LexBAL KISHAN GIRI versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 545 BAL KISHAN GIRi v. STA~ OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2010) MAY 28, .2014 [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- s. 12-.Criminalcontempt by a lawyer - Conviction under - ,A.pplication and complaint A B by lawyer alleging accusations apajp.§_t judges of High .court C - Apology tendered by the lawyer - C~nviction under the Act - Justification of - Held: High Court di'?i not commit any error in not accepting the lawyer's apology'since the same is not bona fide -Allegations made by the lawyer against the judges· of the High Court are too serious, scandalous and sufficient D to undermine the majesty of law and dignity of court .and is without any basis'- Being a member of the Bar, it was his duty not to demean and disgrace the majesty of justice dispensed by a court of law - Casting of bald, oblique, unsubstantiated aspersions against the judges of High Court not only causes E agony and anguish to the judges concerned but also shakes the confidence of the public in the judiciary in its function of dispensation of justice - Judicial process is based on probity, fairness and impartiality which is unimpeachable - Such an act is highly reprehensible and deeply regretted - However, F imposition of fine of Rs. 20, 0001- on the lawyer, reduced to Rs. 2, 0001-. Contempt of court - Apology tendered - Meaning of - Held: Apology means a regretful acknowledge or excuse for fai/ur€J - Apology should be sincere - Apology should be G tendered with a sense of genuine remorse and repentance, and not a calculated strategy to avoid punishment -Apology in case of criminal contempt must be offered at the earliest since belated apology hardly shows the contrition. 545 H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A Contempt of court - Power of courts to punish - Held: Power to punish for contempt is a rare species of judicial power. - It calls for exercise with great care and caution - Power ought to be exercised only where silence is no longer an option - Power of courts to punish for contempt is to secure public B respect and confidence in jµdicial process. Appellant's nephew was found dead with two other people. A criminal case was registered against the accused persons. They filed applications for bail before the High Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, C appellant-lawyer filed an application as also complaint before the High Court alleging that the accused were gangsters involved in criminal activities and were closely related to local MLA and Ex. M.P. and had links with Judges of the High Court. It was alleged that the Judge D would favour the accused persons to get bail. The High Court examined the matter and issued show cause notice as to why the criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The appellant submitted an unconditional apology that he was misguided by the E advocate and was tensed on account of murder of his nephew. The High Court convicted the appellant for committing criminal contempt' under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and sentenced accordingly. F Hence, the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD: 1.1. The allegations made by the appellant against the three judges of the High Court are too serio1,1s, scandalous and, admittedly, sufficient to G undermine the majesty of law and dignity of court and that is too without any basis. The appellant is a practicing advocate. Plea taken by him that he had been misguided by other advocates is an afterthought. He must have been fully aware of the consequences of what he has written. H The averment to the effect that provisions of Chapter BAL KISHAN GIRi v. STATE OF U.P. 547 XXXV-E of the Rules had not been strictly observed A remains insignificant as the appellant had not only admitted transcribing the complaint but also its contents. The High Court did not commit any error in not accepting the appellant's apology since the same was not bona fide. There might have been an inner impulse of outburst as B the appellant alleges tlfat his nephew had been murdered, but that was no excuse for a practicing lawyer to raise fingers against the court. [Paras 8, 19) [555-B-C; 559-D- E] M.8. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. 1991 (3) SCR 312: AIR 1991 SC 1834 ; Asharam M. Jain v. A. T. Gupta & Ors. 1983 (3) SCR 719: AIR 1983 SC 1151 - referred to, Jennison v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.