1998 JTR(SC) 870
1998 3 AICLR 432 ; 1998 AIR(SC) 3337 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 3278 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 4603 ; 1998 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 558 ; 1998 2 AllCJ 1082 ; 1999 38 AllCriC 620 ; 1998 AllLJ 2547 ; 1998 4 AWC 892 ; 1998 CriLR 676 ; 1998 3 Crimes(SC) 204 ; 1998 CrLJ 4603 ; 1997 6 JT 6 ; 1998 6 JT 6 ; 1998 16 LCD 1022 ; 1998 4 RCR(Cri) 120 ; 1998 4 Scale 662 ; 1998 7 SCC 379 ; 1998 SCR 952 ; 1998 6 Supreme 583
1998(6) Supreme 583
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
M.K. Mukherjee, S.P. Kurdukar, and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Dr. L.P. Misra etc. -Appellant
versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1994
(With Crl. Appeal Nos. 473-74/94, 475-76/94, 484-85/94 and 486-87/94)
Decided on 26-8-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : H.S. Hegde, Solicitor General, Rakesh Dwivedi, Gopal Subramaniam and Swaraj Kaushal, Sr. Advocates, R.C. Verma, S.C. Misra, Vireder Bhatia, C. Siddarth, N.K. Pandey, S. Muralidhar, A.S. Pundir, Dayan Krishnan, G.V. Chandrashekar, Advocates.
Important Point
High Court can invoke powers and jurisdiction vested in it under Article 215 (to punish for its contempt) of the Constitution but such a jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law (in this case the procedure prescribed under Chapter XXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952).
Act
Referred
:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES : R.8, R.7
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.215
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT : S.14, S.19
(A) The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with the Constitution of India, Article 215, and the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (specifically Rules 7 and 8 of Chapter XXXV-E), govern the exercise of contempt powers by the High Court. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act outlines the procedure where a court alleges contempt committed in its presence, mandating that the accused be informed in writing of the charge and given an opportunity to be heard before conviction. Section 19 provides the right to appeal against an order of contempt. The impugned order, passed by the Division Bench on July 15, 1994, invoked Article 215 to punish the appellants for alleged scandalizing and interfering with the administration of justice during ongoing proceedings, but failed to adhere to the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 14 and Rule 7, including the issuance of a show-cause notice and a hearing.
(B) The core legal principles are that the High Courts contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 is subject to the procedural safeguards enshrined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the High Court Rules. Natural justice demands that an accused person must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before being convicted for contempt. An order passed on the same day without issuing a notice and without affording a defence violates the principles of natural justice and is unsustainable.
Facts of the case:
During the hearing of a Writ Petition in July 1994 at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the appellants entered the courtroom, raised slogans, attempted to manhandle the judges, and used abusive language while interfering with the courts proceedings. The court, considering this conduct as gross contempt, passed an order on the same day sentencing the appellants to imprisonment and fine without issuing a show-cause notice or providing them an opportunity to explain their conduct.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Rules 7 and 8 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Despite the High Courts inherent powers under Article 215, the exercise of such powers must conform to the statutory and procedural requirements to ensure a fair hearing. The failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellants renders the order invalid.
Issues:
Whether the impugned order passed by the High Court was sustainable in law, having not followed the mandatory procedure under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the relevant High Court Rules, and whether the appellants were denied their right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that while the High Court possesses inherent powers under Article 215 to punish contempt, such powers are not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. An order passed without affording the accused a reasonable opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice and is therefore unsustainable.
Result:
The impugned order dated July 15, 1994 is set aside, the proceedings are remitted to the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court for a fresh hearing in accordance with the mandated procedure, and the criminal appeals are partly allowed.
(A) The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with the Constitution of India, Article 215, and the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (specifically Rules 7 and 8 of Chapter XXXV-E), govern the exercise of contempt powers by the High Court. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act outlines the procedure where a court alleges contempt committed in its presence, mandating that the accused be informed in writing of the charge and given an opportunity to be heard before conviction. Section 19 provides the right to appeal against an order of contempt. The impugned order, passed by the Division Bench on July 15, 1994, invoked Article 215 to punish the appellants for alleged scandalizing and interfering with the administration of justice during ongoing proceedings, but failed to adhere to the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 14 and Rule 7, including the issuance of a show-cause notice and a hearing.
(B) The core legal principles are that the High Courts contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 is subject to the procedural safeguards enshrined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the High Court Rules. Natural justice demands that an accused person must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before being convicted for contempt. An order passed on the same day without issuing a notice and without affording a defence violates the principles of natural justice and is unsustainable.
Facts of the case:
During the hearing of a Writ Petition in July 1994 at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the appellants entered the courtroom, raised slogans, attempted to manhandle the judges, and used abusive language while interfering with the courts proceedings. The court, considering this conduct as gross contempt, passed an order on the same day sentencing the appellants to imprisonment and fine without issuing a show-cause notice or providing them an opportunity to explain their conduct.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Rules 7 and 8 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Despite the High Courts inherent powers under Article 215, the exercise of such powers must conform to the statutory and procedural requirements to ensure a fair hearing. The failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellants renders the order invalid.
Issues:
Whether the impugned order passed by the High Court was sustainable in law, having not followed the mandatory procedure under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the relevant High Court Rules, and whether the appellants were denied their right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that while the High Court possesses inherent powers under Article 215 to punish contempt, such powers are not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. An order passed without affording the accused a reasonable opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice and is therefore unsustainable.
Result:
The impugned order dated July 15, 1994 is set aside, the proceedings are remitted to the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court for a fresh hearing in accordance with the mandated procedure, and the criminal appeals are partly allowed.
Order
This batch of criminal appeals arise out of an order dated July 15, 1944 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2058 (C) of 1994 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow, holding the appellants guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act and awarding a sentence to each one of them of imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for fifteen days.
2. We do not deem it necessary at this stage to set out in detail the allegations which led to the present proceedings. Suffice it to refer to the relevant recitals in the impugned order relating to the present action.
3. On 15th July, 1994, the Division Bench comprising of Mr. Justice B.M. Lal and Mr. Justice A.P. Singh commenced its proceeding and in fact some of the cases listed before it were heard. While hearing Writ Petition No. ... of 1994 (Deoki Nandan Agarwal v. Commissioner, Faizabad Division and others), Dr. L.P. Misra, Advocate-appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 483 of 1994 along with his associates entered in the court room raising slogans and asking the Court to rise and stop functioning. The Court, however, continued to function whereupon Dr. L.P. Misra along with Shri A.K. Bajpaie, Shri Anand Mohan Srivastava, Shri Y.C. Pandey and Shri Shamim Ahmad (appellants in connected appeals) came on the dias and tried to manhandle and in that process Dr. L.P. Misra caught hold of Justice A.P. Singh forcing the court to rise and then used abusive language against Justice B.M. Lal in the following words :-
“TUM SHALE UTTH JAAO NAHIEN TO JAAN SE MAAR DALENGE. TUMNE CHIEF JUSTICE SE KAHA HAI KI LUCKNOW KE JUDGES 5000/- RUPYA LEKAR STAY GRANT KARTE HAIN AUR STAY EXTEND KARTE HAIN AAJ 2 BAJE TAK AGAR TUM APNA BORIYA BISTAR LEKAR YAHAN SE NAHIEN BHAG JAATE HO TO TUMHE JAAN SE MAAR DALENGE.”
In view of an alarming and threatening situation, the Court was forced to retire and consequently both the Hon’ble Judges retired to the chamber of Justice B.M. Lal. Dr. L.P. Misra then entered the chamber and repeated the same uncivilised language and extended the same threat. It was because of intervention of Shri J.N. Bhalea, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, State of U.P. and some members of the staff of the Court who persuaded Dr. L.P. Misra and others to leave the chamber. After some time, the court reassembled and took a serious note of contemptuous conduct on the part of the appellants and in exercise of it’s power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India passed the following order :-
“This clearly amounts to grossest contempt of the Court, interference in the administration of justice and insult to the court as it scandalises the court and lowers the authority of the Court. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Dr. L.P. Misra, Sri. A.K. Bajpaie, Sri Anand Mohan Srivastava, Sr. Y.C. Pandey and Sri Shamim Ahmad, Advocates, are ex facie guilty of contempt of court and accordingly in exercise of powers conferred by Article 215 of the Constitution of India, this Court hereby sentence aforesaid advocates, namely (1) Dr. L.P. Misra, Advocate (2) Sri A.K. Bahjpaie, Advocate, (3) Sri Anand Mohan Srivastava, Advocate and (4) Sri Shamim Ahmad, Advocate with imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.”
The court further directed the Addl. Registrar of the said court to take steps forthwith for execution of this order.
4. It is against this order dated 15th July, 1994 passed by the High Court, that the appellants have filed these Criminal Appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
5. At the outset, we make it clear that the above recitals are taken from the impugned order which are denied by the appellants. In the view which we are inclined to take at this stage, we have refrained ourselves from going into the merits of the case.
6. Mr. Dwivedi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 483 of 1994 assailed the impugned order principally on the ground that the court while passing the said order did not follow the procedure prescribed by law. Counsel urged that the court had failed to give a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard. Assuming that the incident as recited in the impugned order had taken place, the court could not have passed the impugned order on the same day after it reassembled without issuing a show cause notice or giving an opportunity to the appellants to explain the alleged contemptuous conduct. The minimal requirement of following the procedure prescribed by law had been over looked by the Court. In support of his submission, Counsel drew our attention to Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as also to the provisions contained in Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Emphasis was laid on Rule 7 and 8 which read as under :-
“7. When it is alleged or appears to the Court upon its own view that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day or as early as possible thereafter, shall-
(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged, and if such person pleads guilty to the charge, his plea shall be recorded and the Court may in its discretion, convict him thereon,
(b) if such person refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Court does not convict him, on his plea of guilt, afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge, in support of which he may file an affidavit on the date fixed for his appearance or on such other date as may be fixed by the court in that behalf,
(c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed either forthwith or after the adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge, and
(d) make such order for punishment or discharge of such person as may be just.
8. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7, where a person charged with contempt under the rule applies, whether orally or in writing to have the charge against him tried by some Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof.”
Counsel urged that the impugned order is totally opposed to the principles of natural justice and, therefore, unsustainable on this score alone. He, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the other appellants adopted the same arguments.
8. We heard Learned Solicitor General who was requested to appear and assist the Court.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials placed on record, we are of the opinion that the Court while passing the impugned order had not followed the procedure prescribed by law. It is true that the High Court can invoke powers and jurisdiction vested in it under Article 215 of the Constitution of India but such a jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It is in these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
10. The next question that needs to be considered by us is as to what proper order could be passed in the circumstances of this case.
11. The incident in question had taken place at Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. With a view to avoid embarrassment to the parties and since both the learned Judges leased to be the Judges of the Allahabad High Court, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the contempt proceedings to the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The learned Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court is requested to nominate the Bench to hear and dispose of the above contempt proceedings. It is needless to state that the procedure prescribed under Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 will be followed. We also request the High Court to dispose of the case as early as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
12. For the foregoing conclusions, the Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1994 and other connected criminal appeals filed by the contemners are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 15th July, 1994 passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2058 (C) of 1994 is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court, Allahabad. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the learned Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court for appropriate action. All the criminal appeals to stand disposed of accordingly.
(N.K.R.) Order accordingly.
**********
Parallel Citations of other Journals : L.P. Misra v. State of U.P., 1998(6) Supreme 583 : AIR 1998 SC 3337 : (1998) 7 SCC 379 : JT 1998(6) SC 6
00044