THE MATTER OF ANIL PANJWANI versus .

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1179 · Decided: 05-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

IN THE MATTER OF ANIL PANJWANI 
A 
MAY 5, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sec. I 4: Contempt Proceedings-Initiation 
of-Party making reckless and irresponsible allegations against a Supreme 
Court Judge during the course of hearing in appeal- Court found a/legations 
contemplllous but allowed him an opportunity lo withdraw the allegations-
Party stood by the a/legations-The Co11rt fo11nd him g11ilty of committing C 
contempt-Hence directed appropriate action against him as per Section 14 
of the Act and directed to lodge him in Jai/-Contemnor chose to contin11e his 
earlier stand-Right of hearing in the main matter-Held, it is a flexible rule 
of practice and not a rigid rule of law that a contemnor could not be heard 
unless the contempt is purged-The Court in its discretion, guided by the facts 
and circumstances of the case, co11ld allow/not-allow participation/hearing of D 
the contemnor-Contemptuous remarks against the Judge/Court are not 
j11stified even though the contemnor felt frustrated d11e to prolonged litigation-
Contemnor expressing regrets and pleaded for permission to withdrai'' the 
insinuating affidavits-Contemnor already undergone imprisonment earlier 
for contempt-Hence withdrawal of contemptuous remarks in his affidavits 
allowed-Contempt proceedings dropped with a note of caution that he should E 
be careful in future. 
Word~ and Phrases: 
'Contempt', 'Contempt Proceedings '-Meaning of 
Respondent-plaintiff filed a Civil Sui't for protection of his possession 
and prevention of encroachment over his property from the appellant-
defendant. Appellant adopted delaying tactics to drag on the proceedings 
for several years in the Trial Court but the suit was decreed in favour of 
F 
the respondent. Appeals were dismissed by the High Court. In appeal, the G 
Court directed to maintain status-quo. Aggrieved, rei;pondent filed an 
affidavit in which reckless and irresponsible allegations were made against 
the Presiding Judge. Later, another Bench heard the matter and found the 
contents of the affidavit grossly contemptuous and afforded an opportunity 
to the respondent to withdraw the allegations but the respondent chose to 
1179 
H 
1180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A stand by the allegations made. Hence, the Court directed appropriate action 
against the respondent-contemnor under Section 14 of the Contempt of 
Courts Act and also directed to lodge him in Jail. Accordingly, the 
respondent was lodged in jail and charges were framed against him, who 
again chose to continue by his earlier stand and claimed a trial. Hence the 
B present contempt proceedings. During the course of the proceedings, the 
contemnor tendered an apology and sought permission for withdrawal of 
the insinuating affidavits. 
It was contended for the appellant that the respondent-contemnor 
should not be heard since contempt was not purged. On behalf of the 
C contemnor, it was submitted that the main appeal may be decided before 
taking up the contempt proceedings. 
Dropping tl;e cor.tempt proceedings, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is no rule of law, and certainly not a statutory rule 
D that a contemnor cannot be heard unless the contempt is purged. It has 
only developed as a rule of practice for protecting the sanctity of the Court 
proceedings and the dignity of the Court that a person who is prima facie 
guilty of having attacked the Court may be deprived of the right of 
participation in hearing lest he should misuse such opportunity unless he 
E has agreed to disarm himself. The Court would not be unjust in denying 
hearing to one who has shown his lack of worth by attacking the Court 
unless he has agreed to beat a retreat and the Court is convinced of the 
genuineness of such retreating. It would all depend on the facts and 
circumstances of a given case and the nature of contempt under enquiry 
which would enable the Court exercising its discretion either way. 
F 
[1185-E-F-G[ 
1.2. It lies within the discretion of the Court to tell the contemnor 
charged with having committed contempt of Court that he would neither 
be heard nor be allowed participation in the Court proceedings unless the 
G contempt is purged. This is a nexible rule of practice and not a rigid rule 
of law. The lliscretion shall be guided and governed by the facts and 
circumstances of a given case. Where the Court may form an opinion that 
the contemnor is persisting in his behaviour and initiation

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