IN RE: VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA (THE ALLEGED CONTEMNER) versus IN RE : VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA (THE ALLEGED CONTEMNER)

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 10-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
IN RE : VINA Y CHANDRA MISHRA 
(THE ALLEGED CONTEMNER) 
MARCH 10, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH, J.S. VERMA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.) 
Constitution of India-Articles 129-Scope of-Whether Supreme Court 
can take cognizance of contempt of High Court-Held, power to punish for 
contempt of all lower courts and Tribunals inherent in supervisory and appel-
late ju~iction of the Supreme Court-Supreme Court can punish for con-
C tempt o[High Court notwithstanding Article 215. 
D 
Constitution of India-Article 129-Jurisdiction under-Sui generis-
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 or Advocates Act 1961 cannot restrict jurisdic-
tian of Supreme Court under--Contempt of Courts Act 1971-Advocates Act 
1961. :;,_. 
Constitution of India-Article 142-Scope of-Cannot be diluted by 
statutory provisions. 
Constitution of India-Articles 129 and 142-Jurisdiction of the 
Supreme Court-Whether the Supreme Court can suspend the licence of an 
E advocate-Held, yes-such exercise of power not against the provisions of 
Advocates Act-Advocates Act, 1961-Section 38. 
Constitution of India-Article 129 and 142-Jurisdiction and Power of 
the Supreme Court under Article 142-Supplemental in nature-Independent 
F of jurisdiction and power under Article 129. 
G 
Constitution of India-Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 19(2), 19(6), 129 
and 21~There is no conflict between Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) read 
with 19(2) and 19(6) on the one hand and Articles 129 and 215 on the other 
hand. 
Judiciary-Dignity and authority of-Importance of-Need for protec-
tion-Role in a democracy. 
Contempt of court-Criminal contempHn sui generis offence-Proce-
dure to be adopted-Summary procedure can be adopted-Safeguards-
H Charge-Not necessary to frame charge in a specific allegation-Contempt of 
638 
' 
~-
>· 
y 
IN RE: V.C. MISHRA 
639 
Cow1s Act, 197 I-Section 14. 
Contempt of co1111-C1iminal co11tempr-Pmced11r~Tl1e J11dge before 
whom contempt is committed wlites letter to the Chief Justice of his High 
Co1ll1-Chief Justice of High Cowt f onvards the letter to Chief Justice of 
lndia-Suo motlt contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme 
Court-Held, procedure is valid though it causes some delay. 
Nalllral justice-Nemo judex in sua causa-Not violated in cases of 
cn"minal contempt when Judge deals with the contempt himself-Contempt of 
court-Criminal contempt Natural Justice-Examination of Judge in a 
Criminal contempt proceeding-Not necessary-Contempt of Courts Act, 
1971-Section 14. 
Practice and procedure-Junior member of a Bench may not be ba"ed 
from putting question to the counsel-Counsel or third party cannot object. 
A 
B 
c 
Professional Ethic~uty of a lawyer towards client and court- D 
Desirable conduct of a lawyer. 
Words and phrases-l'Contempt of Court''--Definition under common 
law. 
The contemner was a senior advocate of the Allahabad High Court. E 
He was also the Chairman of the Bar Council of India and the President 
of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad. 
A civil suit was filed by client of the contemner against the U.P. 
Financial Corporation. By an interim order the trial court restrained the 
U.P. Financial Corporation from seizing the factory of the client of the F 
contemner and directed the client of the contemner to pay the instalment 
of the loan which it had taken from the corporation and also to furnish 
security for the disputed amount. An appeal was filed by the client of the 
contemner against the order of the trial court contending that the court 
did not have jurisdiction to pass the order for payment of instalment and G 
that no security could have been ordered. 
A letter was written by justice S.K. Keshote of Allahabad High Court 
to the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court stating therein that while 
arguing the appeal before a division bench of Justice Anshuman Singh and 
Justice Keshote, the contemner had insulted the Judge. According to H 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R.. 
A Justice Keshote when he asked the contemner to explain under what 
provision the interim order was passed by the Trial Court, the contemner 
started shouting and told him that no question could have been put to him 
at the admission stage. It was further started that the contemner 
threatened to get the judge transferred and to bring impeachment motion 
B against him. The contemner, as per the letter of the Judge, created a scene 
in the court and insulted the Judge. 
The Acting Chief justice forwarded the aforesaid letter of Justice 
Keshote t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.