MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS is a suo moto contempt proceedings under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred-to as ``the Act'', registered by order of this court dated 5. 2. 99 against contemner respondent Hemraj, for contemptuous statement made by him against the ``judiciary'' in his representation dated 23. 12. 1998 addressed to Hon'ble Chief Minister and Law Minister of the State of Rajasthan. In response to the notice, he appeared before this court on 7. 4. 99. On his request, the court directed the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) to supply the copy of the order dated 5. 2. 99 and such other relevant documents as may be available in the proceedings and are claimed by him. He was also permitted to make inspection of the proceedings and demand such copies as are necessary for him to defend himself in the contempt proceedings. The registry complied with the order dated 7. 4. 99. The respondent has not made any grievance with respect to compliance of the order dated 7. 4. 1999. The case was adjourned to 7. 05. 1999. He did not appear on 7. 5. 99. Thus, a bailable warrant was issued to secure his presence, returnable on 23. 8. 1999. The case was adjourned from time to time as the warrant could not be executed on the respondent. The Superintendent of Police, Kota was directed to depute a responsible officer to get the bailable warrant executed on the respondent. Ultimately on 22. 3. 2000, the respondent appeared before this court. The Court asked him if needs the services of a lawyer, which can be arranged at the State expenses. He declined and claimed himself an expert on the Law of Contempt. He also submitted that there is nothing in his representation dt. 23. 12. 98, addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Hon'ble Law Minister of State of Rajasthan, which constitutes an offence of criminal contempt. He asked us to point out the contents from the representation, which constitutes an offence of criminal contempt. The Court read over the accusations as contained in paras 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (b) and the relief claimed. He also read said paras with the Court and marked them, as directed by the court. He sought time for filing the reply and to argue the matter. The case was adjourned to 4. 4. 2000.
(2.) WE have heard contemner respondent Hemraj and Mr. R. P. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General. The contents of representation dt. 23. 12. 98, addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Hon'ble Law Minister of the Government of Rajasthan, by contemner Hemraj, are summarised as follows: The contemner claimes to be an Engineering Graduate. He established an industry in the name of `bhartiya Engineering Services at Kota after taking loan from the different financial institutions. The party No. 1 in the representation i. e. Murarilal Goyal has been described as an owner of the plot, on which he established his factory. It is averred that the first party is a Gazetted Officer in the Telephone Department. He is competent to influence the public servants. It is alleged that on 6. 1. 1989, an accident took place in which four employees of his industry were seriously injured. The accident took place because of the negligence of the second and third party namely J. K. Synthetics Ltd. and Orient Transport Company. However, the matter was somehow hushed up by the police under the influence of second and third parties. It is also averred that the first party asked him to enhance the rent of the plot from 1600/-to 1900/ -. He malafidely got the electric and water connections disconnected. He also sent certain `gundaas' on the premises of the industry. He filed a suit for temporary injunction in the civil court in the year 1989. By interim order, disconnection was restored subject to payment of rent and water charges. He has given details of the civil and criminal cases concerning him. In para 9, he has stated that in a suit for eviction by the first party, the court determined the rent. He preferred an appeal against the said order before the High Court. However, the first party abusing the judicial proceeding got his appeal dismissed. The contempt proceedings before the civil court were also somehow got disposed of. He made a complaint against the Presiding Officer of the Civil Court to the Registrar Vigilance of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur but the said complaint has been hushed-up (jqk-nqk) by the High Court. He also stated that the Rajasthan Judiciary has become centre of criminals. The cases of corruptions are being disposed of by the High Court by initiating criminal contempt proceedings. He has also referred to certain activities of political leaders and police officers. They are not relevant in the present context, as such, it is not necessary to state all those allegations. It also appears that some proceedings were initiated against the contemner respondent, which included attachment of the machinery etc. lying on the plot for the recovery of the amount of loan due against him at the instance of Financial Institutions. This led him to make complaints against all concern. He has referred to various criminal cases. In para 13, he has stated that the Presiding Officer and the Reader of the Civil Court abusing the judicial proceedings, has passed the exparte decree in the eviction suit. He made a complaint to the District Judge for criminal judicial enquiry against the Civil Judge but the District Judge disposed-of the same. He has also made certain complaints against the lawyers. In para 14, he has referred-to the list of cases as given in Schedules 1 and 2. It is stressed that inspite of civil and criminal proceedings, he has not been able to get the justice either from the Rajasthan High Court or the subordinate courts. It is averred that the reason for not getting justice is criminalisation in Judiciary on large scale. He has also stated that because of the fundamental defects in the judicial system, he has been deprived of his livelihood. He has requested the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Hon'ble Law Minister, Govt. of Rajasthan to enquire into the pending cases in the Rajasthan High Court and the Subordinate Courts as to how the powers vested in the courts have been misused. He has prayed that through the Ministry of Law, the Rajasthan High Court should be asked to submit the annual reports of their working being the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly containing the information as to in how many cases, injunctions have been granted, for what time and at whose instance. The Rajasthan High Court should also be directed to submit a monthly report as are being submitted by the District Courts to be placed before the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. For ready reference, the contents of paras 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 (b), 15 (c) and the relief clause are extracted as follows: ****** The respondent has not disputed the fact of writing and sending representation under reference. He has submitted reply. It is averred that he has not been made to understand as to how the contents of paragraphs, referred in order dt. 22. 3. 2000, constitute a criminal contempt. It is also stated that he does not see anything wrong in making representation dated 23. 12. 1998 to the Chief Minister and Law Minister, against the functioning of the Judiciary. It is emphasized that in addition to Judiciary, there are two important organs of the State namely Executive and the Legislature. He has also stated that now a days, the Press is also considered as a fourth important pillar of the democracy. It is submitted that the statement of fact in the representation is nothing but an expression of a victim person. He has also taken the plea that the statement made in the representation has not been published. He has further stated that the contents of representation under reference is a privileged communication between him and the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Hon'ble Law Minister of Govt. of Rajasthan. On the basis of such privileged communication, no contempt proceedings can be initiated. It is submitted in alternate that he may be given the substance of accusation. It is also submitted that in absence of supply of copy of substance of accusation, entire proceedings are illegal. Lastly, it is submitted that he has been put to unbearable burden by calling from Bhopal and Kota under an illegal order.
(3.) THE contemner respondent was given the copy of his representation and the relevant documents by order dated 7. 4. 99. He was also permitted to inspect the file. THEreafter, he did not appear before this court. His presence could be secured only by bailable warrant. At no stage, he asked for the supply of the substance of accusations. On the contrary on 23. 03. 2000, when the court asked him if he needs assistance of some lawyer, he not only refused to accept but made a statement that he is an expert on the Law of Contempt. It appears that he feels that by prolonging the contempt petition, he can claim to be an expert in the Law of Contempt. Be that as it may, the accusations as contained in the paras 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 (b) and the relief clause as contained in the letter dated 23. 12. 98 were read over to him. He read them with the court and marked relevant portion in the copy of representation under reference with him. Thus, he is aware of the offending paras. Thus, there is no substance in the plea that copy of substance of accusation has not been given to him. The criminal contempt defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act reads as follows: ``2. Definitions:-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) ``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 tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;'' We have carefully considered the relevant portions extracted above from the representation under reference. The law with respect to the criminal contempt has been well settled by the various decisions of the Apex Court. Reference may be made to Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha vs. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. (1); Mohd. Zahir Khan vs. Vijai Singh (2); and L. D. Jaikwal vs. State of U. P. (3); Ajay Kumar Pandey's Case (4); Harijani Singh's Case (5); and S. Mulgaokar's Case (6) Suffice it to quote statement of law as enunciated in one of the case namely in Sanjiv Datta, Re's case (7) as follows: ``abuses, attribution of motives, vituperative terrorism and defiance are no methods to cor-rect the errors of the courts. In the discharge of their functions the courts have to be allowed to operate freely and fearlessly but for which impartial adjudication will be an impossibility. Ours is a Constitutional government based on the rule of law. The Constitution entrusts the task of interpreting and administering the law to the judiciary whose view on the subject is made legally final and binding on all till it is changed by a higher court or by a permissible legislative measure. Those living and functioning under the Constitution have to accept and submit to this obligation of respecting the constitutional authority of the courts. Under a Constitutional government, such final authority has to vest in some institution. Otherwise, there will be a chaos. The court's verdict has to be respected not necessarily by the authority of its reason but always by reason of its authority. Any conduct designed to or suggestive of challenging this crucial balance of power devised by the Constitution is an attempt to subvert the rule of law and an invitation to anarchy. The contemner, for reasons which can only be attributed to his misconception of his role and over-zealousness to assert himself and his side of the matter intentionally overstepped his limits and conveniently ignored the above legal position and abrogated to himself, in substance, the role of a Judge in his own cause. He has thus in effect not only challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to discharge its functions but also its authority to do so. '' ;