L.D. JAIKWAL versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 833 · Decided: 17-05-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

; 
~, 
' 
.... 
i 
L.D. JAIKWAL 
v . • • 
STATE OF U.P. 
May 17, 1.984 
. · [A.P. SEN AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ .] 
Contempt a/Courts Act 1971, Section 2(c)Jl) 
833 
Ad_vocate making written app/ichtion couched in sc.uri/lous language-Itn-pu-
tarion-Judgt! ·a corrupt Judge' 'and-_conta1ni11ating· the seat of ju'stice'.- High 
Gour~ convicting a_nd sentenci~g advocate_for contemPt of Court -
appeal ·10 
. Supre1ne Court-Written apology'tendered to Judge 'as directed by the suPreme. 
Court ·~whether sufficient to set aside coni,iction by Ei[gh Cou'rt. 
The appellant ·was a senior advoc~te. He was required to_ appear before· 
the Special Judge to make his submissiori on the question of sentence to be 
imposed UpOn his cliept who was conVicted for an offence under s.5 (2) of the 
Prevention of Corru"ption Act, 1947: As .he· appeared in a shirt-and-trous'!r-
oUtfit aud n•t in Court attire, the Judg~ asked him to-<ippe"ar_ in the prescribed. 
formal attii"e· for be_ing heard in his professional capacity. The appellant took um 
brage and left the.Court. -Sonle other advqcate appeared ~in the matter and the 
accused having being found gi:iilty of_the-thqrge ot corruption the Judge impOsed. 
a sentence ·of _four years R._I. 
· 
The appellarit niade a written application to the Judge couched in scurillous 
-lan8uage ·making the imputation ·that the Judge-was a 'corruPt Jlldge~ ·and added 
that he was· 'contaminating the seat Of justice' ; and- forwarded Copies, of the 
application, withOut occasion or Deed to the AdrnjnisttatiVe Judge, Chief 
Secretary and Other authOrities. 
The 'High Court initiated contempt proceedings, found 't_he- appellarit _guilty 
of having con1mitte<t cfiminal contempt under s. 2(c)(l) of the.Contempt of. 
, Courts Ao::t, 1971 and after affording fUll opportunity Of hear-ing, iinposed a 
. 1'Jt . sen.teoce Of simple imprisonment for one Week and a fine _of. Rs. 500. · 
Dismissing the Ap~l,· 
HELD : 1. ·eonsideratiOns regarding maintenance ·of the- independence of 
the :i.uiiciary and' the morale of the Judges dema.nd that the appellant should 
not escape with iinpunify on the mere .tendering of an apology which in any case 
does not wipe_ o.ut the· mischief. ·If ~uch a apology Were to be accepted, as a 
rule, an<i not as '.an e~ception, it \vo_uld vfrtua-IJy· be tantamount to issuing ~ 
'licence' to i;Candalize co~rts and .commit OOQ.tompt of court with impunity. The 
High 
~ourt was justified- in impo~ing a substantive Sentence and .the said 
sentence cannot be said to be excessive or out of proponion.[838E ; 837E ; 83.SFJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
1J 
D. 
E 
F. 
G 
H 
.. 
834 
SUPRl!ME COURT REPORTS. 
[19841.3 s.c.R. 
No J adge can take- a deCiSiori which does Dot displease one side or the 
other. By the vety fl·ature of his work.he ~as to decide matters against One-or 
o~her_ of the ·parties. lf the fact that he~ende·rs a decision which is resented to -by 
a li~igarit or _his lawyer Were to ·expose hitri to such a· risk, it .will sound the 
death knell of the institution. The day must be dreaded when a Judge cannat· 
work with independence ·-by (eaSon O:f tl1e fear that a disgruntleid member of 
the_ Bar can publicly ·humiliate him ·and heap disagree on him·with._lmpunity, 
if any ot his_ otdets, or the decision rendered by him displeas_es any-of the 
'Advoc.ates ·-.11ppearing in the miittcr. A line has therefore to be drawn some .. 
Where, some day, by some one, That -is why the Court is impelled to act 
(rather than merely. sermonise) much as the.Court dis1ike.s im:posiiig punish~ 
ment whilst.ex~cising: tQe contempt jufisdiction; Wbi~h ·rto doubt has to be. 
e~ercised .very sparingly and withcircurnspection. [837ll ; 838A-Bl 
. 2: An attituCI~ of un~erited ~enienc.y cannot be adopted at the cost of 
princip.le an;d at the ex;1ense Of the Judge who ·has .been scanqalized. TO pursue 
a popl.llist line of showing indulgence _is not very difficult in fact jt is more 
difficult to resist the temptation .to ·do sO rather 'than tc;> ad4,Cre to. the m3.il~ 
studded. path of duty. Institutiorial perSpective demahds that considerations of 
populism are not allowed to.obstruct the path of duty. [338C] 
. In the .inst~nt c~se, the aPpeUan t sought to justify hiS co_nd~ct before the 
High C.ourt on the gronnd of the treatment alloged to have .been meted out'to 
him by the Special Jµdge. '.No remOr_se was felt. 
No sorrow Was e~pfessed. 
No· apology was off erred. He .expressed his sorrow only before this Court 

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