RAM PARTAP SHARMA AND ORS. versus DAYA NAND AND ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 242 · Decided: 19-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
242 
RAM PARTAP SHARMA AND ORS. 
v. 
DAYA NAND ·AND ORS. 
August 19. 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s. 19 (1) (b)-Findwg oj committal of 
contempt is basis dj _acceptance of apology-Judge exposing himself to public 
co11trover.ry1 cannot she'/ter behind his office. 
· 
The appellants wrote a letter to the President o:f India, with copies to some 
others including the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, 
criti-
cising, the behaviour of a High Court Judge, who, during his visit to the 
Sessions Division of Bhivahi, spokti against the Government's po!icie~ and can-
vassed for a communist system. The High Court issued a notice against the 
appellants, making out a case of criminal co~temPt of court. 1he appellants 
tendered a conditional apology contingent on the courts finding their action 
to be contempt of court. 
The apology was accepted. 
Allowing the appeals and droppihg the contempt proceedings, the Court, 
HELD : (1) The elemeqtary basis1 of acceptance of apology is that there is 
to be a finding of committal of contempt. The Full Bench fell into the error 
of accepting the apology without findirig that the appellants 
committed 
any 
contemp~. In the absence of such a finding, no question arises for acceptance 
of apology .. [245 F, 246 F-G] 
(2) Judges are, by reason of their office and nature of work, expected not 
to get involved in controversial matters, or to/ concern themselves with political 
issues or policies undertaken by political parties. If any Judge addresses on 
political problems or controversies·, the Judge exposes himself to discussioh by 
public. He cannot in such a case take shelter behind his office if the public 
discusses and criticises the views expressed by him, and the protective umbrella 
of the court· cahnot be used by way of &ringing the cdtics on the charge of 
contempt of Court. [246 A-D, F-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal· Appeals Nos. 39-
40 of 1976. 
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1-12-1975 of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in Criminal Original Nos. 13-Crl. of 1975 
and 14-Crl. of 1975). 
D. 
Mookherjeie and 
Harbans Singh and 
V. M. Jain, for the 
G 
appellants. 
Deven Chetan Das, Advocate General, Haryana and R. N. Sach-
they, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by 
H 
RAY, C. J.-These are appeals under section 19(1) (b) of the 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the judgment and order dated 
1 December, 1975 of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana. 
( 
t 
RAM PARTAP SHARMA V. DAYANAND (Ray, C.J.) 
243 
The appellants wrote a letter on 20 February 197 5 to the Presid~nt 
with copies to the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, the Chief 
Minister of Haryana and the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana 
High Court. The letter was signed by 15 members of the Bar belong-
ing to the District Bar Association, Bhiwani. 
In that 
letter they 
brought to the notice of the President that Justice D. S. Tewatia of 
the Punjab and Haryami High Court visited the session division of 
B; 
Bhiwani and inspected the 
Courts from 14 
February 1975 to 19 
February 1975. 
In that letter they further stated as follows : "The learned Judge 
met the members of the Bar on 15 February, 1975 in the Bar Room, 
Bbiwani. 
During the course of the meeting, the learned Judge criti~ 
cised the Government's policy in regard to its attitude towards the 
judiciary. 
Besides the learned Judge was openly attacking the Gov-
ernment in its political as well as administrative decision. 
On the 
whole, he gave an impression that he was not a Judge but a politician 
who had come to Bar Room. When the members of the Bar who had 
gone to meet the learned Judge in the P.W.D. Rest House, Bhiwani 
he discussed politics with them and criticised the present executive in 
general and the Congress Party in particular. He suggested the mem-
bers of the Bar to revolt against the present Government as it has 
suppressed the civil liberation (sic) of the individuals and has also 
failed miserably in all fields. The Judge :l)urther said that the prevailing 
system of Government is not good in this country and we must adopt 
the communist form of Government which can save the nation. Later 
on, he had some private political discussion with the local C.P.M. 
leaders. He also accepted the hospitality of the Technological Institute 
of Textiles (Mills) people who also took him

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