G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THE Emblem or symbol of "justice" is "balance" or "scales". A Judge is required to maintain it 'even' matriculously and not to allow it to "tilt" on any consideration whatsoever. "tilting of the "balance of justice or the scales of justice" by weight of 'coins" is the very antithesis of a "judge" and "justice". It is the "stigma" against a Judge. For a Judge "independence" is "heart" and "integrity" in his "lungs". For a Judge; if quantity is lost: nothing is lost: if quality is lost, something is lost but if "independence, integrity or impartiality" is lost, everything is lost".
(2.) THE present contempt proceedings arises due to contemners outburst "justice is sold in open market" against judiciary. A humble Munsif, lowest in the ladder, being the first casuality, and also the worst casuality, as by 'judicial ethics and restrain, he hardly gets opportunity to defend himself against such wild allegations, and had to suffer silently all humiliation, without any demur or protest. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court was the chief guest at a function of inaugural ceremony of the new court -building at Sardarshahar, District Churu, in Rajasthan on 26 -4 -1979. The elite of the town and all im -portant officers of the State Government and Judicial Officers of the district were present in this function, which was organized by the Bar Association and presided by the District Magistrate, Churu. After the Chief Guest and the President had spoken, respondent Shri Bahadur Singh, Advocate of Churu appeared on the scene and gave his speach. "justice is auctioned: the local court indulogs in favourities and the judgments of the court are known a fortnight in advance in the market" alleged Shri Bahadur Singh The audience consisting of the high dignitaries was shocked at this scandalous outburst and it was resented by the people present there. The Bar Association, Sardarshahar, passed a resolution on 4 -5 -1979 which is as under: *** The news of the above criticism of the judiciary got wide publicity, and 'dainik Navjyoti', an important newspaper in Rajasthan, narrated it under the caption Vnkyrh QSlys vkmv gksus dk vkjksi**. According to this news item, an unusual situation arose when the above advocate publicly and openly criticized the local Munsif for selling Justice in the market, doing favouritism and intimating the judgments a fortnight prior to its announcement. According to this new item there was pandonium in the function, when Bahadur Singh made this scathing criticism of judiciary, and Nem Chand Mali, Advocate, had to intervene to declare that the allegation was false and wholly unfounded, and Bahadur Singh was not a member of the Bar, but, he was a broker of tax -dozzers. It was then mentioned in the news -item that the Munsiff Magistrate requested the Chief Justice that he should be allowed hearing, against such wild false allegation and further permitted to take proceedings by instituting a case against Bahadur Singh.
(3.) ONE Umed Singh, Advocate of Sardarshahar then applied for permission to launch for contempt proceedings, and the Advocate General Shri R. K. Rastogi accepted the application, and vide letter dated 6. 10. 1979, Annexure A3 granted it, under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to move a competent court for an action for contempt of court. On 24. 10. 1979. Shri Umed Singh Rathore filed this contempt petition and on 25. 10. 1979. a Division Bench of this Court issued a notice to the non -petitioner Bahadur Singh. Shri Bahadur Singh has filed an apology to it, which reads as under: - " I, Bahadur Singh son of Shri Briju Singh, by caste Rajput, Advocate, Churu, unconditionally tender apology and most humbly and respectfully sumbit that I had no intention or motive to scandalise any court by lowering the authority or prestige of any court or judicial authority including the court of Sardarshar. " Mr. S. R. Singhi, advocate for the petitioner, Umed Singh, has filed an application mentioning that since he would be out of station, this case may not be called and adjourned for some future date. However, we are of the opinion that in a case of scandalising the court and undermining the authority of the court, though a complainant can inform a court by a petition, the principle concern is of the court to consider the case objectively in a detached manner in order to decide whether there has been, in fact, contempt and if so, what punishment would meet the end of justice. In this view of the matter the prayer for adjournment did not deserve any serious consideration, and is consequently rejected. There is no lis between the complainant applicant, and the contemner in such cases, nor the court can allow it to become an instrument of private vendetta. At Sardarshahar, there is only one judicial court of Munsif Magistrate. The resolution of Sardarshahar Bar mentions that the local Munsif Magistrate was honest and sincere for his duty, and very enthusiastic and famous for doing justice, and the allegations were false, mischievous, baseless and such, which undermines the dignity of the judiciary. According to this resolution, the unwanted criticism by Bahadur Singh, Advocate, were scandalous of the entire judiciary and against the professional ethics and conduct of advocates. It was strongly pleaded that serious action should be taken against Shri Bahadur Singh for bringing disgrace to the Bar and bringing judiciary in contempt. , ;