BARADAKANTA MISHRA versus THE REGISTRAR OF ORISSA HIGH COURT & ANR.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 19-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

282 
BARADAKANTA MISHRA 
v. 
THE REGISTRAR OF ORISSA ffiGH COURT & ANR. 
November 19, 1973 
[A. N. llAY, C.J., D. G. PALEKAR, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, 
P. N. BHAGWAT! AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ) 
B 
Contempt of Courts Ac~ 1971 (17 of 1971)-Ss. 2(c)(iii) & 13-Scope of-
Contempt of Court-Djsciplinary control over Subordinate judiciary-Wlien Hlfh. 
Court functions in a disciplinary capacity it doe1 so in furtherance of admlnl1-
tration of justice-What amounts to-Attack on the administrative act of a fudge, 
if amounts to contempi-Administration of justice meanltig and scope· of. 
The appellant, a judicial officer, was convicted and sentenced under the Con-
tempt of Courts Act, 1971, by a Full Bench of the Orissa Hish Court 
C 
Registrar of Orissa High Court v. Bardt>kanta Mishra & Ors. I.L.R. [1973] 
Cuttack 134. 
The appellant's career ·as a judicial officer was far from satisfactory. When 
ha was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge he showed FOSS in.. 
discipline and committed grave judicial misdemeanour. The contempt proceed· 
iogs. arose out of the representation he made to the Governor for cancell.ina: the 
order of suspension passed against him by the Hish Court and th~ aUcsation he 
made in a memorandum of appeal he had filed· earlier in the SUpreme Court. 
D 
In bis representation to the Governor the appellant J;nade false insinuations th.at 
the Governor cancelled the previous disciplinary proceedings against him on the 
ground that the same was vitiated a• the Hish Court prejudged the matter 1Dd 
the government set aside the punishment because three of the judges were biased 
and were prejudiced against him, that the proceeding involved the Government 
in heavy expenses on account of the -'palpably incorrect views of the Hiah. 
Court", that the High Court did not gracefully accept the Govemment'1 order 
cancelling his demotion, that the High Court resorted to "'subterfuge» to counterw 
E 
act the said decision of the government by taking a novel step and that the · 
High .Court's action suffered from patent malafides. He stated that the· other 
judges had no independent judgment of their own and were infiuenced by the 
Chief Justice to take a view different from what they had already taken and 
characterised the High Court as an "engine of oppression.. and his order of 
suspension aS ·''mysterious''. In another representation made to the Governor 
tl1e appeliant alleged that the High Court on the administrative side was seriously 
prejudiced and biased against him and it acted as if the charges stood established 
F 
requiring extreme punishm~nt and as such justice may not be meted out to ·him 
by the High Court, if it conducted the departmental inquiry. He also stated that 
be considered it risky to submit his explanation to the High .C.ourt and that the 
High Court in the best interests of justice, should not inquite into these charses 
against him. 
He suggested that "the Court was not in a position to weiSh the 
evidence and consider the materials on record and impose a sentence commensu· 
rate with his delinquency." The ac.tion taken by the High Court was branded 
as "unusual". A copy of this representation was sent to the High.- Court with 
the remark that since the aigh Court was likely to withhold the representation 
G 
it was submitted direct to the Governor. Jn the memo of appeal Sled in the 
Supreme Court, the appellant alleged bias and prejudice aplnSt the Hfjh Court 
and its Chief Justice. He took the plea that the Hlsh Court had become dis-
qualified to deal with the case and expressed the v~w that "'the judaes of the 
High Court had fallen from the path of rectitude and were vindictive'' and had 
decided to impose substantive sentenec and that "they were not in a position 
to mete even-handed justice". 
In appeal to this Court. it was contended : (i) that tbe passaa:cs about 
H 
which the ~omplaint was made did not amount to contempt of court aince they 
did· not purport to criticize any 'judicial' act! of the judges and criticism of the 
administrative acts of the High Court even in vilificatory terms did not amount 
A 
B 
c 
0 
F 
G 
II 
B. K. MISHRA v. REG. ORISSA HIGH COURT (Palekar, 1.) 
283 
to contempt of court, and (ii) ·that the acts complained of were in the course"' ..... 
of the appellant challenging his suspension and holding of disciplinary proceed· 
ings, in an appeal or representation to the Governor from the orders of the Hfah 
Court and he gave expression to bis grievanc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.