LexIN RE: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE versus ----
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• IN RE: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE A SEPTEMBER 25, 1998 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] B Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Secs. 2(c) and 12-Criminal contempt-Scandalising the Court- Advocate-Casting unwarranted aspersions on subordinate judiciary and High Court-Attributing motives to judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial functions-SLPs and contempt petitions containing objectionable, C unparliamentary and abusive language-Showing no remorse or regret- Repeated arrogant defiant and contemptuous attitude-Held, guilty of contempt of court-Convicted and sentenced to four months simple imprisonment with fine-Bar Council directed to refer the matter to concerned committee for taking appropriate action against the contemnor for D professional misconduct. Section 5-Fair criticism ofjudgment-Permissibility of-Held, criticism should be in a dignified, temperate language without any malice-Honest and objective criticism of judgment is permissible if made in a respectful tone. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 129-Supreme Court-Power to punish for contempt-Held: Such power includes power to punish for contempt of subordinate judiciary and High Courts. E Contempt of court-Advocate not satisfied with the decision, scandalising the Court-Whether enjoy!! any protection-Hefd : No, an F Advocate has no wider protection than a layman. The contemner, a practising Advocate, filed a defamation case against an Advocate and an ADJ under sections 499 and 500 IPC, which was dismissed. The High Court dismissed the revision petition holding that the G applicant has made palpably scurrilous, indecent and abominable recitals against respondent, a member of lower judiciary to malign and hold her to ransom. The contemner thereafter filed a special leave petition before this court. The contemner has also filed several contempt petitions before this Court against a High Court Judge, several Judges of subordinate judiciary 87 H 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A and Advocates, wherein the language used is wholly objectionable, unparliamentary and abusive. An order was passed by this Court to delete the said objectionable expressions from the petition, but the contemner instead of removing the said objectionable expressions insisted on being ,_, ... heard. Noticing his adamant and defiant attitude, Rule against him was B issued to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of court. The contemner instead of filing his reply to the said Rule made a request for transfer of his case to some other Bench as he did not wish to appear before that Bench. The request was rejected as the prayer itself was contumacious in character. The contemner even after several adjournments neither appeared before the court nor filed his reply to the Rule. c Disposing of the contempt petition, this Court HELD : l. The contemner is guilty of contempt of court for using objectionable and intemperate language in the petition. (108-G) D 2. Scandalising the Judges or the Courts tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrepute and is an affront to the majesty and dignity of law. Such acts constitute criminal contempt of court. The "publication" contemplated by Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 includes pleadings, affidavits etc. which are filed in the Court. Abuses, attribution of motives, vituperative terrorism and scurrilous and indecent E attacks on the impartiality of the judges in the pleadings, applications or other documents filed in the Court or otherwise published which have the tendency to scandalise and undermine the dignity of the Court and the majes!y of law amounts to criminal contempt of court. F [100-D; 101-A-B; 104-B-C) Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 406; Shri Sanjiv Dutta, JT (1995) 3 SC 538 and Re: R.L. Ahuja, [1993) Supp. 4 SCC 446, relied on. 3. In the instant case, from a perusal of the memorandum of various G petitions filed by the contemner in this Court and the language used therein, it is apparent that he has cast aspersions on each and every judge who in the discharge of his judicial functions decided the matter not liked to by the contemner at one stage or the other. The aspersions cast by him undoubtedly have the tendency to scandalise the Court. The contemner has been attempting to brow beat the subordinate judges as well as the judge of the Hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.