LexVISHRAM SINGH RAGHUBANSHI versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 105 VISHRAM SINGH RAGHUBANSHI v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 2006) JUNE 15, 2011 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: A .. B s.15 - Contempt by advocate - Appel/ant-advocate c abused the Judge/Presiding Officer in most filthy words when the Presiding Officer alleged the involvement of appellant in the impersonification of the person who came to surrender before the Presiding Officer - Conviction of appellant for contempt of court - On appeal, held: The case· of D impersonification of a person to be. surrendered is serious- If any issue was raised in this regard by the court, it was the · duty of the appellant to satisfy .the court and establish· the identity of the person concerned - The conduct of the· appellant in abusing the Presiding Officer was in complete E violation and in contravention of the "standard of professional conduct and etiquette" laid in Section 1 of Chapter 2 (Part- VI) of the Bar Council of India Rules - Courts cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders - Appellant intimidated the presiding officer by hurling filthiest abuses and lowered. F the authority of the Court, which tantamounted to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings - The charge stood proved against the appellant - In such a fact-situation the apology tendered by him, being not bona fide, is not acceptable - Bar Council of India Rules, Chapter 2 (Part-VI), s.1. G Contempt - Nature of - Held: It is the seriousness of the irresponsible acts of the contemnor and degree of harm caused to the administration of justice, which decisively 105 H 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. A determine whether the matter should be tried as a criminal contempt or not - The court has to examine whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the public - The act will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the B integrity, ability or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court's administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties - Administration of justice. c Apology tendered by contemnor - Acceptance of - Held: Can be accepted in case the conduct for which the apology is given is such that it can be "ignored without compromising the dignity of the court", or it is intended to be the evidence of real contrition - Apology for criminal contempt of court must D be offered at the earliest since a belated apology hardly I shows the "contrition which is the essence of the purging of a contempt" - However, even if the apology is not belated b.ut the court finds it to be without real contrition and remorse, and finds that it was merely tendered as a weapon of defence, the E Court may refuse to accept it - Apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course and the Court is not boLind to accept the same and can impose the punishment recording reasons for the same - In the instant case, it was not the case of the appellant that he was not given full opportunity to defend F himself or lead evidence in support of his case - The so- called apology tendered by the appellant contained ifs and buts - Apology was not tendered at the earliest opportunity, rather tendered belatedly just to escape the punishment for the grossest criminal contempt committed by him - There was G no repent or remorse on the part of the appellant at an initial stage - Such attitude has a direct impact on the court's independence, dignity and decorum - lh order to protect the administration of public justice, action has to be taken against the appellant as his conduct and utterances cannot be ignored H or pardoned - Thus, the apology tendered by the appellant • VISHRAM SINGH RAGHUBANSHI v. STATE OF U.P. 107 had neither been sincere nor bona fide and thus, not worth A acceptance. • Administration of justice: Where a person is really aggrieved of misbehaviour/conduct or bias of a judicial officer, he definitely has a right to raise his grievance, but it should be before the appropriate forum and by resorting to the procedure prescribed for it - Under no circumstances, such B , a person can be permitted to become the law unto himself and proceed in a manner he wishes, for the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.