Court on Its Own Motion Vs Om Narayan

This Suo Moto Contempt Petition was registered on 22.05.2023 under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, initially against the 1^st respondent, who had sent an e-mail dt. 16.05.2023 from the e-Mail ID: “[email protected]”.

¶11

2

¶12

In the said e-mail, there are certain allegations made of corrupt practices in this High Court - not only against a Judge of this Court, the Court Staff but also against the Advocate engaged by the 1^st respondent.

¶13

It is alleged that the entire gamut of the Court Staff and agents had made the Court premises a place for illegal activities of looting people (specially innocent ones).

¶14

It is also alleged that a Judge of this High Court had colluded with the High Court Staff and was manipulatively stretching the 1^st respondent’s case to avoid making payment of compensation amount, allegedly payable to the 1^st respondent in Criminal Revision Case no.331/2019, titled “ Yan Chand vs. Om Narayan” .

¶15

The matter underwent several adjournments as the 1^st respondent sought time for filing a reply. Initially his right to file a reply was also forfeited on 12.10.2023, since no reply was filed from 27.07.2023 till the said date in spite of time being granted for filing such a reply.

¶16

Ultimately, Legal-Aid-Counsel was provided to the 1^st respondent in the place of counsel engaged by him. A reply dt. 14.08.2024 was also filed by the 1^st respondent through the said counsel, since opportunity was again given to file such a reply on 17.07.2024.

¶17

On 19.06.2024, the Contemnor, who was present in person, had furnished the name & address of his son-in-law Shri Tarun, who had addressed the offensive e-mail to the Registrar General casting

¶18

3

¶19

aspersions as referred to above on the Staff of High Court Registry as well as one of the Judges of this Court.

¶20

The said individual Mr. Tarun was added as the 2^nd respondent on 19.06.2024.

¶21

On 17.07.2024 both of them were asked to file replies.

¶22

The 1^st respondent filed a reply on 14.08.2024 tendering unconditional apology and stating that he had no intention to harm the dignity of the Court. He claimed that he was paralyzed & bed ridden and unable to sign any document.

¶23

According to him, a Criminal Revision Case no.331 of 2019 was pending before this Court since 2019 in which he is a respondent; that he had discussed the problem with the 2^nd respondent, who is his son-in-law; that he needed the money for medical treatment and he had no intention to lower the majesty and dignity of the Court and the e-mail had been sent as an act of emotion.

¶24

He also stated that in the past he had not done any such act and he assured that he would never repeat such kind of act in future and prayed that the contempt proceedings be dropped.

¶25

The 2^nd respondent, who is the son-in-law of the 1^st respondent, also filed a reply reiterating what has been stated by the 1^st respondent, and he also submitted an unconditional & unqualified apology for sending the e-mail.

¶26

4

¶27

It is his contention that the said e-mail had been sent under

¶28

instructions of the 1^st respondent and as per information supplied by respondent no.1.

¶29

We have noted the submissions of the respondents.

¶30

It is unfortunate that both the respondents had sent the said e-mail

¶31

not only making allegations against the Court Staff of the High Court, but also against a Judge of this Court, making scandalous allegations without any iota of truth, merely because the case in which the 1^st respondent is a party, could not get decided quickly.

¶32

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines a Criminal Contempt in the following terms:-

¶33

“Section 2(c) in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971

¶34

“(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—

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Thus, it would amount to Criminal Contempt, if any act is done

¶39

which scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.

¶40

5

¶41

In Brahma Prakash Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh¹ ,

¶42

the Supreme Court held that “scandalizing” in substance is an attack on individual Judges or the Court as a whole with or without referring to particular cases, casting unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character or ability of the Judges, and such conduct is punished as contempt for this reason that it tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impair confidence of people in the Courts which are of prime importance to the litigants in the protection of their rights and liabilities.

¶43

Though the parties have tendered unconditional apology and the

¶44

1^st respondent appears to be a senior citizen, who is unwell and in a wheel chair, since the allegations levelled imputing corruption to a learned Judge of this Court and the members of the Registry of High Court would undoubtedly scandalize and lower the authority of this Court, particularly when there is no iota of material to substantiate the said contentions, we are not inclined to accept the unconditional apology and let-off the respondents.

¶45

In the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the age

¶46

and the health condition of the 1^st respondent and since the stand of the 2^nd respondent is that he acted on instructions of the 1^st respondent, who is his father-in-law, we impose a fine of Rs.500/- each on both of them,

¶47

1 AIR 1954 SC 10

¶48

6

¶49

after holding them guilty of Criminal Contempt. The said amount of fine

¶50

shall be paid by them within four weeks from today.

¶51