LexPRITAM PAL versus HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR THROUGH REGISTRAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B PRITAM PAL v. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR THROUGH REGISTRAR FEBRUARY 19, 1992 [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: C Articles 129 and 215-Contempt Jurisdiction-Power of Supreme D E Court/High Court to punish for Contempt of itself-Whether could be cur- tailed or abridged by ordinary legislation or Rules-Procedure for contempt proceedings being summary, power to be used sparingly-Procedure to be fair and contemner to be given an opportunity of defending himself. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 2 (b }, 17 and 2()--Criminal Contempt-Advocate, practising at High Court making libellous allegations against sitting High Court Judge;--Whether amounts to inteiference with administration of justice and affects the image, dignity and high esteem of office of judge of High Court-Sentence of two months' simple imprisonment awarded by High Court-Whether justified. The appellant, an Advocate practising in the High Court was earlier ~ working in the .Defence Accounts Department, on re-employment, after F retiring from the Army. He had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, claiming certain benefits like pension, gratuity, pay and allowances etc., pertaining to the service rendered by him in the Defence Accounts Department and the Army. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. It also dismissed the appellant's review application. This Court also G dismissed his Special Leave Petition against the High Court's order. Thereafter, the appellant, moved a Contempt Petition under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 making some serious allegations against the two Judges of the High Court, who dismissed his Writ Petition and also the Review Petition. A Division Bench of the High Conrt snm- H marily dismissed the contempt petition. 864 y PRITAM PAL v. HIGH COURT OF M.P. 865 Meanwhile, the Registry of the High Court examined the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the appellant under Rule 5 of the Roles regarding contempts framed by the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court, before which the matter was placed on the order of the Chief Justice, took cognizance of the criminal contempt and directed issue of notice to the appellant directing him to s.how cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of Court. The appellant filed his reply raising certain preliminary objections, contending that the notice was bad A B for the reasons that (1) the Section of the Act under which cognizance had been taken was not specifically mentioned; (2) the notice did not show sufficient cause as to why the words and expressions nsed in the offending portions marked had been construed as contemptuous (3) the procedure c followed by the High Court was contrary to the rules framed by it; and (4) no consent of the Advocate General had been obtained,· and prayed for discharge of the rule of contempt. Meanwhile, on the basis of the High Court's Order, the appellant inspected the Court records relating to this matter, and thereafter, he was also informed that the proceedings were under the provisions of Article 215 of the ConstituJion of India. After examining the remarks made by the appellant in his contempt petition the High Court rejected the objections of the appellant/contemner and held that the contemner was guilty of criminal contempt of not only scandalising the Conrt and lowering its anthority bot also substantially interfering with the due course of justice. Taking note of the defiant attitude of the contemner who even did not think it necessary to apologise bot tried to justify the aspersions;Jhe High Court sentenced the contemner to suffer simple imprisonment for tllvo months. In the appeal before this Court, the contemner who appeared before the Court in person, contended that the order of the High Court should be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularities in that (1) that D E F the offending remarks had not been communicated to him as per Rules G 5 and 9 framed by the High Court; (2) that the cognizance of the criminal contempt had not been taken in conformity with Section 15 of the Act; (3) that the procedure, after cognizance as prescribed under Section 17 of the Act had not been followed; and (4) that Article 215 of the Constitution of India did not prescribe any procedure to be followed. He H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 1 S.C.R. A also contended
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.