RAKESH KAUL AND ORS versus THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 12-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, R.M. SAHAI, S. MOHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAKESH KAUL AND ORS 
v. 
THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 
AUGUST 12, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJI., R.M. SAHAI ANDS. MOHAN, 
JJ.] 
Contempt of Coult Act, 1971 
A 
B 
Litigants attempting to assault and manhandle the other party-Coult C 
condemning such behaviour and issuing non-bailable waJTallts-Held : Law 
must be allowed to take its own course-Circumventing the orders of Coult 
can not be tolerated-Direction to appear before the High Coult and tender 
unconditional apology without pleading any technicality-High Coult iii take 
a.sympathetic view and pass such orders as it may deem fit. 
D 
Being aggrieved by the change of dates in relation to the Degree 
Examinations by the University of Kashmir, the petitioners preferred Writ 
petitions before the High Court. The Assistant Controller o.f Examination 
appeared in person and sought two days' time to obtain necessary Instruc-
tions from the University. The matter stood adjourned to 17.7.1992. How-
E 
ever, the matter was recalled on 15.7.1992 itself during the absence of the 
petitioners, and the Writ Petition was dismissed. 
After the order was pronounced the petitioners attempted to assault 
and manhandle the Assistant Controller of Examinations outside the 
Court room, The High Court condemned the behavour of the petitioners 
and issued rule against them to show cause as to why they should not be 
punished for contempt of court. Some of the petitioners appeared before 
the High Court and some others did not. Non-bailable warrants were 
Issued against them. Against this, the present Special Leave Petition has 
be.Jln filed. 
On behalf of the petitioners It was contended that they were not 
responsible for the alleged manhandling of the Assistant Controller of 
Examination; and that even otherwise they cannot be held responsible 
concerning a matter which took place outside the Court. 
623 
F 
G· 
H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the Special Leave Petition, this Court 
HELD : Contempt is essentially a matter for the court concerned. 
Such a jurisdiction is vested in the court in order that the majesty of.law 
can be upheld. If any interference is made or sought to be made in the 
course of justice, the court must take a serious view of the same. As to 
B what exactly happened on 15.7.1992 is a matter which will have to be 
correctly ascertained and law must be allowed to take its course. Circum-
venting the orders of court cannot be tolerated. Therefore, this Court 
cannot interfere. However, petitioners are directed to appear before the 
High Court and tender their unconditional apology without pleading any 
C technicality. In such a case, the court may take a sympathetic view and 
pass such orders as it may deem lit. (626-A to CJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Peti-
tion (Cr!.) No. 135 of 1994. 
D 
Froio the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.93 of the Jammu & 
E 
F 
G 
Kashmir High Court in C.0.A. No. 76 of 1992. 
S.K. Bhattacharya for the Petitioners. 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
The petitioners herein aggrieved by the change of dates in relation 
to B.A., B. Com, B.Sc. examinations by the University of Kashmir from. 
5.9.1992 to 17,25 and 31.7.1992 preferred writ petitions to the High Court 
of Jammu & Kashmir. On 15.7.1992, Shri Mohd. Yasin Malilc, the Assistant 
Controller of Examination appeared in person in Court. He sought two 
days' time to obtain necessary instructions from the University of Kashmir. 
The matter stood adjourned to 17.7.1992. However, the matter appears to 
have been recalled on 15.7.1992 itself during the absence of the petitioners. 
An order was passed dismissing the writ petition. 
After the order .was pronounced, the petitioners attempted to assault 
and man-handle Mr. Mohd. Yasin Malilc, Assistant Controller of Examina-
tion outside the court room. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned 
Single Judge took a serious view of the conduct of the petitioners. Such a 
conduct 'prima facie appears to coerce authorities into submission and 
H 
obstruct the administration of justice. He concluded as under : 
· 
·-
RAKESH KAUL v. HIGH COURT OF J. AND K. 
625 
"It is a matter of regret that petitioners, being educated youth A 
should have taken law into their won hands with a view to strike 
terror in the minds of authorities or to influence the functioning 
of this court. It will be a sad day if the litigating parties are given 
licence to pressu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.