RADHA MOHAN LAL versus RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 1011 · Decided: 11-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RADHA MOHAN LAL 
A 
V . 
...,. 
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH) 
FEBRUARY IL 2003 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA: JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Contempt of Court-Application by contemnor making allegations against 
presiding Judge-Con1e111nor tendering unconditional apology-Conviction and 
sentence by High Court-On appeal held-In the facts of the case, contemnor c 
committed contempt of Court-But in view of apology punishment set aside. 
Conten1pt a/Court-Advocate representing conten1nor "1aking allegations 
+ 
against presiding Judge-Advocate held guilty of contempt-:-On appeal, Held: 
liberty of free expression cannot be equated with a licence to make unfounded 
and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary-Advocate not merely an D 
agent or servant of his client-He also owes a duty towards the Court-
Punishment reduced to the sentence already undergone-Sentence of fine 
1naintained. 
In the course of hearing of a Revision Petition before High Court, 
averments made in the application filed by appellant-contemnor making E 
allegations against the presiding Judge, led to initiation of proceedings for 
contempt of Court. 
The appellant-contemnor and his advocate-appellant both were 
found guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced to 3 months' simple 
imprisonment and fine. Thereafter the appellant tendered unconditional F 
-- .,.._ 
apology for the allegations made against the Judge by filing affidavit and 
in open Court before the Judge. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that apology sllould have 
been accepted as the same is evidence of real contrite as also of his G 
consciousness of wrong done by him .. Advocate-contemnor contended that 
he had not committed contempt of court as it was his obligation to submit 
before the Court as per the instruction of his client. 
-r 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
IOI I 
H 
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20031 I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : I. Having regard to the facts of the case, it appears that 
B 
although the apology has been tendered after the appellant had been found 
guilt); of contempt of court and after the High Court had inflicted the 
imprisonment on him but still the apology seems to be sincere and not to 
·ward of the punishment. The apology here is e\'idence of real contrite as 
also of his consciousness of wrong done by him. While the impugned 
judgment is upheld holding that the appellant committed contempt of court 
but accepting the apology, the punishment imposed on him is set aside. 
[1015-D-EJ 
M. Y Shareef and Anr. v. The Hon 'b/e Judges of High Court of Nagpur 
C and Ors., [195511 SCR 757, relied on. 
2.1. Counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter 
scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the 
prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor, with a view to prevent 
or delay the court of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of Court,. 
D and that it is no duty of a counsel to his client to take any interest in such 
applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for 
refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications. 
(1016-C, DJ 
M. Y Shareef and Anr. v. The Hon 'ble Judges of High Court of Nagpur 
E and Ors., 119551 1 SCR 757, relied on. 
F 
2.2. The liberty of free expn~ssion cannot be equated or confused with 
a licence to make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the 
judiciary. The imputation that was made was clearly contemptuous. The 
effect is lowering of the dignity and authority of the Court and an affront 
to the majesty of justice. [1016-E, FJ 
Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab & HaJyana, (199617 SCC 
99, relied on. 
3. Object of punishment will be served by reducing three months' 
G simple imprisonment to one already undergone by the appellant while 
maintaining the fine and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 
(1018-Cj 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
H 445 of 1993. 
t 
RADHA MOHAN LAL v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT fSABHARWAL. J.J 1013 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3 .1993 of the High Court of A 
. >-
Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Cr!. Contempt Petition No. 3184 
of 1991. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 1993. 
B 
Jagdeep Dhankar, Sushi! Balwada and Aruneshwar Gupta for the 
-
~ 
Appel:ants. 
Petitioner-in-person in Cr!. Appeal No. 449/1993. 
Vijay Bahuguna, Ranji Thomas, Mrs. Bharati Upadhyaya, D.K. Thakur, c 
V.N. Raghupathy and G. Prakash for the Respondent. 
+ 
The Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.