RAM NIRANJAN ROY versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 31-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 583 
RAM NIRANJAN ROY 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1240 of 2004) 
MARCH 31, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND 
MADAN 8. LOKUR, JJ.] 
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971: 
s. 14 - Contempt of court - Contemner appearing-in-
person before High Court and shouting at court and making 
false statement before court - High Court holding him guilty 
A 
B 
c 
of contempt of court and directing him to be taken into custody 
and to be sent to jail for 24 hours as punishment - Held: The 0 
intemperate language used by the appellant while addressing 
the Judges of the High Court is most objectionable and 
contumacious - He did not show any remorse - He did not 
tender any apology, but, continued his rude behaviour of 
shouting at the court and baiting the court - By this behaviour E 
he lowered the dignity and authority of the High Court - He 
challenged the majesty of the High Court by showing utter 
disrespect to it - Undoubtedly, he committed contempt of the 
High Court in its presence and hearing - He is, therefore, guilty 
of having committed contempt in the face of the High Court 
uls 14 - High Court cannot be faulted for punishing the 
F 
appellant for contempt of court - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Art. 215. 
s. 2(c) - Criminal contempt of court - Contemner in appeal 
before Supreme Court filing copy of judgment of High Court G 
by replacing words in it and filing false affidavit - Held: 
Contemner is guilty of tampering with High Court's order and 
filing it in Supreme Court - This would be criminal contempt 
as defined bys. 2(c) - Further he has fifed false affidavit before 
583 
H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A Supreme Court - He is guilty of contempt of Supreme Court 
- He is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 25, 0001- - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Art. 129. 
CONTEMPT OF COURT: 
B 
Contempt in the face of court - Held: When a contempt 
is committed in the face of the High Court or the Supreme 
Court to scandalize or humiliate the Judge, instant action may 
be necessary - There was no question of giving the appellant 
any opportunity to make his defence - Natural justice -
C Opportunity of hearing. 
In a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No.1311 of 2003), filed in 
public interest, raising several issues relating to law and 
order problem in the State of Bihar, the High Court 
0 directed the Director General of Police to make a list of 
officers starting from the Station House Officers up to the 
Additional Director General of Police, of those who had 
remained in their station for more than four years. The 
appellant, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, and 
E claiming himself to be the President of Bihar Police Seva 
Sangh, filed an intervention application, stating that 
transfers and postings of the officers of Bihar Police 
Service were done arbitrarily in violation of guidelines 
framed by the Home Department of the Government of 
Bihar. He referred to a writ petition filed by him (C.W.J.C. 
F No.12225 of 1999) against the State of Bihar for an order 
directing the respondents to implement the said 
guidelines, which was pending in the High Court. He 
further stated that C.W.J.C. No.12225 of 1999 should be 
heard along with C.W.J.C. No.1311 of 2003, and prayed 
G for his impleadment in C.W.J.C. No.1311 of 2003. On 27/ 
01/2004, the appellant appeared in-person before the 
High Court. He was stated to have shouted at the Court. 
The High Court observed that the appellant baited the 
court. In view of the contumacious behaviour of the 
H appellant, the High Court directed him to be taken into 
RAM NIRANJAN ROY v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 585 
custody by the Court Officer and the Sergeant and sent A 
to jail as punishment for a day i.e. for twenty four hours. 
His intervention application came to be rejected. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
. 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant wants to ! create an 
B 
impression that he is fighting for th~ caus!e of police 
officers of Bihar, but a careful. reading of hisj application 
makes it clear t~at he is espopsing his o~n 
1 cause. The 
High Court whil~ dealing wit~ the, quest(on iof law and 
order situation i in Bihar, wa~ !ooki~g int~ the State c 
Government's policy of posti~gs and! tra~sf+r of police 
officers, obviously because th~t has a direct! bearing on 
efficiency and rectitud~ of the. police pffiter$. The High 
Court had directed the\ res/pondents to submit a list of 
officers who were not removed 'from their Statibn for more 
' 
~ 
'
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.