LexTARUN BHARAT SINGH, ALWAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
TARUN BHARAT SINGH, AL WAR A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 8, 1994 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B CRIMINAL CONTEMPT-Sariska Tiger Reserve Area-Mining activi- ties-Restraining of-Case pending in Supreme Court-Counsel appearing in case was threatened by a doctor and an advocate using abusive language-Unconditional apologies tendered-Accepted with severe C warning and to be careful in future. This application had been filed by the petitioner to punish the respondents, an advocate and a doctor for criminal contempt of the Supreme Court. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, several orders were D passed by this Court restraining mining activity in the Sariska Tiger Reserve area. On account of that, the mine owners in the area and their supporters were threatening and harassing the Secretary and other office bearers and members of the petitioner organisation. At the instance of the organisation, a Senior Advocate of the E Supreme Court went to the Sariska Tiger Reserve area to make a spot inspection. A meeting was also organized in the office premises of the petitioner. While the meeting was in progress, some perso~ burst into the hall and started shouting slogans and disrupting the meeting. It was stated by the senior advocate that when he wanted to leave the place he F was prevented from leaving. The disrupters raised slogans "Khan bandh karane wale, hai hai." · The respondents denied the allegations. They stated that respondent and his wife were employed by the petitioner - organisation as doctors and they were abruptly and unceremoniously removed from G service. He was agitated and he alongwith other similarly placed employees gathered at the office of the organisation to register their protest. The senior advocate filed a rejoinder, affirming that respondent told him that he was disrupting the meeting because of the Sariska case H 285 A B c D E F 286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. and that he used abusive language. It was also stated that he threatened the senior advocate for his involvement. Several affidavits of the persons who were present at the spot on that occasion had also been filed supporting the version given by the senior counsel of petitioner organisation. An additional affidavit had been tiled by the respondent denying the several averments made in the supparting affidavits and also tendering unconditional apology. Respondent K, an advocate by profession also filled an affidavit tendering unconditional apology, requesting the Court to take a lenient view in the matter. Disposing of the matter, this Court HELD 1.1 It is evident from a reading of the affidavits of the petitioner's counsel and the counter affidavits of the respondent that the latter has not specifically denied the allegation of the petitioner's counsel. The avermeflts of the petitioner's counsel are also supported in full by the affidavits of other persons who were present on the occasion. (291-D, F) 1.2 It is a matter of extreme regret and serious concern that an educated person, a doctor should have behaved in the above manner towards an advocate of the Supreme Court who was appearing for the petitioner-organisation in Sariska Case. The conduct of the respondent was certainly offensive. This Court would have taken serious note of the same but for the circumstances that he has tendered an unconditional apology for his behaviour which he attributes to his agitated state of mind caused by, what according to him, was a totally unjustified, abrupt and unceremonious termination of the services of himself and his wife. In that agitated state of mind, the respondent behaved offensively towards petitioner's counsel as well, which behaviour is without doubt condemnable and for which he regrets now. The respondent has since -left that area and is now employed at Jaipur and he is no manner connected with the petitioner organisation. - (291-G-H,292-A, D) G In view of the above circumstances , the unconditional -apology tendered is accepted but with a severe warning to him not to indulge in similar activities in future. (292-E) 1.3 So far as the respondent R is concerned, he has unconditionally tendered an unqualified a·pology. Having regard to the fact that he too H is a member of the legal profession and a social activitist in that area, T. B. SINGH v. U.0.1 287 his unconditional apology is accepted. This Court is sure tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.