AFR

Reservedon06.05.2015
Deliveredon02.07.2015
CourtNo.34
Case:CONTEMPTAPPLICATION(CRIMINAL)No.12of2013
Applicant:InRe

OppositeParty:SriMahendraPrasadShuklaAdvocate&Others
CounselforApplicant:A.G.A.,SudhirMehrotra

CounselforOppositeParty:AjaiShankarPathak,Dr.V.K.Rai,M.K.
Singh,PrashantPandey,RudraKantMishra,S.P.Srivastava,VivekMishra
Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.
Hon'bleDineshGupta,J.
(DeliveredbyHon.SudhirAgarwal,J.)
1.

Referencevideletterdated15.4.2013wasmadebyShriAmitKumar

Prajapati, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra (hereinafter

referredtoas'ACJM')statingthaton12.4.2013afterlunchhourswhenhe
wasdischargingjudicialfunctioninCourt,hearingmiscellaneousandbail
applications,AdvocatesGovindNarayan,UmakantSingh,RavindraSingh,
Titu Prasad Gupta, Roshan Lal Yadav, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Bhola
Singh,RajeshKumarSrivastava,VikashShakya,PravejAkhtar,Jagjeevan
Singh etc. were present for hearing of their applications and bail
applications,ManojKumarPandey,Secretary,BarAssociation,Sonbhadra
appeared in Court and enquired from aforesaid advocates, who were
presentinCourtastowhytheyareworkinginCourt.Inthemeantime,
about 1520 more advocates alongwith Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Om
PrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathak,Advocatesenteredthecourtroom
andsaidthatadvocatesareabstainingfromjudicialwork,thenhowthe
court is functioning. The Presiding Officer tried to convince them that
courtisnotabstainingfromjudicialworkandthoseadvocateswhoare
willing, shall be allowed to work, whereupon the aforesaid advocates,
namely, Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Om Prakash Rai and Om Prakash
Pathakgotannoyedandstartedshouting,"NyayalayChoraurBeimanhai"
and despite the advocates are abstaining from judicial work, court is

2
functioning.Theyalsostartedusingabusivelanguage,whichisnottobe
disclosed.Inthecourtroomitselftheaforesaidadvocatesraisedslogans
nayayalaymurdabad,adhivaktaektazindabad,onaccountwhereof,the
courtfunctioninghadtobedeferredforsometime.InthatwayMahendra
PrasadShukla,OmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathakand1520other
advocatesobstructedfunctioningofthecourt.
2.

It is further stated that on 21st May, 2013 also, about 4050

advocatesenteredthecourtroomofChiefJudicialMagistrate(hereinafter
referredtoas'CJM')andpreventedthoseadvocates,whowereworkingand
askednottoworkwhereuponCJM,Sonbhadrasaidthatthoseadvocate
whoarewillingtowork,cannotbestoppedfromfunctioninganditisduty
of court to attend cases of litigants and advocates, who are present in
court and willing to work whereupon the disturbing advocates started
raising slogans nayayalay murdabad adhivakta ekta zindabad and
creating obstruction in judicial work. Mahandra Prasad Shukla was
GeneralSecretaryofBarAssociationatthattimeandhewasalsopresent
incourtroomofCJM,creatingobstructioninjudicialwork.
3.

Reference letter further states that Mahendra Prasad Shukla,

Advocate treats himself an authority onto himself and in the habit of

misrepresentationanddisturbingcourtfunction.Heusedtoattemptto
create undue pressure upon judicial officers by showing contemptuous
conduct,timeandagain.InCaseNo.208/97StateVs.Santoshandothers,
pendingincourtofCJM,inwhichMahendraPrasadShuklahimselfwas
anadvocate,heproducedforgedsuretyandotherdocumentsinfavourof
accused Santosh Singh. In this connection complainant Jaswant Singh
submitted an affidavit on 2.2.2013 in the court of CJM and when his
brotherenquiredaboutfictitioussuretyfromMahendraPrasadShukla,
advocate,thenMr.Shuklathreatenedhimtodestroy.Takingcognizanceof
theoffence,CJM,on16.2.2013,orderedtoregisterFIRagainstMahendra
PrasadShukla,Advocate.

3
4.

Reference letter further says that conduct of Mahendra Prasad

Shukla,OmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathak,advocatesandother
1520 advocates, shown in his court, not only has the effect of
scandalizing the court but also lower down its authority since the
aforesaid act was committed openly, in presence of litigating public in
courtroom,andsameamountstoacriminalcontempt.
5.

UndertheorderofHon'bleTheChiefJustice,dated26.3.2015,the

referenceletterwasplacedbeforeBenchhavingdeterminationofcriminal
contempt.ADivisionBenchconsistingofHon'bleRavindraSinghandAnil
KumarAgarwal,JJ.On30.9.2013,afterperusingReferenceLetterdated
15.4.2013,issuednoticestoMahendraPrasadShukl,OmPrakashRaiand
OmPrakashPathak,Advocatestofilereply,whyproceedingsofcriminal
contemptmaynotbeinitiatedagainstthemandtheymaynotbecharged
forthesame.Besides,theCourtalsodirectedDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra
toinquireintothematterandfindoutnamesof1520otheradvocates,
who also participated in disturbing activities in court room of ACJM,
Sonbhadraasstatedbyhiminhisletterdated15.4.2013.
6.

Pursuant to aforesaid order, District Judge, Sonbhadra made

inquiry and submitted report dated 21.10.2013 giving names of 8

advocates, who were also present in court of ACJM on 12.4.2013 after
lunch hours and had created obstruction in judicial function while
accompanyingtheaforesaidthreeadvocatestowhom,noticeswerealready
issuedbythisCourt.Theseeightadvocatesare SheshNarainDixitalias
Bablu Dixit, Atma Prakash Tripathi, Chandra Prakash Chaubhey alias
GudduChaubhey,KalpNathSingh, ShivRajSingh, BrijKishor Singh,
PrabhakarRamPathak,SatydeoPandey.
7.

TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra mentionedthenamesofaforesaid

advocatesinviewofstatementsofAdvocatesJagjeevanSingh,RoshanLal
Yadav,Titu PrasadGupta,RavindraSingh.Thestatementsofaforesaid
advocates were also supported by Shri Tarkeshwar Tiwari, the then

4
Assistant Clerk(Criminal) and Shri Raj Karan, Stenographer, postedin
courtofAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadra.
8.

After perusing the aforesaid report of District Judge, Sonbhadra,

thisCourt,videorderdated11.11.2013,issuednoticestoaforesaideight
advocates.
9.

AlltheContemnors,soughtforcopyofinquiryreportsubmittedby

District Judge, Sonbhadra. On 5.5.2014, under the order of Court, the

same was supplied to them, which has been acknowledged by all the
contemnorsintheordersheetdated5.5.2014.Thereafter,contemnorsfiled
repliespursuanttonoticeissuedtothem.
10.

Thegeneraldefencetakenbyall11contemnorsisasunder:
(i)MahendraPrasadShukla:
He hadgone toappearintheCourt ofAdditionalChief Judicial
Magistrate to oppose a bail application whereupon the Presiding
Officerdeclinedtohearhimstatingthatheshouldgetnoobjection
from Bar Association which has passed a resolution to abstain
fromtheCourtandhewas notallowedtoparticipateinjudicial
proceedingsandhisnamehasbeenwronglymentioned.
(ii)OmPrakashRai:
His name has wrongly been included and actually he was not
present.
(iii)OmPrakashPathak:
He was not present in the Court Room and did not disturb the
proceedings, as alleged, and his name has wrongly been
mentioned.
(iv)SheshNarayanDixit:
As a matter of fact, at that time when the alleged incident is
claimedtohavetakenplace, hewaspresentandworkinginthe
CourtofDistrictJudgeandhisnamehasbeenincludedonaccount
of enmityof some otherAdvocates,who have some enmitywith
him.
(v)AtmaPrakashTripathi:
Hisnamehasbeenincludedduetoenmity.Hehas notdoneany
act,asalleged.

5
(vi)ChandraPrakashChaubey:
Hewas notpresent intheCourtRoomwhentheallegedincident
tookplace.
(vii)KalpNathSingh:
HehasactuallyworkedintheaforesaidCourtofAdditionalChief
JudicialMagistrateandnoincidenttookplaceinhispresenceand
at that time when the alleged incident took place, he was not
presentintheCourt.
(viii)ShivRajSingh:
He has gone to work in the Court and has not created any
disturbanceinCourtproceedings.
(ix)BrijKishorSingh:
HehasgoneintheCourttoappearinamatterandhasnotcaused
anydisturbance intheCourtproceedings.Hehas alsonotused
any abusive language etc. as alleged and his name has been
includedonaccountofenmityofsomeotherAdvocates.
(x)PrabhakarRamPathak:
HewasnotpresentintheCourt.
(xi)SatyadeoPandey:
Onthedateofallegedincident,hewasatAllahabadandhisname
haswronglybeenmentioned.
11.

BeforethisCourt,thecontemnorsingeneralalsotenderedapology.

The samewasconsideredon19.2.2015and theCourt passedfollowing

order:
Heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel for the High Court,
learnedA.G.A.fortheStateofU.P.
Allthecontemnersarepresentinthecourt.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the contemners that
contemnersarepractisinglawyers, onacallofstrikethe alleged
incident has occurred, they tender unconditional apology.
Consideringthesame,itisdirectedthatincaseallthecontemners
tenderunconditionalapologybeforeSriAmitKumarPrajapati,the
then Addl. C.J.M. Sonbhadra within three weeks from today, the
apologyshallbetenderedinwritingbeforeSriAmitKumarPrajapati
who shall send his response on it to this court within one week
thereafter.
Liston23.3.2015.Onthatdayallthecontemnersshallappearin
person.

6
12.

Shri Shesh Narayan Dixit and Shri Atma Prakash Tripathi,

Advocatesvideletterdated24.2.2015,ShriBrijKishorSingh,Advocate,
vide letter dated 3.3.2015, Shri Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Shri Om
PrakashRai,ShriOmPrakashPathak, ShriShivRajSingh,ShriKalp
Nath Singh and Shri Satyadeo Pandey, Advocates vide letter dated
9.3.2015filedtheiraffidavitsbeforeShriAmitKumarPrajapati,thethen
ACJM,Sonbhadratenderingunconditionalapology.ShriChandraPrakash
Chaubhey,ShriOmPrakashRaiandShriPrabhakarRamPathakfiled
theirseparateaffidavitstothesameeffect.
13.

Learned court below vide letter dated 20.3.2015 informed about

aforesaidactoftenderingapologyonthepartofcontemnorsbutfurther
pointedoutthatcontemnorshavenotcommittedtheseactsofcontempts
forthefirsttime,butearlieralsosimilaractwasdonebutJudicialOfficers
condoned their act and did not proceed further. The conduct of
contemnors isseriously contemptuous and condemnable. Hethereafter,
leftthemattertobeconsideredbythisCourt.
14.

AlltheentireaspectswereconsideredbyCourton9.4.2015.Having

satisfied that it was not a case where contemnors deserve to be

dischargedonacceptanceofapology,thisCourtframedchargesagainstall
the contemnors. The three contemnors no.1, 2 and 3, namely, Shri
MahendraPrasad Shukla, Shri Om Prakash Rai and ShriOmPrakash
Pathak,Advocateswerechargedasunder:
"That you Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Advocate on 12.4.2013 after
lunchat2.00P.M.whiletheCourtwasdischargingjudicialfunction
ofhearingMisc.Applications/BailApplicationsofAdvocatespresent,
youalongwithOmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathakand1520
otherAdvocatesenteredtheCourtRoomandsaid,^^vf/koDrkx.k U;kf;d dk;Z
ls fojr gSa U;k;ky; dSls dk;Z dj jgh gSA esjs ;g dgus ij fd U;k;ky; U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr ugha gS
tks vf/koDrkx.k dk;Z djsxa s mudk dk;Z U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxk]thisinfuriatedyouand
saidU;k;ky; p
a ksj o csbZeku gS vf/koDrkx.k ds U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr jgus ij Hkh dk;Z dj jgh gSs
you abused the Court and also raised slogan in the Court Room
U;k;ky; eqjnkckn vf/koDrk ,drk ftUnkcknOnaccountthereofproceedingsofthe
Courtwerestopped.Inthiswayyouhavenotonlyscandalizedthe

7
Court,buthavealsolowereddowntheauthorityoftheCourtbesides
interfering in administration of justice, thus, all of you have
committedcriminal contempt defined underSection2(c)readwith
Sections10,14and15ofContemptofCourtsAct,1971(hereinafter
referredtoas"Act,1971")punishableunderSection12ofAct,1971."
15.

Rest of the eight contemnors, namely Sri Shesh Narayan Dixit,

Atma Prakash Tripathi, Chandra Prakash Chaubhey, Kalp Nath Singh,

ShivRajSingh,BrijKishorSingh,PrabhakarRamPathakandSatyadeo
Pandey,werechargedasunder:
"That all of you Shesh Narayan Dixit, Atma Prakash Tripathi,
ChandraPrakashChaubhey,KalpNathSingh,ShivRajSingh,Brij
Kishor Singh, Prabhakar Ram Pathak and Satyadeo Pandey on
12.4.2013afterlunchat2.00PMwhiletheCourtwasdischarging
judicial function of hearing Misc. Application/Bail Application of
Advocatespresent,enteredintheCourtRoomalongwithMahendra
PrasadShukla,OmPrakashRai,OmPrakashPathak,Advocates,
usedindecentwordsagainsttheCourtandalsocreatedobstruction
in judicial proceedings. Thus all of you have committed criminal
contemptdefinedunderSection2(c)readwithSections10,14and
15ofAct,1971punishableunderSection12ofAct,1971."
16.

Thecontemnorswerealsogivenopportunitytofiletheirrepliesto

thechargelevelledagainstthem.
17.

Inreplytothechargeframedagainstcontemnors,replieshavebeen

filedbyMahendraPrasadShukla,(contemnorno.1),OmPrakashPathak
(contemnorno.3), SheshNarayanDixit(contemnorno.4),ShriKalpNath
Singh (contemnor no.7), Shiv Raj Singh (contemnor no.8), Brij Kishor
Singh(contemnorno.9),SatyadeoPandey(contemnorno.11).
18.

ShriV.C.Mishra,learnedSeniorAdvocateassistedbyS/ShriAlok

Kumar, Shukla Yasharth Srivastava and Ashok Verma, Advocates

appearedonbehalf ofcontemnors,SheshNarayanDixit,AtmaPrakash
Tripathi,BrijKishorSingh,ShivRajSinghandKalpNathSingh.
19.

ShriV.P.Srivastava,learnedSeniorAdvocateassistedbyShriAjay

ShankarPathak,Advocatehasappearedonbehalfofcontemnorsno.1,3
and11i.e.MahendraPrasadShukla,OmPrakashPathakandSatyadeo

8
Pandey,respectively.
20.

ShriVinodKumarRai,Advocatehasputinappearanceonbehalfof

OmPrakashRai(contemnorno.2).ShriRudraKantMishra,Advocatehas
putin appearance on behalf of contemnor nos. 6 and 10 i.e. Chandra
PrakashChaubheyandPrabhakarRamPathak.
21.

Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

contemnornos.1,3and11statedthatthoughtheaforesaidcontemnors
havefiledtheirrepliestothechargebuttheyarenotcontestingthematter
and surrendering themselves to the court, admitting guilt, and seeks
mercy.
22.

However,ShriV.C.Mishra,learnedSeniorAdvocate,hasadvanced

elaborates arguments in defence, which have been adopted by other

learnedcounselappearingforothercontemnors.
23.

ShriV.C.Mishra,contendedthatReferenceLetterwasmadebythe

thenACJM,Sonbhadradisclosingonlythreenamesi.e.contemnornos.1,
2and3,andtherefore,noproceedingsagainstanyothercontemnorsis
admissible under law as the investigation directed by this Court, to be
made by District Judge, to find out names of other 1520 advocates,
mentionedinReferenceLetter,andReportsubmittedbyDistrictJudge,
Sonbhadra, identifying names of contemnors 4 to 11, is neither
contemplatedunderAct1971norRulesframedbyCourt,therefore,the
aforesaidreportandproceedingsinitiatedonthebasisthereof,arewholly
illegal. The investigation directed by this Court to be made by District
Judge, Sonbhadra and report submitted by learned District Judge is
whollyunauthorizedandillegal,hencenocontemptproceedingwouldlie
againstthoseadvocates,whowerenamedininquiryreportsubmittedby
District Judge. The said inquiry report as also subsequent proceeding
initiatedagainstcontemnornos.4to11,areillegalandlackjurisdiction.
24.

Coming on the merit of the matter, Shri V.C. Mishra urged that

9
namesofcontemnornos.4to11havebeengivenbyadvocates,whohave
rivalrytothesecontemnors.Mentioningnamesofcontemnors4to11,by
twoorthreeadvocatesbeforeDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra,wasonaccount
of animosity. They have been falsely implicated. There is no otherwise
evidencethatthesecontemnorswerepresentorcommittedanyillegalact
etc.whichmaycomewithintheambitofthetermcriminalcontemptas
defined under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971. He further contended that
statement of advocates taken note by District Judge, Sonbhadra in his
report,iswhollyhearsayandcannotbereliedsincecontemnorshavenot
been given any opportunity to cross examine those advocates, who
deposedanddisclosednamesofcontemnors.Hefurthercontendedthat
contemnorsincomplianceofthisCourt'sorderdated19.2.2015,tendered
unconditionalapologybeforePresidingOfficer,whomade areferenceto
thisCourtandhehasacceptedthesame,thereforeproceedingsareliable
tobedroppedagainstallthecontemnors.
25.

ShriSudhirMehrotra,learnedSpecialCounselnominatedbythis

Courttoassist,however,submittedthatReferenceLetterdated15.4.2013
aswellasinquiryreportsubmittedbyDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraareself
speaking, clearly showing highly derogatory conduct of contemnors
disturbing court proceedings, which clearly amount to criminal
contempt.ThePresidingOfficerhasalsoremindedthatcontemnorshave
not committed these acts for the first time but repeatedly. He also
submittedthatpowerofthisCourttopunishforcontempt,isnotconfined
toReferenceletterreceivedfromsubordinatecourtbutthecourtcanhave
informationsubsequentlyorotherwisealso,eitherfromsubordinatecourt
or on its own or under order of this Court. He submitted that the
Referencelettermadebysubordinatecourtisnottobereadasaplaint.
The term 'Reference' under Section 15 of Act, 1971 is nothing but an
information communicated by subordinate court to this Court, since
ultimate power for punishing contemnors for committing contempt of

10
subordinatecourtvestsinthisCourt.TheauthorityofthisCourtisnot
confinedtotheletterofreference.The'reference'isnotdefinedintheAct
1971.Itsimplyconstitutesaninformationreceivedfromsubordinatecourt.
In a given case, after initial information, the court may require some
further information, which may also come from subordinate court or
otherwiseandallthatinformationwillsatisfytheterm'Reference'.
26.

All the learned counsels appearing for contemnors unanimously

submitted that since contemnors have tendered apology, court should

acceptthesameanddischargeallofthem.
27.

Wehaveheardlearnedcounselforpartiesasalsorelevantstatutory

provisionsandexpositionoflawlaiddownundervariousauthoritiesof
thisCourtaswellasvariousothercourtsandApexCourt.
28.

Herethecontemnorsthough11,butareapparentlyintwosets.First

setincludescontemnors1to3andsecondsetincludescontemnors4to
11i.e.Therefore,wefinditappropriatetodiscussthematteroftwosetsof
contemnorsseparately.Firstofallweproposestodiscussfactualaspects,
andthereafter,thelegalsubmissionsinvolvingboththesets.
29.

So far as contemnor nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, they have been

charged of using scurrilous language in court of ACJM, Sonbhadra,

preventinglitigantsandadvocatesinpursuingtheirmattersbeforecourt,
abstaining judicial function and raising slogans in Court room. All the
aforesaidacts,iftrue,dosatisfydefinitionof'criminalcontempt'under
Section2(c)ofAct,1971.Noindividualreplyhasbeenfiledbycontemnor2
tothechargelevelledagainsthim.Thecontemnors1and3havefiledtheir
affidavitsinreplytochargeframedagainstthem.
30.

The defence taken by Mahendra Prasad Shukla (contemnor 1) in

affidavitswornon6.5.2015isthat,heisanadvocatepractisinginDistrict
Court,Sonbhadra,has21yearslengthofpractiseandhisenrollmentwith
BarCouncilofU.P.isof1994.Heearlierfiledanaffidavitdated9.12.2013

11
tenderingunconditionalapology.On9.2.2015,whenmatterwastakenup,
hesaidthatheisnotcontestingproceedingsonmerit andistendering
unconditional apology. The Court then permitted him to tender such
apologybeforecourtbelowandincompliancethereof,hefiledapologyvide
affidavitdated9.3.2015beforeShriAmitKumarPrajapati,nowpostedas
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar at Kairana and tendered
apology.Coming onmerit,hesaidthatKalpNathSingh(contemnor7)
lodgedFirstInformationReportdated20.3.2013,registeredasCaseCrime
No.164/2013underSection406and420I.P.C.,P.S.Pannuganj,District
SonbhadraagainstsixpersonsincludingoneJagJeevanSingh,Advocate,
whohasbeennamedasawitnessinreferencelettersentbycourtbelow.
Copy of report is Annexure No.1 to theAffidavit. Some of the accused,
namely,JagjeevanSingh,Advocate,JangBahaduraliasBachchacameto
thiscourtinWritPetitionsNo.6087of2013and6086of2013forseeking
quashingofFirstInformationReport.Thewritpetitionsweredisposedof
videordersdated10.4.2013andbothordersaresimilar.Oneoftheorder
dated10.4.2013readsasunder:
HeardthelearnedcounselforthepetitionerandthelearnedA.G.A.
Thispetitionhasbeenfiledbythepetitionerwithaprayertoquash
theF.I.R.ofcasecrimeno.164of2013,undersections420,406IPC,
P.S.Pannuganj,DistrictSonbhadra.
From the perusal of the F.I.R it appears that on the basis of
allegationmadethereintheprimafaciecognizableoffenceismade
out.ThereisnoscopeofinterferingintheF.I.RTherefore,theprayer
forquashingtheF.I.Risrefused.
However,consideringthefacts,itisdirectedthat incasepetitioner
appearsbeforethecourtconcernedwithin30daysfromtodayand
applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of
expeditiouslyifpossibleonthesamedaybythecourtsbelow.
Withthisdirection,thispetitionisfinallydisposedof.

31.

(emphasisadded)

Trial in the aforesaid matter was pending in the court of Chief

JudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadraand12.4.2013wasthedatefixed.Since

12
courtwasvacant,thecasewastakenupinthecourtofACJM,ShriAmit
KumarPrajapation12.4.2013,whencourtgrantedinterimbailtooneof
the accused, Sat Pal alias Bablu. Despite knowledge of order dated
10.4.2013 passed by this Court, Shri Amit Kumar Prajapati, the then
ACJM, Sonbhadra, in league and collusion with Jagjeevan Singh,
Advocate,grantedinterimbailtoanotheraccusedSatpalaliasBablu on
12.4.2013.Sincetheaforesaidcriminalcaserelatestonumberoffarmers
whowerecheatedbyaccusedpersons,theyraisedtheirvoice.Withthe
incidentasallegedinreferencelettersentbythenACJM,thecontemnor1
hasnoconcern.However,contemnor1,appearingonbehalfofinformant
was opposing bail application and had filed Vakalatname on 12.4.2013
beforetheconcernedACJM.Subsequently,bailapplicationwasrejectedby
CJM on 17.4.2013. Shri Jagjeevan Singh, Advocate was expelled from
membershipofSonbhadraBarAssociationvideresolutiondated7.2.2012.
On 11.4.2013, there was an emergency meeting of Sonbhadra Bar
Associationinwhichadecisionwastakenforabstainingjudicialworkon
12.4.2013onaccountofdissimilarityinholidaysinCivilCourtandState
GovernmentOfficesandalsoforfrequentpowercuts.Theincident,took
placeon12.4.2013,betweencomplainantandaccusedpersons,andnot
judicialofficerandcontemnor1.Thedayofincident, i.e.12.4.2013,was
lastworkingdayofthethenACJM,ShriAmitKumarPrajapatiinDistrict
Court,Sonbhadra.Regardingthesaidincident,anewswaspublishedin
localHindiNewspaper'Hindustan'VaranasiEditiondated13.4.2013.The
Sonbhadra Bar Association, Sonbhadra also passed a resolution on
16.4.2013 against Shri Jagjeevan Singh, Advocate as well as the then
ACJM, Shri Amit Kumar Prajapati, against their conduct. The copy of
resolution has already been placed on record as Annexure No.9 to the
Affidavit,whichisreproducedasunder:

^^vkt fnukad 16-04-13 dh cSBd esa dfFkr fM~fLV~d ckj ,'kks0 lksuHknz ds
inkf/kdkjh Jh txthou flag ,M0 ds v'kksHkuh; vkpj.k ,oa ,-lh-ts-,e- lksuHknz

13

Jh ver iztkifr ds U;kf;d dk;Z lapkyu ds rkSj&rjhds ij ppkZ ds mijkUr

cgqer ls fuEufyf[kr izLrko ikfjr fd;s x;s&
1- U;k;ky; ifjlj esa dfFkr fM~fLV~d ckj ,'kks0 lksuHknz ds inkf/kdkjh Jh
txthou flag o muds vU; lg;ksxhx.k vf/koDrk }kjk vk;s fnu ,'kks0 ds uke
ij vf/koDrk vkpj.k ds foijhr d`R; fd;k tkrk jgk gS] rFkk mDr
vf/koDrkvksa }kjk dfFkr ,'kks0 ds ek/;e ls dfri; U;kf;d vf/kdkjhx.k dks Hkh
izHkkfor dj U;kf;d izfdz;k dks lEiUu djkus dk iz;kl fd;k tkrk jgk gS]
ftlls U;kf;d ifjlj dk okrkoj.k [kjkc gksrk gS] Jh flag ds d`R;ksa dks ns[krs
gq;s gh mUgsa iwoZ dk;Zdkfj.kh }kjk ckj dh izkFkfed lnL;rk ls fuLdkf'kr dj
ckj dkmafly vkQ m0iz0 dks Hkst pqdk gSA loZlEer ls muds o lEcfU/kr
U;kf;d vf/kdkjh ds dk;Z O;ogkj dh fuank dh tkrh gS] rFkk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k
tkrk gS fd ,0lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz Jh vfer iztkifr ds LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dh
tkudkjh ds mijkUr Jh txthou flag ,M0 }kjk 12-04-2013 dks ckj ds izLrko
ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa xkyh xykSt ,oa /kedh ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds le{k fn;k
tkuk vf/koDrk vkpj.k ds foijhr Fkk] ftls ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkh ekSu
Lohd`r iznku fd;k tkuk lansgkLin gSA
2- mijksDr dk;Zokgh dh ?kksj fuank dh tkrh gS rFkk lkFk gh ;g fu.kZ; fy;k
tkrk gS fd mijksDr lEcU/k esa tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks mDr fdz;k dykiksa ls
ckrdj voxr djkrs gq;s lEcfU/kr yksxska ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh dh ekaxh dh
tk;A**
(Emphasisadded)

Inthemeetingheldonthis16.04.2013,theundignifiedconductof
ShriJagjivanSinghAdvocate,socalledofficebeareroftheDistrict
Bar Association, Sonbhadra, as also the ways of discharge of
judicial work by Shri Amat Prajapati, ACJM, Sonbhadra was
discussedfollowingwhichresolutionswerepassedbymajorityas
under:
1.Inthecourtpremises,actsnotbefittingtheconductofadvocates
havecontinuedtobedoneeverynowandthenbyShriJagjivan
Singh, so called office bearer of the District Bar Association,
Sonbhadraandhisfellowadvocatesinthenameoftheassociation;
and efforts have continuously been done by the said advocates
throughthesocalledassociationtomanagethejudicialprocessby
influencing some judicial officers as well, which vitiates the
atmosphere of the court premises. Only in view of Shri Singh's
doings,hehasbeenexpelledfromtheprimarymembershipofthe

14
Bar by the previous working committee and the same has been
conveyedtotheBarCouncilofUttarPradesh.Withoneaccord,his
workandconductandalsothatoftheconcernedjudicialofficeris
condemnedanditisdecidedthattheactofShriJagjivanSingh,
who after getting the information regarding transfer of ACJM
Sonbhadra Amat Prajapati, used abusive language and issued
threats in the court premises before the presiding officer on
12.04.2013againsttheresolutionpassedbytheBar,didnotbefit
the conduct of an advocate and the acquiescence of even the
presidingofficerinthematterraisesdoubts.
2.Theaforesaidactisvehementlycondemnedanditisdecidedas
well that talks in the aforesaid context be held with the District
Judge,thusapprisinghimaboutthesaidactivitiesandrequesting
forproperactionagainsttheconcernedpersons.

(EnglishtranslationbyCourt)
32.

He(contemnor1)hasfurthersaidthatthereferencehasbeenmade

directly to this Court addressed to Registrar General, High Court on

15.4.2013.IthasbeenmadebyShriAmitKumarPrajapati,thethenACJM
afterhis transferfrom Sonbhadra toanotherdistrict. Whenhe granted
interimbail,hewasawareofhistransfertoanotherdistrict.Thereference
has been made against law and process since it ought to have been
forwarded by District Judge and not directly. With regard to incident,
whichtookplaceinthe court of CJM,aresolution waspassedbyBar
Association,Sonbhadraon20.2.2013againsttheconductofChiefJudicial
Magistrate,Sonbhadra.CopyofsaidresolutionisannexuedasAnnexure
No.10totheAffidavit,whichisreproducedasunder:

^^vkt fnukad 20-02-13 dks iwoZ fu/kkZfjr lwpuk ds vuqlkj cSBd vke lnu dh
lEiUu gqbZ ftlesa fu/kkZFjr fcUnqvksa ij ppkZ ds mijkUr cgqer ds vk/kkj ij
fuEufyf[kr izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;kA
1- lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknZ ds vkns'k fnukad 16-01-13 ftls tuin U;k;k/kh'k lksuHknz }
kjk fnukad 18-01-13 dks vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] tks iw.kZ vO;ogkfjd gS] mls rRdky
izHkko ls okil fy;k tk;A
2- lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz ds lsok dky dh tuin esa vof/k iw.kZ gks jgh gS] rFkk mudk
LFkkukUrj.k bl o"kZ gksuk gS] ftls :dokus dk vkosnu muds }kjk fd;k x;k gS]

15

ftldk fojks/k fd;k x;k] fd lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz ds dk;Z iz.kkyh ls lnL;x.k

dkQh vlarq"V gSa] ftlds vk/kkj ij cgqer ls mudh lsok dky esa lsokfoLrkj u
fd;s tkus lEcaf/kr dk;Z ds izLrko dk Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k] rFkk nl lnL;h;
Msyhxslu dk xBu fd;k x;k] tks tuin U;k;k/kh'k ls mijksDr fcUnqvksa ij lkFkZd
okrkZ djds muds fopkjks o d`R; dk;Zokgh ls lnu esa voxr djk;sxs] ftl vk/kkj
ij fnukad 23-02-2013 dks cSBd djds ikjhr izLrko ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh
tk;sxhA
mijksDr dk;ksZ ds fdz;kUou ds fy;s fojks/k Lo:i vf/koDrkx.k fnukad 21-02-13 o
22-02-13 dks fojks/k Lo:i U;kf;d dk;Z ls fojr jgsaxsA iqu% 23-03-13 dks vke lnu
dh izLrkfor cSBd dh tk;sxhA ftldh otg ls mDr frfFk ij Hkh U;kf;d dk;Z
fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gksxkA
mijksDr cgqre ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr izLrkoksa ds lEca/k esa ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd
lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mfpr i=kpkj Hkh fd;k tk;A**
(Emphasisadded)
Onthis20.02.2013,asperpriornotice,meetingofthegeneral
housewasheldatwhichpointsontheagendawerediscussed
followingwhichresolutionswerepassedbymajorityasunder:
1. The order of the CJM, Sonbhadra dated 16.01.2013, which
hasbeenapprovedbytheDistrictJudgeon18.01.2013andis
utterlyimpractical,berecalledwithimmediateeffect.
2.ThetenureofCJM,Sonbhadrainthedistrictiscomingtoan
endandhistransferisduethisyear,staywhereofhasbeen
appliedforbyhim,whichwasopposedonthegroundthatthe
members are very dissatisfied with the working of CJM,
Sonbhadra;onthebasisofwhichresolutionforhistenurenotto
beextendedwasalsopassedbymajority;anda10member
delegationwasformedwho,afterameaningfulparleywiththe
DistrictJudgeontheaforesaidpoints,shallapprisethehouse
aboutthelatter'sopinionandtheactiontaken,onthebasisof
which proceedings shall be held as per the resolution to be
passedbyconveningameetingon23.02.2013.
Forimplementationoftheaforesaidwork,theadvocateswill,as
amarkofprotest,desistfromthejudicialworkon21.02.2013
and 22.02.2013. On 23.03.2013, the proposed meeting of the
general house will be heldagain, due to whichjudicial work
shallnotbepossibleonthesaiddateaswell.

16

33.

In connection with the aforesaid resolutions passed by

majority,itwasalsoresolvedthatduecorrespondencebealso
madewiththeconcernedofficers.
(EnglishtranslationbyCourt)
Another resolution waspassedbyBar Association, Sonbhadraon

5.3.2013against ShriKrishnaKumar, thethenCJM, alsoproposing to

abstain from judicial work from 6.3.2013. The contemnor 1 has also
referredtoasimilarresolutionpassedon15.3.2013againstthethenCJM,
besidesthecomplaintdated14.2.2013,submittedbyadvocatesofdistrict
court, Sonbhadra to District Judge, Sonbhadra. Shri Amit Kumar
Prajapati,presidingofficerofcourtoughttohavemadeacomplainttothe
DistrictJudge,Sonbhadraandnottosentreferencedirectlytothiscourt.
Withrespecttoroleofcontemnor1,theDistrictJudge,Sonbhadrahasnot
conductedanyinquiry. Thereferencehasbeenmadesincecontemnor1
wasopposinginterimbail,grantedbycourtbelow,illegallyinleagueand
collusionwithJagjeevanSingh,Advocate.ShriAmitKumarPrajaptihad
an apprehension of thecomplaint made at the instance of members of
District Bar Association, Sonbhadra, therefore, with false allegation,
referencehasbeenmade.TheDistrictJudgehasnotexaminedclerkof
courtofJudicialMagistrate,whowaspresentingthematterbeforeShri
Amit Kumar Prajapati, the then ACJM, though he was an important
witnessoftheincident.TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadrahasnotrecorded
statementofManojKumarPandey,Secretary,BarAssociation,Sonbhadra,
thoughhehadalsocomeinthecourtandhisnameisalsomentionedby
oneTituPrasadGupta,Advocateinhisstatement,deposedbeforeDistrict
Judge, Sonbhadra, during inquiry. The eye witnesses i.e. the court
employeeshavenotdisclosedthenameofanyofthecontemnors.
34.

The reply given by contemnor 3 Shri Om Prakas Pathak is also

almost the same as is of contemnor 1. He has also made allegations

againstcourtbelowthathepassedillegalorderofinterimbailinleague
andcollusionwithoneJagjeevanSingh,Advocateandanotheraccusedin

17
thesamematter.ThoughhehasstatedthatShriMahendraPrasadShukla
(contemnor no1). was counsel for complainant in the said case but
regarding his own role and presence, he has not said, anything, very
specifically.However,inpara57,contemnor3hassaidthatcontemnor1is
practisingandjuniortohim,therefore,onlywithamalafideintentionand
toharass,contemnor3hasfalselybeenmentionedinreferencebycourt
below.
35.

Shri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate representing

Contemnors,atthetimeofargument,didnotadvanceanyargumenton
meritsandstatedthatcontemnors,whomheisrepresenting,surrender
beforethecourtandseekmercy.
36.

Fromthefactsdisclosedabove,wehavenodoubtthattherewasa

resolution passed by Bar Association Sonbhadra for abstaining judicial

work on 12.4.2013. It is also evident that court of ACJM was actually
functioning on 12.4.2013. He was discharging judicial work. Some
advocatesandlitigantswerealsopresentasperownadmissionofeven
contemnor1,whowaspresentinCourtforopposingbailapplicationin
CaseCrimeNo.164of2013,havingfiledhisvakalatnamaonthesameday.
Contemnor1,inhisdefence,hassaidthatitiscomplainants,whomhe
wasrepresenting,whoarefarmers,raisedtheirvoicebutnoevidenceor
materialhasbeenplacedonrecordtofortifyit.Grudgeofcontemnor1is
cementedbyhisownassertioninreplyaffidavitswornon6.5.2015that
judicialorderpassedbyACJMgrantinginterimbailwasinleagueand
collusionwithoneofaccusedJagjeevanSingh,Advocate.However,inthis
regardhehasnotplacedanymaterialtoshowthatsaidPresidingOfficer
wasincollusionwithoneormoreaccusedpersons.Themerefactthat
on12.4.2013,thisCourtpermittedpetitionerJagjeevanSingh,Advocateto
surrender in court, does not mean that court below acted illegally,
particularlywhen,hewasgranted30daystimetosurrenderintheCourt.
Moreovernothinghasbeenplacedonrecordtoshowthatorderofthis

18
Courtdated10.4.2013,wasactuallycommunicatedbyanyoftheparties
ortobecourtbelow.
37.

The subsequent resolutions of Bar Association Sonbhadra, which

hasbeenreliedbycontemnors1and3alsomakeitclearthatadvocates
wereannoyedofthefactthatoverlookingtheirresolution,theCourthad
actually functioned and discharged judicial work. It appears that
Advocatesandparticularlycontemnors1and3,wereunderimpression
thatwhateverresolutiontheypass,sittinginBarAssociation,thecourts
are bound to obey the same, ignoring the fact that a resolution of
abstentionofjudicialworkisperseillegalandamountstoanintentional
actofcriminalcontemptonthepartoftheBody,orperson(s)whopass
such resolution, and liable for punishment under Act, 1971. Time and
again,isthelastmorethantwodecades,Courtshaverepeatedlyheldthat
strikeof lawyers, abstaining from judicial workis not perse illegal but
amountstoobstructioninfunctioningofcourtsoflawandobstructionin
judicialfunction,fallingwithintheambitofcriminalcontemptdefined
underSection2(c)ofAct,1971.
38.

Thesuggestionthatadvocateswereonstrikedoesnotprovideany

justificationformakingsuchallegations,inasmuchas,repeatedly,Apex
CourtaswellasthisCourthaveheldthatacallofstrikebyadvocates
exceptofarareoccasion,isperseillegal.Acall,whichhastheeffectof
paralysing judicial function ex facie, in our view, amounts to a direct
interferenceintheadministrationofjusticeandisa'criminalcontempt'
underSection2(c)oftheAct,1971.ThestrikebyAdvocatesdisturbingthe
CourtproceedingshasbeenheldillegalbytheCourtinCommonCause
(ARegisteredSociety)vs.UnionofIndiaandOthers(1995)5SCC
511, Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice vs. Bar Council of
India(1995)1SCC732,K.JohnKoshyvs.Dr.TarkeshwarPrasad
Shaw(1998)8SCC624,MahavirPrasadSinghvs.JacksAviation

19
PrivateLtd.(1999)1SCC37andExCaptainHarishUppalvs.Union
ofIndia(2003)2SCC45.TheauthoritiesofApexCourtinabovethese
cases,supportandlaydowntheaboveexpositionoflaw.
39.

Before this Court, contemnors 1 and 3 have not hesitated in

condemning the conduct of Presiding Officer is derogatory language

throughinrespectofdischargeofjudicialfunctionon12.4.2013,despite
resolution passed by Bar Association. As per own impression of
contemnors1to3andBarAssociationSonbhadra,audacityofPresiding
Officerofcourtbelowincontinuingtodischargejudicialfunctiondespite
resolutionofabstentionfromjudicialworkpassedbyAdvocateswasan
uncondonableactjustifyingactofobstructionanddisturbanceinCourt
functioningbesidescondemnationbyraisingslogans. This assumption is
alsoreflectedinsubsequentresolutionofBarAssociation,whichhasbeen
reliedbycontemnors1to3intheirreplyaffidavits.Theyappearstohave
assumedthatthoughcourtbelowisanindependentjudicialauthoritybut
inoneorotherway,subordinatetothem,boundtoobeytheirresolution,
howsoeverillegalitis.ThisattitudeandassumptiononthepartofBar
Associationingeneralandcontemnors1to3inparticular,ispersenot
only illegal but amounts to a gross criminal contempt on their part.
Nothing more than this can have the effect of lowering authority and
majestyofCourtoflaw.Ononehand,Advocatescoulddaretopreventa
courtoflawfromfunctioningandfurthertheycoulddaretothreatand
obstruct the court as well as Presiding Officer when it continued to
functionignoringsuchresolutionofBodyofAdvocates.Aseriouscharge
has been levelled against Presiding Officer in respect of judicial order
passedbyhimingrantinginterimbailthatitwasinleagueandcollusion
withaccusedpersonsbutnotsubstantiated.
40.

In E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs.T. Narayanan Nambiar,

AIR1970SC2015,ithasbeenheldthatimputationofmalafides,biasor
prejudice, ridiculing the efficiency of Judges, are always considered to

20
meanscandalizingthecourts.Officialcapacityinthisregardcannotbe
differentiated into judicial and administrative capacities. Both are
interlinked.VilificatorycriticismofaJudgefunctioningasaJudge,evenin
purelyadministrativeornonadjudicatorymatters,amountstocontempt
of court if such a criticism substantially affects the 'administration of
justice' and lowers the authority or dignity of the court, or creates a
distrustinthepublicmindastothecapacityoftheJudgestometeout
evenhandedjustice.
41.

ContemnorNo.1wasadmittedlypresentinCourt.Hewasshouting

anddisturbingincourt'sfunctionasisevidentfromreplygivenbyhim.
HehasreferredtotheresolutionofBarAssociationthatdespitedecision
ofabstinencefromjudicialwork,courtofACJMwasactuallyfunctioning
and he passed judicial orders also in some cases. The affidavit of
contemnor1filedbeforethisCourt, clearlyshowsthatcontemnorno.1
representingapartyinbailapplicationandopposingbail,wasinterested
inpostponementofmatterwithoutanyorderbuthecouldnotsucceed.He
hasnotbeenabletorestrainhimtohurlscurrilouslanguageonPresiding
Officerinrespectofjudicialorderpassedbyhim,grantinginterimbail,
statingthatsaidorderwaspassedinleagueandcollusionwithaccused
persons.Contemnorno.3hasalsousedsamelanguage,sworninitsreply
affidavit.Contemnorno.3hasnotswornthathewasnotpresentincourt
butpresentelsewhere.Contemnor2hasnotsubmittedanyreplytothe
chargelevelledagainsthim.Evenotherwisenoneofthecontemnors1to3
haveactuallycontestedatthetimeofhearing.BeforethisCourttoshow
that such acts have not been committed by them or were actually not
committedbythem.
42.

We have no hesitation in holding the charge levelled against

contemnors1,2and3,proved.
43.

Nowweproposestocometothecaseofcontemnors4to11.The

namesofthesecontemnorshavenotbeendisclosedinReferenceLetter

21
dated15.4.2013sentbyShriAmitKumarPrajapat.Theirnameshavebeen
disclosed through report submitted by District Judge, Sonbhadra
pursuanttoinquiryconducted,videCourt'sorderdated30.9.2013.
44.

Shri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate contended that under

Section 15 (2) of Act, 1971, the Court can take cognizance of only the
'reference' made by subordinate court and not to any subsequent
proceedings. There is no provision, which permits this court to direct
subordinatecourttomakesomeinquirytofindoutnamesofpersons,who
havecommittedanactof'criminalcontempt'andthentoproceedagainst
them. According to learned Senior Counsel this procedure adopted by
courtiswithoutanyauthorityoflawhavingnosanction,andtherefore,is
anullity.
45.

What we find from entire argument of Shri V.C. Mishra, learned

SeniorCounsel,thatpowertopunishforcriminalcontemptofsubordinate
courtvestsonlyunderSection15(2)ofAct,1971andbeyondthatthis
courtpossessesnootherwisepowertoproceedevenifthereisanactor
omissiononthepartofoneortheotherAdvocate(s),constituting'criminal
contempt' and this information has been received by court, not on a
referencemadebysubordinatecourtoronamotionmadebyAdvocate
General,butotherwise.
46.

Thisaspecthasbeenconsideredin S.K.Sarkar,Member,Board

of Revenue, Lucknow vs. Vinay Chandra Mishra, AIR 1980 (1) SC

436,Courtsaid,ifSection15(2)isinterpretedasconfiningmotiontobe
takenbyHighCourtonlyonthebasisofareportofsubordinatecourtor
motionbyAdvocateGeneraloranypersonwithhisconsent,itwillhave
theeffectofnullifyingtheconstitutionalguarantee,andinherentpowerof
acourt.Section10ofAct,1971specificallyshowsthateveryHighCourt
shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in
accordancewiththesameprocedureandpracticeinrespectofcontempts

22
ofcourtssubordinatetoitasithasandexercisesinrespectofcontempts,
itself. AmbitofprocedureforthecourtregardingSection15(2)actually
specifiesoneofthemodeofproceduresothatfrivolouscasesofcriminal
maynotfloodacourtofrecord.Twomodesareprescribedinsubsection2
ofSection15whereaninformationwillcometocourtfromauthenticated
bodyorifoninitialscrutiny,whichwillhavetheleastchancesonbringing
afrivolousmatterbeforethecourt.Inthecaseof S.K.Sarkar(supra),
the Supreme Court clearly opined that if High Court is prima facie
satisfiedthattheinformationreceived by it regarding commission of
contempt of a subordinate court is not frivolous, and the contempt
allegedisnotmerelytechnicalortrivial,itmay,initsdiscretion,actsuo
motu and commence proceedings against the contemner. However, this
modeoftakingsuomotucognizanceofcontemptofasubordinatecourt
should beresortedto sparinglywhere thecontemptconcernedisofa
graveandseriousnature.
47.

Inthepresentcase,Courthasnotproceededonitsownbutbasic

facts were already placed before it in Reference Letter dated 15.4.2013.

Learned subordinate court clearly stated that besides three names
mentionedtherein,therewere1520moreadvocates,whowereindulgedin
activities causing obstruction in judicial function, which ultimately
disturbedcourtswork.Therefore,itwasopentothecourttotakestepsfor
identification of these 1520 advocates. The District Judge, Sonbhadra
thuswasrightlyrequiredtomakeaninquiryandfindoutnamesofsuch
advocates.TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadramadeaninquiryandsubmitted
reportinwhichhenamedeightadvocatesi.e.contemnors4to11.Ininitial
affidavitsfiledbyaforesaidcontemnors4to11,SheshNarayanDixit,Atma
Prakash Tripathi, Chandra Prakash Chaubey, Praphakar Ram Pathak,
SatyadeoPandey,deniedtheirverypresenceinCourtwhenincidenttook
place. Rest contemnors have denied tohavecaused any disturbance in
courtorthattheywerepresentincourtbutnotatthetimewhenincident

23
took place. However, after framing of charge, defencetaken bydifferent
contemnorsintheirreply,isasunder:
Contemnor5(AtmaPrakashTripathi):
48.

ItissaidthatheisasenioradvocateinDistrictBarAssociation,

Sonbhadraandhasneverbeenchargedforcommittingcontempt.Hehad
beenPresidentofDistrictBarAssociation,Sonbhadraforsixyears.His
name hasbeendisclosedbyanadvocatehaving rivalry i.e. Jag Jeevan
Singh,Advocate,andTarkeshwarTiwari,Clerk(Criminal)ofCourt.With
regardtoanimositywithJagJeevanSingh,hesaidthathewasPresident
whenJagJeevanSingh,AdvocatewasexpelledfrommembershipofBar
Association.
49.

WithregardtoTarkeshwarTiwri,Clerk(Criminal)ofCourt,itissaid

thatheisresidinginsamevillagewherecontemnor5isresidingandsome
complainthasbeenmadebycontemnorAtmaPrakashTripathiagainst
Tarkeshawr Tiwari before District Magistrate as well as Nagar Palika
Parishad,Sonbhadracausinganimosityagainsthim.
50.

Intheentireaffidavitofcontemnor5,swornon26.4.2015,wedonot

findthathehasdeniedthechargestatingthathewasnotpresentincourt
roomanddidnotparticipateinactivitiesdisturbingcourtfunctionetc.In
para15,headmitstohavesubmittedunconditionalapologybeforecourt
below. Moreover, in order to substantiate his defence that he was not
presentincourtorhasnotdoneanything,nothinghasbeenbroughton
recordexceptthatininitialletter/reference,hisnamewasnotdisclosed.
51.

SofarascomplaintmadeagainstTarkeshwarTiwari,Clerk(Criminal)

ofCourtisconcerned,thisCourtfindsaletterdated12.8.2013,submitted
by District Magistrate signed by five persons i.e. Shesh Narayan Dixit,
AtmaPrakashTripathi,KamleshPandey,VinodKumarShukla,Satyadeo
Pandeyetc.Fromthatletter,byitself,itcannotbesaidthatanemployeeof
courtcanmakeafalsestatementagainstcontemnor5.Itisnotindispute

24
thatTarkeshwarTiwari,wasanAssistantClerk(Criminal)postedincourt
ofACJM,SonbhadraonrelevantdateandwaspresentinCourt,hehad
theoccasiontowitnessincidentandrecognizethepersons,whocaused
theincidentinsubordinatecourt.
Contemnor11SatyadeoPandey:
52.

Anotheraffidavitinreplytochargehasbeenfiledbycontemnor11

SatyadeoPandey.Hisreplyisalmostsimilartothatofcontemnors1to3.
Hehasalsosaidinpara15thatACJMpassedanorderofinterimbailin
league and collusion with one Jag Jeevan Singh, Advocate, who was
pursuingbailofSayaPalaliasBablu.Itisnothiscasethathewasnotin
court when incident took place but elsewhere. A bare denial that no
incidenttookplace,wouldnothelpcontemnor11inanymanner.Thereis
nothingtosubstantiateit.Itisatleastevidentfromaffidavitsubmittedby
contemnor 11, that a serious disturbance was caused in the Court of
ACJMsincehewasdischargingjudicialfunctionignoringresolutionofBar
Association of abstention of advocates from judicial work. Conduct of
contemnor11inscandalizingthecourtalsoandfurtherstandsreaffirmed
bywhathehassaidinpara15ofaffidavitsubmittedinreplytocharge.
53.

Rest of contemnors having refrained to file reply to the charge,

clearlyjustifyinferencetobedrawnbyCourt,againstthem.
54.

We,therefore,rejectsubmissionoflearnedSeniorCounsel,ShriV.C.

MishraregardinghisobjectiontoprocedurefollowedbyCourtbyobtaining
report from District Judge in respect of other advocates, who have
obstructed court's functioning on 12.4.2013, and hold charge levelled
againstcontemnors4to11proved.
55.

Oflate,wefindadeepincreasingtendencyofadvocatesinmaking

scurrilous allegations against presiding officers of subordinate Courts.

TheydonothesitateingoingtotheextentofdishonouringofPresiding
Officer as well as the Court by abusing and misbehaving, openly, in

25
presenceofpublicatlarge,whichincludeslitigants,clerksandothers,in
CourtsorinsidetheCourtcampus.Ifanorderhasnotbeenpassedbya
JudicialOfficertothelikingofanadvocate,remedylieselsewherebutno
onecanhavelibertytocreateasituation/anuglyscene,byraisingabusive
slogansagainstofficer(s)aswellastheCourt.Ifthiswouldnothavethe
effectofloweringauthorityandmajestyoftheCourt,whatelsecanbe.
56.

WhenthereisadeliberateattempttoscandalizeajudicialOfficerof

subordinateCourt,itisboundtoshakeconfidenceoflitigatingpublicin
thesystemandhastobetackledstrictly.Thedamageiscausednotonlyto
thereputationofconcernedJudge,but,alsotothefairnameofjudiciary.
Veiledthreats,abrasivebehaviour,useofdisrespectfullanguage,and,at
times, blatant condemnatory attacks, like the present one, are often
designedly employed with a view to tame a Judge into submission to
secure a desired order. The foundation of our system is based on the
independenceandimpartialityofthemenhavingresponsibilitytoimpart
justicei.e.JudicialOfficers.Iftheirconfidence,impartialityandreputation
isshaken,itisboundtoaffecttheveryindependenceofjudiciary.Any
person,ifallowedtomakedisparagingandderogatoryremarksagainsta
JudicialOfficer,withimpunity,isboundtoresultinbreakingdownthe
majestyofjustice.
57.

We cannot ignore the fact that much cherished judicial

independence needs protection not only from over zealous executive or

power hungry legislature but also from those who constitute, and, are
integral part of thesystem. Hereis a case where thecontemnors have
shown behaviour like member of an unruly mob of hooligans. An
Advocatesforgettingthehigherstatusconferreduponthem,makingthem
Officers of the Court, have chosen to malign Judicial Officer of the
SubordinateCourt.
58.

AnAdvocate'sdutyisasimportantasthatofaJudge.Hehasa

large responsibility towards society. He is expected to act with utmost

26
sincerityandrespect.Inallprofessionalfunctions,anAdvocateshouldbe
diligentandhisconductshouldalsobediligent.Heshouldconformtothe
requirementsoflaw.Heplaysavitalroleinpreservationofsocietyand
justicesystem.Heisunderanobligationtoupholdtheruleoflaw.He
mustensurethatthepublicjusticesystemisenabledtofunctionatitsfull
potential. He, who practices law, is not merely a lawyer, but acts as a
moralagent.Thischaracter,hecannotshakeoff,byanyothercharacter
on professional character. He derives from the belief that he shares
sentiment of all mankind. This influence of his morality is one of his
possession,which,likeallhispossession,heisboundtouseformoral
ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court.
Advocacyisarespectablenobleprofessionontheprinciples.AnAdvocate
owesdutynotonlytohisclient,buttotheCourt,tothesocietyand,not
theleast,tohisprofession.
59.

Wedonotintendtolaydownanycodeofconductfortheclassofthe

peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly have no hesitation in

observing that no Advocate has any business to condemn a Judge by
abusing etc. for a judicial order has not passed. If there is something
lackingonthepartofaJudicialOfficertouchinghisintegrity,Advocates,
beingOfficersoftheCourt,maynotremainasilentspectator,butshould
comeforward,raisingtheirvoiceinappropriatemannerbeforetheproper
authority.ButtherecannotbealicencetoanymemberofBartoraisehis
fingerovercompetencyandintegrityetc.ofaJudicialOfficer,casuallyor
negligently, or on other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and
capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be
malignedcommentinguponhisintegrityandhonesty.Itdeservestobe
condemnedinthestrongestwords.Noonecanjustifyitinanymanner.
Thinkingofintrusionofsuchthoughtitselfsoundsalert.Itisasirenof
somethingwhichisnotonlyveryserious,butimminent.Itisaconceptor
anideawhichshouldnothavecroppedupinanybody'smind,connected

27
withthesystemofjustice,andifhascroppedup,deservestobenippedat
earliest,else,itmayspreadsitstentaclestocoverothersandthatwould
beadoomsdayfortheveryinstitution.
60.

This Court has a constitutional obligation to protect subordinate

judges.InSmt.MunniDeviandothersVs.StateofU.P.andothers,
2013(2)AWC1546thisCourtinpara10,hassaid:
"10.Bethatasitmay,sofarasthepresentcaseisconcerned,
suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have
imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to
exercisecontroloversubordinatejudiciary.Thiscontrolisboth
ways.NoaberrationshallbeallowedtoentertheSubordinate
Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously
Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to be attacked or
threatenedtoworkunderoutsidepressureofanyone,whether
individualoragroup,soastoformathreattoobjectiveand
independentfunctioningofSubordinateJudiciary."
61.

Criticism of an order of a Court cannot be equated with making

scurrilous attack on the conduct and integrity of the Judicial

Officer/PresidingOfficeroftheCourt.Inthepresentcase,anopenattack
bymisbehaviourandabusehasbeenshownagainstconcernedJudicial
Officer. Wild imaginary allegations against conduct of Judicial Officer
withouthavinganymaterialtosubstantiatethesamecannotbetolerated,
inasmuchas,itnotonlybringsintodisreputetheentirejusticesystembut
islikelytocauseseriouserosionintheconfidenceofpublicincasesuch
tendencyisnotsnuffedattheearliest.
62.

TheJudicialOfficer/Judgeshadnoplatformtostandandclarifythe

circumstancesinwhichtheorderhasbeenpassedbythem.Theyhaveno
platformtodefendthemselves.Thestrengthofjudiciarycomesfromthe
strong public opinion which it has in the system. If unsubstantiated
flimsy,imaginary,fancifulallegationsbeallowedtobemadebyaparty,
whodidnotfindanorderinitsfavour,itwilldemolishtheveryfoundation
ofthesystemofjustice.EveryorderpassedbytheCourtwillbeinfavour
of one of the party and against another. The loosing party cannot be

28
allowed to challenge the very conduct/integrity of Judicial Officer in
passingtheorderandthattoowithoutanymaterialtosupportsuchan
allegation.Ifweallowsuchatrendtoremainunnoticed,orcondonethe
same without any appropriate action, it will not only encourage such
tendencyamongstotherbuttheresultantsituationmaycameaserious
blow to the system of administration of justice, which is one of the
founding pillar of constitutional scheme and has to be protected by all
legalandreasonablemeans.
63.

Intheabovebackgroundandconsideringthefactsthatthecharge

is proved against the contemnors, now, we have to consider about the

sentenceonwhichcounselforcontemnorsaswellasthecontemnorshave
statedintheCourtthattheyarethrowingthemselvestothemercyofthe
courtandshowingmagnanimity,benevolenceandalenientview.
64.

Now coming to question of punishment, abusing and shouting in

court,causingobstructioninjudicialfunctionandattempttopreventthe
Courtfromdischargingitsjudicialfunction,isaseriousactofcriminal
contempt.Oflate,thecourtonadministrativeside,isinformedthatvery
frequently advocates are abstaining from judicial function, by taking
recoursetoalllegalandillegalmeansandmeasurestopreventjudicial
officersfromdischargingtheirjudicialfunctions.Inmostofthecases,for
oneorotherreasons,subordinatecourtsrefrainfrommakingReferenceto
this Court, in hope of maintaining cordial administrative relation &
atmospherebut that isnothappening. Theadvocateshave taken, asa
matterofgrant,thattheycanpreventcourtfromfunctioning,onmere
asking, and nothing will happen against them. The audacity of Bar
Association in passing resolutions condemning Presiding Officer (s) of
Court,whofunctiondespiteresolutionofBarAssociationisWritLarge.
Regardingobstructioninjudicialwork,theincidentshowstheextentto
which Body of advocates can go to intimidate judicial officer, if he/she
works ignoring resolution of advocate's Body. In fact this act of Bar

29
Associationisalsonothingbutaserious'criminalcontempt'butsincethat
matterisnotbeforeus,therefore,wearenottakingactionagainstit.
65.

Intheabovebackgroundandconsideringthefactthatthechargeis

proved against all the contemnors, now, we have to consider about

quantum of sentence on which, counsel for contemnors as well as the
contemnorshavestatedintheCourtthattheyarethrowingthemselvesto
the mercy of Court and showing magnanimity, benevolence, this Court
shouldtakealenientview.
66.

We impose punishment of simple imprisonment of three months

uponallcontemnorsandafineofRs.2000/.Incaseofnonpaymentof
fine,theyshallundergosimpleimprisonmentforafurtherperiodoftwo
months.
67.

Besidesabove,inordertomaintaindisciplineandavoidnuisancein

theDistrictSonbhadra,wealsodirectthatcontemnorsshallnotenterthe
premisesofDistrictJudgeship,Sonbhadraforaperiodofsixmonths.The
aforesaidperiodofrestrictionshallcommencewitheffectfrom10th July,
2015.
68.

Besides,theconductofallcontemnorsshallremainunderconstant

watchofDistrictJudge,Sonbhadrafora periodof twoyears.Ifanyof

themshowsanyotherwiseobjectionableconduct,causinginterferencein
peaceful and smooth functioning of Court etc. the District Judge shall
immediatelyreportthemattertotheCourtsuomotu.
69.

Sofarasamountoffineisconcerned,contemnorsmaydepositthe

sameeitherinthisCourtorwiththeDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraorwith
theChiefJudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadraby18.7.2015..
70.

Contemptapplicationisdisposedofinthemannerasabove.

OrderDate:2.7.2015
Ajeet

30
CourtNo.34

Case:CONTEMPTAPPLICATION(CRIMINAL)No.12of2013
Applicant:InRe

OppositeParty:SriMahendraPrasadShuklaAdvocate&Others
CounselforApplicant:A.G.A.,SudhirMehrotra

CounselforOppositeParty:AjaiShankarPathak,Dr.V.K.Rai,M.K.
Singh,PrashantPandey,RudraKantMishra,S.P.Srivastava,VivekMishra
Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.
Hon'bleDineshGupta,J.
1.

After delivery of judgement, the contemners pray that sentence

imposedbythisCourtvidejudgementofdatebesuspendedtoenablethem
toavailstatutoryremedyofappealunderSection19ofContemptofCourts
Act,1971(hereinafterreferredtoas"Act,1971")beforethesuperiorcourt.
2.

Inthecircumstances,wesuspendthesentenceforaperiodof60days

toenablethemtoavailremedyofappeal.Incase,theappealisnotfiledorif
filedbutnootherwiseorderispassedintheappeal,thecontemnersshall
surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, who would
immediatelytakeappropriatestepsforservingoutsentencebycontemnors
asdirectedinthejudgementofdatepassedinthiscontemptapplication.

OrderDate:2.7.2015
Ajeet