquidators. Shri Sethi resigned and Malik Ram Bheja Lal was appointed in his place. In 1949 the High Court brought the liquidation of the Bank under its supervision. Malik Ram Bheja lal was also appointed legal adviser of the Insurance Co. , at the time of his appointment as Joint liquidator of the Bank. After the liquidation had been taken under supervision by the High court, Shri Gyan Singh Vohra superseded Malik Ram Bheja Lal as legal adviser of the Insurance co. Thereafter Sardul Singh Caveeshar along with some others applied under Section 213 of the indian Companies Act to the High Court on 27th November, 1949 through Shri Vohra for removal of Malik Ram Bheja Lal from joint liquidatorship. At that time Harnam Singh J. , was dealing with liquidation cases. Evidence was recorded in the case in due course but before it could be decided on merits, Malik tendered his resignation on 10th July, 1950 to the learned Judge stating that due to his private circumstances, he found it impracticable to continue as Joint Liquidator. The learned Judge accepted this resignation. As was to be expected on the filing of this application, the relations between the two Advocates became strained. It appears, however, that these relations became extremely bitter and both the Advocates embarked on a career of filing Civil and Criminal cases against each other directly or indirectly. Ultimately on 18th February, 1957, Shri Vohra filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1500/-as damages for defamation against Malik and on 6th March, 1957, Malik retaliated by filing a similar suit but for recovery of Rs. 10/- only. In this reference we are concerned with Vohra's case only. In para 5 of his plaint he alleged that after the evidence had been recorded, Malik tendered his resignation "seeing writing on the wall. " in reply Malik prayed that , the allegation of Vohra in this paragraph be expunged as scandalous and irrelevant and then proceeded to give his own version of the circumstances in which he had tendered resignation in 1950. In this explanation, besides making allegations against Vohra and others, he alleged that on account of the attitude of Hamam Singh J. , he had applied to the Chief justice for transfer of the case and learning of that application, the learned Judge consulted the then Advocate General who expressed his opinion that contempt of court proceedings could not be taken on this application. This, according to Malik, annoyed the learned Judge, Malik further alleged in this written statement that the learned Judge was on friendly and social terms with Sardul Singh Caveeshar and that he threatened to give his judgment against Malik if he did not resign. According to malik the attitude of the Judge impelled and compelled him to tender his resignation. The written statement in which the allegations have been made was filed by him in Court on 16th April, 1957 and a month later Vohra made this present application on various grounds, including the ground that serious allegations had been made against a Judge of this Court relating to his judicial work. It may be stated here that Harnam Singh J. , retired on attaining the age of superannuation in april, 1956 i. e. , about a year prior to the filing of the written statement by Malik. The application for contempt of Court came before Mehr Singh J. , who rejected all the grounds raised by Vohra but so far as the matter relating to the retired Judge of this Court was concerned, the learned judge referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench: "whether an attack upon the integrity of a recently retired Judge in relation to the performance of his duties as a Judge while in office of this Court, as in the circumstances of the present case, amounts to contempt of court or not. " It is this question that is to be decided by this judgment. This question assumes that if these allegations had been made when the learned Judge was still a Judge of this Court, then Malik would have been guilty of the offence of contempt of court and it is on this assumption that I proceed to discuss the matter.;