HARGOVIND DAYAL SRIVASTAVA & ANR versus G. N. VERMA & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 12-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

601 
l 
HARGOVIND DAYAL SRIVASTAVA & ANR: 
v. 
G. N. VERMA & ORS. 
January 12, 1977 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. s. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act 1971-Criminal contempt-Duty of members of 
the bar to protect dignity and decorum of judiciary. 
A 
B 
The appellant No. 1 is the President of the Oudh Bar and appellant No. 2 
is the Chairman of Action Committee of the Oudh 
Bar Association. They 
met and passed a Resolution that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court 
was acting in a most partisan manner under the influence of the Allahabad Bar 
and that it was unbecoming of the office which he holds. 
C 
The High Court issued notices for contempt, inter alia, to the appellants. 
The High Court discharged the notices but made certain observations against 
the appellants. 
HELD : 1. If the High Court found that there was any cqptempt it should 
have punished the appellants. The High Court confused 
criminal 
contempt 
with contumacious conduct. 
This Court is unable to find that the High Court 
D 
found contemners guilty of criminal contempt. 
[602 D, G, HJ 
2. There is no gainsaying that the members of the Bar did not act with 
dignity in regard to the resolution. The language used by them was unfortu· 
nate,. 
It is the duty of lawyers to protect the dignity and decorum of the 
judiciary. If lawyers fail in their duty the faith of the people in the judiciary 
would be undermined to a large extent. It is said that lawyers are the custo-
dian of civilization 
Lawyers have to discharge their 
duties 
with 
dignity, 
decomm and discipline. 
[603 C-D] 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 315 
of 1974. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1974 of the 
Allahabad High Court in Contempt Case No. 43/73. 
D. Mukherjea, R. N. Sharma, Umesh Chand, R. N. Trivedi, S. P. 
Pathak, Hari Nath Tilhari, S. R. Srivastava, M. N. Sharma and 0. P. 
Lal for the Appellants. 
Yogeshwar Prasad, (Miss) Rani Arora, S. K. Bagga and (Mrs.) 
S. Bagga, for Respondent No. 1. 
0. P. Rana for Respondents 2 and 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C. J. 
This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 
22 May 1974 of the High Co1,1rt of Allahabad in Criminal Contempt 
Case No. 43 of 1973. 
. 
The High Court issued notices to five persons on . the ground that 
they committed contempt of Court. 
F 
G 
H. 
A 
JB 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
I! 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 S.C.R. 
The two appellants before us are the President of the Avadh Bar 
Association and the Chairman, Action Committee of the Avadh Bar 
Association. 
There were three charges against the appellants. It is not necessary 
to refer in detail to the same. The gist of the charge against the appel-
lants was that they had met and resolved that the Chief Justice was 
acting in a most partisan manner under the influence of the Allahabad 
Bar. The text of the resolution was this-"The Action Committee is 
of the opinion that the Chief Justice is acting in the discharge of 
administrative power under clause 14 of the U.P. High Court's Amalga-
mation Order, 1948 in a most partisan manner under the influence 
of Allahabad Bar quite unbecoming of the office which he holds". 
The High Court discharged the notices .. The High Court yet made 
certain observations; some of which are confusing, some of which are 
conflicting and some of which are vague. 
If the High_ Court found that there was any contempt it should 
have punished the appellants. 
The High Court however discharged 
the notices. 
The High Court held that the Cha.irman of the Action Committee, 
described as contemner No. 2 was actively associated with the passing 
of the resolution which contained disparaging remarks about the Chief 
Justice and since he also issued that resolution for publication in news-
papers, he is guilty of 'Criminal Contempt'. 
The High Court held that since the resolution was passed under 
the presidentship of the first appellant described as contemner No. 1, 
he is as much guilty of having committed contempt as contemner No. 
2 was. 
· 
The High Court further held that contemners Nos. 1 & 2 are guilty 
of .:ontumacious conduct, and the High Court gave the ground that 
they were responsible for the passing of the resolution. At another 
place the High Court used words showing that the conduct of the 
appellants individually was considered only "indiscreet" by it. 
The High Court confused 'criminal contempt' with 'contumacious 
conduct'. 
The matter becomes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.