1

Reservedon05.05.2015
Deliveredon07.05.2015
CourtNo.34
Case:CONTEMPTAPPLICATION(CRIMINAL)No.19of2014
Applicant:InRe
OppositeParty:SriRamKumarSinghAdvocate
CounselforApplicant:A.G.A.,SudhirMehrotra
Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.
Hon'bleDineshGupta,J.
(DeliveredbyHon.SudhirAgarwal,J.)
1.

SriRamKumarSingh,Contemnorhasfiledanaffidavitof

replytothechargeandstatedattheBarthathedoesnotpropose
tofileanythingfurtherandthemattermaybeheard.
2.

WehaveheardSriSudhirMehrotra,learnedSpecialcounsel

appointedbytheCourttoassistitandtheContemnorinperson.
3.

TheContemnorR.K.Singhservednoticedated21.08.2014

underSection80C.P.C.whichisaddressedtothefollowing:
1.

Dhananjai Yashwant Chandrachud, the Chief Justice

AllahabadHighCourt,Allahabad.

4.

2.

TheChiefJusticeofIndia.

3.

TheSupremeCourtofIndiathroughitsRegistrar.

Thecontentsofnotice,inbrief,arethatheisapracticing

Advocate in Allahabad since 1983. He sent a notice dated

21.07.2014tonoticeeNo.3,i.e.,SupremeCourtofIndiathrough
itsRegistrarmakingacomplaintagainsttheChiefJusticeofthis
CourtallegingthatheisaproGovernmentChiefJustice.
5.

In the notice dated 21.07.2014, sent by Contemnor to

SupremeCourt,allegationsweremadethatnoticeeNo.1haspro
Governmentcharacter.NoticeeNo.2istheheadofnoticeeNo.3
and is responsible for every wrong or right administration of
noticeeNo.3,therefore,isalsomadepartyinthenotice.

6.

Thenoticedated21.08.2014isbeinggivensincethenoticees

failedtogiveanylawfulresponse.Byabuseoftheirpowerthey
haveinjuredreputationandprofessionofnoticegiver.Itwasalso
statedthatnoticeeshavecausedirreparablelossofreputationto
notice giver together with financial loss of Rs. 1,000/. In the
penultimateparagraphitwasstatedthatnoticeeNo.1bedeclared
proGovernment officer and unfit for administration as Chief
Justice;noticeeNo.2isactinginaidofnoticeeNo.1andnoticee
No.3hasbeencapturedbycorruptgangofpersonsandthatithas
becomeaplace/officewhereillegalactsandmenofpowerare
legalized.
7.

On26.07.2010anoticewasservedinInquiryNo.18of2014

upon the Contemnor, which, according to him, was wrongly

served,hencereturnedbyhimonthesameday.Itisallegedthat
inquirywassetuponafalsecomplaintmadeunderthenameof
R.K.Singh,withoutgivingfulladdressandenrollmentnumber.In
the said complaint it was stated that due to pressure of Chief
Justice,whowantedtoappointhisownpersononClassIIIposts
atHardoiJudgeship,thecomplaintwasmade.
8.

Theactualcontentsofpenultimateparagraphnumberedas

(a),(b)and(c)inthenoticedated21.08.2014arereproducedas
under:
(a)ThattheChiefJusticeD.Y.ChandrachudbedeclaredPro
governmentofficerandthatheisunfitforadministrationas
C.J.
(b)

Thatoppositepartyno.2isactinginaidofopposite

partyno.1.
(c)

That opposite party no. 3 has been captured by the

corruptgangofpersonsandthatithasbecomeplace/office
whereillegalactsofmenofpowerarelegalized.

9.

Thelanguageofnoticeanditscontentsapparentlyshowa

blatantdisregardnotonlytothisCourtbutSupremeCourtalso
andtherewasaclearattempttounderminetheauthorityofChief
JusticesaswellasCourtsmakingseriousallegations.
10.

This notice dated 21.08.2014 was placed before Litigation

CommitteeconsistingofHon'bleArunTandon,J.,Chairmanand
Hon'bleMrs.SunitaAgarwal,J.,Member,whoafterexamination
ofdocument,primafaciefoundthatittantamountstoexfacie
contempt and, therefore, expressed their opinion of placing
matter before appropriate Bench having jurisdiction to hear
criminalcontemptmatters,soastoexamineanddotheneedfulin
accordancewithlaw.
11.

Pursuant thereto, the matter was registered as Contempt

Application (Criminal) No. 19 of 2014 and came up before a

DivisionBenchconsistingofHon'bleDevendraPratapSinghand
Hon'ble Kalimullah Khan, JJ. On 05.12.2014 the Court issued
noticetoContemnordirectinghimtoappearinperson.
12.

On28.01.2015theContemnorwasgrantedtimetofilereply

andSriSudhirMehrotra,learnedSpecialCounselwasnominated
toassisttheCourt.NoreplywhatsoeverwasfiledbyContemnor,
hencethisCourton06.04.2015framedfollowingcharge:
"That you Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate, sent notice
dated21.08.2014underSection80ofcodeofCivilProcedure
toDr.DhananjayYashwantChandrachud,ChiefJustice,High
CourtofJudicatureatAllahabad,statingthereinthatpresent
ChiefJusticeisprogovernmentOfficer,pressurisedtheoffice
formakingappointmentofhisownpersonsetc.Bywritingso,
youhaveby wordswritten, notonlyscandalizedtheChief
Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad but also
undermined authority of this Court.You have committed

criminal contempt defined under Section 2 (c) Act, 1971

punishableunderSection12ofAct,1971."
13.

TodaytheContemnorhasfiledhisaffidavitinreplywherein

alsothereisnoremorseorapologytowhathehassaidbutinfact
the contents of notice whereupon contempt proceedings were
drawnhavebeenreiteratedinfurtherdetailinvariousparagraphs
oftheaffidavit.
14.

Inthelastparagraphofaffidavithesaidthatthoughcopyof

charge framed against him was directed to be supplied on

06.04.2015 but it has not been provided to him till date. The
affidavitofreply,therefore,maynotbespecificbeingbasedon
generalidea.WepointedoutthisaspecttotheContemnorand
enquired, whether he has gone through the charge and wants
somefurtheropportunityortimetogivereplybuthedeclinedand
statedthatwhateverhewantstosayhasbeengivenintheformof
affidavit and the Court should pass final order in the matter.
Hence,weproceedtodecidethismatter.
15.

After a careful perusal of the affidavit, though the

Contemnoronhisownhasnotarguedanythingexceptofsaying
thatwhateverhehassubmittedintheaffidavit,beconsideredby
Courtandappropriateorderbepassedbut,onourown,having
gonethroughthecontentsofaffidavitthoroughly,wefindthatthe
Contemnorhasraisedfollowingissuesindefence:
(I)

TheallegationsagainstHon'bleChiefJusticeareinrespect

ofactinadministrativecapacityand,therefore,doesnotamount
contempt.
(II)

Theallegationsmadearefoundedontruth.

(III) SendingnoticetoHon'bleChiefJusticeofthisCourtaswell
astheApexCourtdoesnotamounttopublicationanditisthe
Courtwhohasmadeitpublicbyissuingnotice,therefore,heis

notresponsible.
16.

Thecontentsofnoticewhichwehavealreadynoticedabove

makes it clear that the Contemnor has gone to the extent of

makingsweepingandwildallegationsagainstthehighestjudicial
authorityintheStateaswellastheCountry.Thedefencetakenin
thisregardisthatnojudicialproceedingsandordersarereferred
andtheallegationsareinrespecttothefunctioningofHon'ble
ChiefJusticeinadministrativefunctions,henceitwillnotamount
toacriminalcontemptasdefinedundertheContemptofCourts
Act,1971(hereinafterreferredtoastheAct,1971).
17.

Weproposetoconsiderthisissuefirst.

18.

Section2(c)definescriminalcontemptasunder:
2(c) criminalcontemptmeansthatpublication(whether
by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representations,orotherwise)ofanymatterorthedoingof
anyotheractwhatsoeverwhich
(i)

scandalisesortendstoscandalise,orlowersortendsto

lowertheauthorityof,anyCourt;or
(ii)

prejudices,orinterferesortendstointerferewith,the

duecourseofanyjudicialproceeding;or
(iii) interferesortendstointerferewith,orobstructsortends
to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other
manner;
19.

Publication of any matter or doing of any other act

whatsoeverwhichscandalizesortendstoscandalizeorlowersor
tendstolowertheauthorityofanyCourtisoneaspectwithinthe
ambitoftermcriminalcontemptvideclause(i).Inthisclause
whetherthispublicationoractofContemnorwhichhastheeffect
ofscandalizingorloweringtheauthorityortendstoscandalizeor
tends to lower the authority, has been committed in judicial

proceedingsorotherwiseisnotanecessaryconditionasnosuch
wordshavebeenusedtherein.
20.

In clause (ii) something which prejudices or interferes or

tends to interfere the due course of any judicial proceedings

amountstocriminalcontempt.
21.

Clause(iii)dealswithanothersituationwherepublicationor

anyotheractofContemnorinterferesortendstointerferewithor
obstructsortendstoobstructtheadministrationofjusticeinany
manneralsoamountstocriminalcontempt.
22.

Atthefirstflushonemayhaveanimpressionthatallthe

threeclausesinsubstancetalkofsimilarsituationorconditions
butinfacttheyaredifferent.
23.

Asimilarargumentashasbeenadvancedinthepresentcase

by Contemnor, was also raised in Rachapudi Subba Rao vs.

AdvocateGeneral,AndhraPradesh,1981(2)SCC577.Inparas13
and16theCourtsaid:
13. Itisnoteworthy,thatinthecategorisationofcontempt
inthethreeSubclauses(i)to(iii),onlycategory(ii)refersto
judicial proceeding. Scandalizing of Court in its
administrativecapacitywillalsobecoveredbysubclauses(i)
and(iii).ThephraseadministrationofjusticeinSubclause
(iii) is far winder in scope than course of any judicial
proceeding,ThelastwordsinanyothermannerofSub
clause(iii)furtherextenditsambitandgiveitaresiduary
character. Although Subclauses (i) to (iii) describe three
distinctspeciesof 'criminalcontempt', they are notalways
mutuallyexclusive.Interferenceoftendencytointerferewith
any judicial proceeding or administration of justice is a
commonelementofSubclauses(ii)and(iii).Thiselementis
notrequiredtobeestablishedofacriminalcontemptofthe

kindfallingunderSubclause(i).
16.

In the instant case, the contempt committed, though

not in connection with any pending proceeding, primarily

andsquarelyfallsunderSubclause(i)thoughtheaforesaid
residuary phrase in Subclause (iii) may also be attracted.
Unfounded imputation of mala fides, bias, prejudice or
ridiculingtheperformanceofaJudgeor castingaspersions
onhisintegrityashasbeendonebytheappellantinthe
notice in questionare always considered to mean
scandalising the Court, and lowering the authority of his
court by bringing him and his office into disrespect and
disrepute.VilificationoftheJudge,eveninadministrative
matters or decided judicial matters, may amount to
criminalcontemptunderSubclause(i)ofSection2(c)as
itlowersortendstolowertheauthorityordignityofthe
Courtbyunderminingpublicconfidenceinthecapacityof
thejudgetometeoutevenhandedandimpartialjustice.
(emphasisadded)
24.

Theexpositionoflawlaiddownintheabovejudgmentisa

completeanswertothefirstobjectionraisedbyContemnorthatif
theallegationsaremadeinreferencetoadministrativefunctions
oftheJudges,itwouldnotamounttoacriminalcontempt.This
defence,therefore,hasnosubstanceandisrejected.
25.

Thesecondgroundofdefencetakenbypetitioner,infact,

bringsintopictureSection13(b)ofAct,1971,assubstitutedbyAct
6of2006.Itreadsasunder:
13. Contempt not publishable in certain cases.
Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinanylawforthetime
beinginforce
(a)

...

(b)

thecourtmaypermit,inanyproceedingforcontempt

ofcourt,justificationbytruthasavaliddefenceifitsatisfied
thatitisinpublicinterestandtherequestforinvokingthe
saiddefenceisbonafide.
26.

WhentheContemnorwasrequiredtoshowastohowhe

substantiatehisallegations,exceptofreferringtohisaverments
containedinaffidavit,hedidnotplaceanythingfurtherbefore
thisCourt.
27.

Wehavegonethroughtheentireaffidavitcarefullybutdo

notfindanythingwhichmaysubstantiatewildallegationsmade
byContemnoragainsttheChiefJusticeofthisCourt.Inpara4of
theaffidavit,hehasreferredtosomeorderspassedbyHon'bleMr.
Justice Ajai Lamba in Contempt No. 1924 of 2010 pending at
Lucknowanditissaidthattheorderwasnotcompliedbythe
office.SimilarlyitisallegedthatinWritPetitionsNo.7200(SS)of
2013 and 4367 (SS) of 2013 order was passed by Court on
04.03.2014 but flouted by ministerial staff for the benefit of
Government.TheContemnorappliedforinspectionofrecordbut
thesamenotsenttoinspection.ItisfurthersaidthattheState
Governmentmadeafalsestatementintheaffidavitfiledbefore
Hon'bleMr.JusticeAjaiLambaandorderfordischargewaspassed
inContemptNo.1924of2010.Havingsaidso,theContemnorhas
said:
ThegovernmentissoassuredbytheHon'bleCJthatithardly
caresforthestandingordersagainstit.
28.

Whatisthebasisformakingsuchrecklessallegation,isnot

disclosedintheentireaffidavit.
29.

In para 5 he admits that in notice dated 21.08.2014, sent

underSection80C.P.C.,hehasmadeallegationsagainsttheChief
Justiceas(a)proGovernmentChiefJustice;and,(b)addictedof

maladministrationforhiswards.
30.

Inpara6theContemnorhassaidthatinWritPetitionNo.

1298(M/S)of2013,whileadmittingproceedingshavebeenstayed
upon false ground of pendency of civil suit in the Civil Court
thoughnosuitispendinginCivilCourt.Wecouldnotunderstand
astowhatforreferenceofaforesaidwritpetitionandtheorders
passed therein has been made though the same do not justify
allegationsmadeagainsttheChiefJustice.
31.

In para 9 of the affidavit it is said that the Chief Justice

interdictedwiththerightofdeponenttoinspectrecordofWrit
PetitionNo.4367(SS)of2013andthiswastoldtohimbyaClerkof
theServiceSectiononmobilephone.ThenameoftheClerkisnot
disclosed.Noevidenceplacedtofortifythisassertion.
32.

WerequiredtheContemnor,whetherheproposestoadduce

anyevidencetoprovethestatementmadeinpara9buthedidnot
make any such request and remains silent. The allegations,
therefore,inpara9areclearlyunsubstantiatedandvague.
33.

Inpara10itissaidthattherewasaContemptNo.18of2014

buttheChiefJusticehasgottherecorddestroyedandcreatednew
case of Contempt No. 19 of 2014 (present one) for vengeance
againstdeponent.
34.

InthisregardwecalledupontherecordofContemptNo.18

of2014andthereportsubmittedbyComputerSectionthroughSri
PramodKumar,SectionOfficer(FreshFiling),explainedtheentire
thingasunder:
It is humbly submitted that no criminal contempt
exists ever bearing No. CRCL 18/2014 as the number was
wronglygenerated andthesamenumberhasbeen usedto
feedtoCRLPno.22481/2014.
On20/11/2014acriminalcontemptwasbroughtbyan

10

officialofContemptSection.AftergeneratingnumberCRCL
18/2014 (encl. 1), it came to our knowledge that the case
belonged to Lucknow Jurisdiction and hence the file was
returnedbacktothesection.
Sincethenumberwasgeneratedandfilewasreturned
backtocontemptsectionandasnoothercriminalcontempt
wasavailable in the sectionat that dayinwhichnumber
18/2014couldbeusedandthereforethesamehasbeenused
forfeedingCRLP22481/2014(encl.2)asperpastpractice.
Onthenextdaythesamefilecamebacktothefresh
filingsectionandofficialofcontemptsectionexplainedthat
this Hon'ble High court had jurisdiction to entertain the
petition and this file should be registered and given a
criminal contempt number. This time a new No. CRCL
19/2014 (encl. 3) was generated automatically by the
computerandassignedtothefile.
Itisfurtherhumblysubmittedthatacasenumberis
always generated automatically by the computer system
during entry of a fresh case and once a case number
generatedandconvertedtoanyothercasetype/numberthen
the older number cannot be used or regenerated in any
circumstancesandwheneveranybodytrytoaccessthatold
case number, computer always gives message of case
numberchanged(encl.4).
35.

ThusthereisnoseparateContemptNo.18of2014assuch

butinfactthisverycontemptapplicationwasearlierregisteredas
ContemptNo.18of2014andafterdeletingthisnumberforthe
reasons stated in aforesaid report, it has been reregistered as
Contempt Application No. 19 of 2014. The allegations made
otherwiseareapparentlyunfoundedandbaseless.

11

36.

Inpara11oftheaffidavittheavermentsarenothingbuta

sermonallegingcorruptionprevalentinthejudiciaryandreadsas
under:
(11) That the main purpose of the judiciary was the
eradicationof corruption.The standingcorruptionis bad
blot upon the breast of the judiciary despite the people of
Indiaornateditinadvancewithfullhonour,freedomand
powers. The standing corruption is quite evidence of the
failureofthejudiciaryinit'sthesolecauseandpurpose.It
ismaintainingit'sdignityontheterrorofpunishmentwith
power under the Contempt of Courts Act. It has used the
weapon against the world's sixth topmost social thinker
ArundhatiRoy,Dr.D.C.Saxena,thepressmenandAdvocates
whohaveburdenofthesocietytoraiseandpointouttheevils
growing in the institutions. It is very unfortunate and
painful that we have given all powers under whims of
sentiments and made so law that provides absolute
dictatorshiptothejudgestoactattheirpleasureingood
faithorthebadfaith.ItisnottheobjectoftheContempt
CourtsActthatthealarmbythevictimathistheftbetakenas
scandalizationofthecourtstopunishhim.TheActis not
passedtokillthetruth.Inthecircumstancesofthecountry
wheretherearesoshockingdeclarationsoftheexminister
Hon'bleMr.ShantiBhushanandtheHon'bleExJusticeMr.
MarkandayKatjuagainstthesomanyChiefJustices,theuse
ofActasweaponshallnotmaintainthereputeanddignityof
thecourts.Itisnotbareallegationandamalafidemotionfor
an insult to our courts but it is the whole truth that the
judiciary is suffering from corruption. It is perusable in
newspapersofreputewhereitisrepeatedseverally,butinvery

12

suppressedlanguageduetofearofthepower.TheHon'bleEx
JusticeofIndiaMr.B.N.Kripal,whileinauguration,hasalso
acknowledged presence of corruption in judiciary. It is the
time for the judgestomaintain dignityuponthestandof
theirmodelmorals.Truehonourisathing,theextortionof
whichisimpossible.
37.

Thenagaininpara12oftheaffidavit,allegationshavebeen

madeagainsttheChiefJusticeandrelevantextractisreproduced
asunder:
12. That the Chief Justice of the High Court has not
examined about any alleged fact nor he has stopped
continuity of the mischief. He has obstructed the fair
institutionofthesuit.Hecannotdisproveanallegation.The
settledpurposeofnoticeistoattractatthefaultsandtocure
them.Itisbadtotakethatthenoticeisdeliveredtoinsultto
Him.
38.

In para 13 it is said that a contempt petition filed by

Contemnor on 19.08.2014 against the officials of State

GovernmentwasreturnedasdefectivesincedetailsofAdvocates
onRollpertainingtoContemnorwerenotdisclosed.Commenting
adversely upon the provisions relating to Advocate Roll the
Contemnorhasproceededtosayasunder:
Thisveryactissufficientlyrelevanttotheprogovernment
characteroftheHon'blechiefJustice.
39.

In para 15 the Contemnor has alleged that Clerks are

indulgedincorruptionandacceptbigbribebutagainhasbrought
here also the Hon'ble Chief Justice alleging that all these
corruptions are going under his shade. The relevant assertions
madeinpara15arereproducedasunder:
ThatundertheshadeoftheHon'bleC.J.theclerksareat

13

thetopofthecorruption.Theyacceptbigbribesandnulify
theordersofthecourtsforthelooserparties.
40.

Inordertofortifytheaforesaidallegationsmadeinpara15

hehasreferredtosomeproceedingsinComplaintCaseNo.6693
of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, which pertains to the Court of Judicial
MagistrateI,Hardoi.Wedonotfindastohowsomethingdonein
the District Judgship can justify allegations made against Chief
Justiceinpara15oftheaffidavit.
41.

Similarly,intheremainingparagraphsalsowedonotfind

anythingwhichmaybeconsideredtobesubstantialfacttoshow
that allegations made by Contemnor are founded on truth.
WhateverinferencetheContemnormayhavedrawnonhisown
butthewildrecklessallegationsmadeagainsttheChiefJusticeon
account of such inferences cannot be justified in any manner.
Theseallegationsaresuchwhichimpeachesuponthemajesterial
authority of the Hon'ble Chief Justice as also impartiality,
independence and authority of the Court in particular. These
allegationsapparentlyarecapableoferodingpublicconfidencein
theHeadofthehighestinstitutionofJusticeintheStateaswellas
theinstitutionitself.Wehavenohesitation,therefore,torejectthe
groundofdefenceno.2,asabove,andtoholdthatthepresent
Contemnorisclearlyguiltyofcommittingcriminalcontempt.He
has not tendered any apology or remorse. On the contrary, on
givenopportunityhehasenlargedandextendedthewidthofhis
allegationsinhisaffidavitofreplywhichwerenoticedabove.
42.

Sofarasgroundno.3isconcerned,weapparentlydonot

findanybasisthereininasmuchasbytheactandwordsinwriting
the Contemnor has not only endeavored to scandalize the
authorityofHon'bleChiefJusticeasalsotheCourtbuthasalso

14

attemptedtolowerdownthesameand,therefore,itcannotbe
said that he has not committed criminal contempt as defined
underSection2(c)ofAct,1971.
43.

Here is a case where taking into consideration the entire

factsandcircumstancesasalsotheconductofContemnorweare
oftheviewthatanylenientorsympatheticapproach,ifadopted
bytheCourt,wouldgiveawrongmassagetoallconcernedand
may cause serious damage to the authority of the Court. The
allegations are apparently scandalous and lowers down the
authorityoftheCourt.We,therefore,holdtheContemnorguiltyof
criminalcontempt.
44.

On the question of sentence also we give opportunity to

ContemnorbutheflatlysaidthatitisfortheCourttopassany
orderasitlikes.
45.

In our view, Contemnor deserves a severe punishment

underthestatute.Wesentencehimforsimpleimprisonmentof
fourmonthsandalsoimposefineofRs.1,500/.Incaseofnon
payment of fine, he shall undergo 15 days further simple
imprisonment.WealsodirectthattheContemnorshallnotenter
the premises of District Judgeship at Allahabad as well as this
CourtincludingLucknowBenchforaperiodofsixmonths,which
shallcommencew.e.f.14.05.2015.
46.

Thecontemptapplicationisdisposedofaccordingly.

OrderDate:07.05.2015
AK