Dismissed

Court on Its Own Motion v. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Delhi HC27 Jul 2018CRL.C.REF./3/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court on its own motion disposed of criminal contempt proceedings initiated against a lawyer for his demeanor during an appearance before a Juvenile Justice Board. The Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the lawyer's anger and threats did not satisfy the statutory elements of criminal contempt.

What did the court decide?

The criminal contempt proceedings initiated against the advocate are closed and he is not liable under the Contempt of Court Act.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Rajesh Kumar, Advocate — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~3.

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.C.REF. 3/2018

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate for State.

¶6

versus

¶7

¶8

RAJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA O R D E R 27.07.2018

¶9

We have perused the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board-II in case FIR No.17/18 registered at Police Station Kapashera. It is on the basis of this order that this Court has received a reference for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar. The said order reads as follows:-

¶10

“As soon as the Ld. counsel Sh. Rajesh Kumar, (as appearing on the bail bonds) for CCL had left the Board the bail bonds were again called by us to record the conduct of the Ld. counsel for the CCL on the judicial record. After lunch the bail bonds were put up before the Board along with the order dt. 17.01.2018 of Dr. V.K.Dahiya, Ld. ASJ whereby the CCL had been granted bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount in the present case. On enquiry, the Reader has stated that order has been put up by Ld. Counsel for the CCL only and order has not been received by the Board. The Bail bonds were seen and the documents of the surety were also seen. The Board has sought

¶11

to verify the bail bonds of the guardian and the surety. Ld. Counsel then stated that the CCL be released first and bail bond be verified later on which was clearly not permissible way to proceed further. The Board then asked the Ld. Counsel that the Board shall get the verification first from the concerned IO and take appropriate steps whether the bail bonds should be accepted or not upon which Ld. Counsel for CCL got furious and while murmuring some words, which were not clear, he left the Board. While leaving the Board room Ld. Counsel turned back and saw the Board Members in anger . Thereafter after 15 minutes Ld. Counsel again appeared and asked that the bail bonds be accepted in interim. However, the Board for the same reason declined the request on which Ld. Counsel then stated that the CCL is being kept illegally and the Board is working in illegal manner. Ld. Counsel was told that the verification of the bail bond is the discretion of the Board and he should not interfere in the Board work. Thereafter Ld. Counsel left the dais stating “I will file complaint against the Principal Magistrate” . To our belief this threat of filing of complaints against the Principal Magistrate is nothing but tantamounts to contempt of Court. We believe that if Advocates, who are the officers of the court, starts behaving in such fashion then the Might of law can be taken for granted by each and everyone.

¶12

Therefore we are left with no option but to record the tone, tenor and expressions used by Ld. Counsel on record. Copy of order be sent to the Ld. Registrar General, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi through Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ) for appropriate action against the Ld. Counsel.

¶13

Put up on date fixed i.e. 22.01.2018 for verification of the bail bonds.” (emphasis supplied)

¶14

From the above, it is seen that the JJB-II has taken affront in respect of 3 aspects of the conduct of the advocate Mr.Rajesh Kumar, which are: A. That the said counsel murmured some inaudible words upon his request not being acceded to, while leaving the Board.

¶15

B. That the counsel turned back and saw the Board Members in anger.

¶16

C. That the counsel came back, and on his request not being granted, stated that he will file a complaint against the Principal Magistrate.

¶17

“Criminal contempt” is defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act as follows:

¶18

(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—

¶19

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or

¶20

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

¶21

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

¶22

For the conduct of a person to amount to criminal contempt, the act/conduct complained of should, inter alia, fall in either of the clauses (i), (ii) or (iii) quoted above. In Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and Others (1991)4SCC 406, the Supreme Court observed as follows in respect of criminal contempt.

¶23

“The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of court. The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury , but, to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. "It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation, against obstruction and outrage." (Frankfurter, J. in Offutt v. U.S.) The object and purpose of punishing contempt for interference with the

¶24

administration of justice is not to safeguard or protect the dignity of the Judge or the Magistrate, but the purpose is to preserve the authority of the courts to ensure an ordered life in society . In Attorney General v. Times Newspapers, the necessity for the law of contempt was summarised by Lord Morris as: (AC p.302)”

¶25

"In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperilled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted and their authority wanes and is supplanted." (emphasis supplied)

¶26

Thus, the power of contempt is not meant to be exercised to protect the Court against insult or injury upon its dignity. It is a power to be exercised to protect and vindicate the right of the public, so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfared with.

¶27

The aforesaid conduct of the counsel, even if assumed to be true, clearly does not tantamount to criminal contempt as it cannot be said that it either scandalises or tends to scandalise, lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court, or prejudices or interferes, or trends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings, or that it interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs, or tends to obstruct the administration of the justice in any other manner. In our view, the JJB-II-while sending this

¶28

reference, has acted with undue and uncalled for sensitivity as it has viewed the conduct of the counsel as an insult and an attack on its dignity. In Rajesh Kumar Singh v. High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench Gwalior (2007) 14SCC 126 the Supreme Court held that the power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint. The Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as follows:

¶29

“20. This Court has repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint. Courts should not readily infer an intention to scandalize courts or lowering the authority of court unless such intention is clearly established. Nor should they exercise power to punish for contempt where mere question of propriety is involved. In Rizwan-ul-Hasan v. State of U.P. this Court reiterated the well-settled principle that jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice. Of late, a perception that is slowly gaining ground among public is that sometimes, some Judges are showing oversensitiveness with a tendency to treat even technical violations or unintended acts as contempt. It is possible that it is done to uphold the majesty of courts, and to command respect. But Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect. They cannot demand respect by demonstration of 'power'.

¶30

21. Nearly two centuries ago, Justice John Marshall, the Chief Justice of American Supreme Court warned that the power of Judiciary lies, not in deciding cases, nor in imposing sentences, nor in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, confidence and faith of the common man. The purpose of the power to punish for criminal contempt is to ensure that the faith and confidence of the public in administration of justice is not eroded. Such power, vested in the High Courts, carries with it great responsibility. Care should be taken to ensure

¶31

that there is no room for complaints of ostentatious exercise of power. Three acts, which are often cited as examples of exercise of such power are : (i) punishing persons for unintended acts or technical violations, by treating them as contempt of court; (ii) frequent summoning of Government officers to court (to sermonize or to take them to task for perceived violations); and (iii) making avoidable adverse comments and observations against persons who are not parties. It should be remembered that exercise of such power, results in eroding the confidence of the public, rather than creating trust and faith in the judiciary. Be that as it may.”

¶32

The conduct displayed by the counsel and as recorded in the aforesaid order, even if true, may be described as undesirable. He appears to have vented his anger on the Board not acceding to his request/prayer. May be, he should have acted with dignity and restraint, but his utterances and demeanour do not fall within the definition of criminal contempt.

¶33

In our view, the Court has to exhibit patience and compassion while dealing with litigants and lawyers. The Board was dealing with a child in conflict with the law. We therefore, close these proceedings as no case is made out for the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the counsel, Mr. Rajesh Kumar.

¶34

Dismissed.

¶35

This order may be communicated to the members of the JJB-II.

¶36

VIPIN SANGHI, J

¶37

I.S.MEHTA, J

¶38

JULY 27, 2018 nk/nd

Court on Its Own Motion v. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Court on Its Own Motion v. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumari Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Jai Pal Singh

Vinod Kumar Vs State & Anr.

Rakhi Vs the Commissioner of Police& Ors.

Musharraf Vs the State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) and Others

Amit Kumar Vs Government of NCT & Ors.