M.B. SANGHI, ADVOCATE versus HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 31-07-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M.B. SANGH!, ADVOCATE 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS. 
JULY 31, 1991 
[A.M. AHMADI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.j 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 2(c)(i), 12 and 19: 
Disparaging and derogatory remarks-Utterance of-By practising 
Advocate against a Judge-Had the effect of scandalising the Court and 
impairing confidence of public in Court-Hence guilty of contempt-
C Apology-Tendering of-Not to serve as mere defence against rigours 
of law-Should reflect remorse and contrition of contemner-Tender-
,, 
'Ing ,'unqualifieii apology' in case Court finds him guilty-Not sincere-
Contemner addicted to use of contemptous language against Judges and 
tendering qpoJogy-Apology used merely a device to escape-Not to be 
accepted-Use of contempt jurisdiction against erring members of legal 
D profession-Courts are slow in the hope that Bar Councils will take care 
J,; maintain ethical norms-Decline in ethical values in the profnsion-
Arrest of-Timely action by Bar Councils-Need for. 
Unable to secure an ad .. interim stay in favour of his client, the 
appellant, a practising Advocate, uttered certain words imputing 
E 
motives to the Sub-Judge in refusing to grant the stay. The sub-Judge 
submitted a report to the District and Sessions Judge setting out the 
words uttered by the appellant, for taking necessary action against him. 
The District and Sessions Judge in turn submitted a report to the High 
Court, and proceedings for contempt were initiated by the High Court. 
F 
In the contempt proceedings the appellant denied having uttered 
the words mentioned in the report of the Sub-Judge and also offered 
unqualified apology. 
The High Court held that the appellant was guilty of contempt of 
Court, under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as he 
G 
had attacked the integrity of the Sub-Judge by equating him with a 
Contractor of the Municipal Committee and by charging that he was 
in collusion with the Deputy Commissioner and was under his 
influence. The High Court further held that the attack on the Sub-
j udge, disparaging in character and derogatory to his dignity, would 
vitally shake the confidence of the public in him. The High Court did 
H 
not accept the apology tendered by the appellant because the appellant 
312 
M.B. SANGH! v. HIGH COURT 
313 
was addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous 
attacks on the Judges, and had in an earlier contempt proceeding too 
tendered an unqualified apology on the basis of which the rule against 
him was discharged. 
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the petitioner pre-
ferred the present appeal before this Court. It was contended by him 
that he did not utter the words, as would be revealed by the statements 
of the three Advocates examined before the High Court, who had stated 
that the appellant did not use any discourteous, unparliamentary or 
impolite language against the Sub-Judge. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (Per Agrawal, J.) 
1.1. The appellant had made an attack on the learned Sub-
ordinate Judge which was disparaging in character and derogatory to 
A 
B 
c 
his dignity and would vitally shake the confidence of the public in him 
D 
and that the aspersions made by the appellant had the effect of 
scandalising the Court in such a way as to create distrust in the people's 
mind and impair confidence of the prople in Court. The appellant has, 
therefore, been rightly held guilty of having committed the contempt of 
court under section 2(c)(i) of the Act. [319E-G) 
1.2. The High Court, in its appreciation of evidence, has rightly 
placed reliance on the testimony of the Sub-Judge corroborated by the 
evidence of the Reader in his Court, in preference to the testimony of 
the three Advocates. [321C) 
E 
2. It is well-settled that an apology is not a >yeapon of defence to 
F 
purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a 
universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. 
The apology that was tendered by the appellant before the High Court 
was so concluded as to be taken into consideration in the event of the 
High Court finding the appellant guilty of having committed contempt 
of court. Moreover this was not the first occasion in which proceedings 
G 
for contempt of court had been initiated against the appellant and on an 
earlier occasion also proceedings for contempt of court had been 
initiated against him in pursuance of a report of the then Chief

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