LexASHARAM M. JAIN versus A. T. GUPTA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
719
ASHARAM M. JAIN
A
v.
A. T. GUPTA AND OTHERS
August 25, 1983
8
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
Conte1npt of Court-Strains and mortification of litigation cannot fle
allowed ta lead litigants to tarnish, terrorise and destroy the system of atlminis·
C
tration of justice by vilification of judges.
In a petition for special leave to appeaJ
file~- by him, the petitioner
indulged in wild and vicious diatribe against the Chief Justice of the High
Court who had passed the order sought to be appealed from. In answer to the
notice issued to him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 he prayed for
two weeks' time to file an affidavit (which was granted) and stated that he was
not prepared to withdraw th,e allegations but desired to make amends. When
the matter came up again'! his c.ounsel placed before the Court an affidavit
said to contain the sincere and unconditional apology of the petitioner and
pleaded that the Court should accept it and refrain from sending him to
prison. Counci1, relying on Jn re : Shri S. Mulgaonkat:. [1978] 3 S.C.R.162
suggested that "a normative guideline for the judges to observe in this juris-
diction" was "not to be hypersensitive where distortions and criticism over-
step the limts, but to deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing,
condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude''.
Rejecting the plea and sentencing the contemner to suffer simple
imprisonmen.t for a .Pi:!iod of two months.
HELD : There is never any risk of judicial hypersensitivity. The very
nature of the judicial function makes ju9ges. sympathetic and responsive. Judges
more than others realise the foibles, the frustrations, the undercurrents and the
tensions of litigants and litigation. ·But, as elsewhere, lines have to be drawn.
The strains and mortification of litigation cannot be allowed to lead litigants
to tarnish, terrorise and destroy the system of administration of justice by
vilification of judges. It is not that judges ~eed be protected; judges may well
take care of themselves.
Jt is the right and interest of the public in the due
administration of justice that has to be protected. The question has to be
approached not from the point of view of the judge whose honour and dignity
require to be vindicated, buffrom the point of view of the public who Jiave
entrusted to judges the task of due administration of justice. A contumacious
disregard of all decencies, such as that exhibited by the contemner in this case
can only lead to a serious disturbance of the system of administration of justice.
unless duly repaired at once by iaJlicting an apJ?ro_prlate punishrrient on thc.:i
D
E
F
H
A
B
c
SUPREME COl.JRT REPORTS
· t 19831 3 s.c.R •.
contemncr which must be to send ;tiJm tp ja_il to atone for his misconduct and
thereafter to come out of prison a chasteried bllt a better citizen.
.
[72i D-G; 723E-G]
Advocate General of Bihar v. M. P. Khair Industries, (1980] 2 S.C.R.
1172, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JU1tJSD,ICf!Ol1 : ::;pecial Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 6735 of 1983.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 14th April, 1983 of
.t.~e Bo,i;nbay ,f,lig\1 ,Coµrt i,n
N<Jtic~ of f\1otion No. ~59 of 1982 in
J\.ppe11I N(): 295 of 1982.
R. K. Garg, U. R. La/it, R. V. Mehta and B. P. Maheshwari,
with them for the fetip()ners.
Dr. Y. S. Chita/e, Raju Ramchandran and D. C. Singhania
D
for th~ R~spcindents.
E
F
G
H "
The Order of the Court was deliv~r.ed by
{3.HINNAPPA REDDY, J.
AsjJ.aram M. Jain sought special leave
of ~h;s r;ourt µnder Art. 136 of the Cons!itution to appeal against the
or<!~r of the J:ligh Court of Maharashtra in Notice of ~otion No.
859 of 19.82.
Th~ petition for special le.ave to appeal ran to 84
pages at the foot of the petition, it was stated "drawn and file.d by
B. P. Maheshwari & Co., Advocates for the petitioner". Asharam
M. Jain filed an affidavit along with the special leave petition affirm-
ing that the statement of facts in paragraphs I to 61 in the petition
for special leave to appeal were true to his knowledge and belief and
based .On the. record Of the lower CO)lrl. In Several paragraphs of the
~p~jal· l~ave petiti~n, Ashara1fi M. Jain. indulged in· wild· and vicious
diatribe against the then Chief Justiye of the High Court of Maha·
rashtra. To illustrate the limits of the invective, we ·wish to refer to.
but one paragraph of the petition. In paragraph 26 of the pExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.