HARI SINGH Vs. KAPIL SIBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts, from which the present contempt petition arises, are as under:

(2.) Mehfil-e-Wukala (Mehfil for short) is a cultural and literally group/association of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court The main object as claimed by the said organization has been to promote art, culture and literature amongst the members of the Bar. The said group of lawyers also claims that Mehfil provides the members of legal fraternity a chance to break away from the busy schedule to pursue their talents in the fields of art, culture and literature. The Mehfil was started in the year 1986 as a small group of poets-advocates who used to sit periodically at each others place and recite poems etc. In the year 1992-93, the members of the Mehfil decided to hold an annual function and to invite more members of the Bar and also the Honble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi to participate in the activities of the Mehfil. It was also decided to release a souvenir on the said occasion, which was to contain brief account of the activities of the Mehfil, messages, articles etc. to be contributed by the Honble Judges and senior members of the Bar. Accordingly, Annual Function was held on February 6, 1993 at India International Centre, New Delhi and a souvenir was published. Again on February 5, 1994, Annual Function was held which was attended by the members of the Bar and the Honble Judges. On this occasion also a souvenir was published which contained various messages, articles, poems etc. contributed by the members of the Bar and the Honble Judges. For the year 1994-95, it was decided to hold the Annual Function on March 25, 1995. As was done in the previous years, it was decided to release a souvenir on the said occasion. The function was held on the scheduled date and the souvenir was published. It is claimed by Mr. Suresh C. Gupta, learned Counsel practicing in this Court in his affidavit in reply that articles and messages were sent by the then Honble Chief Justice of India, Honble Mr. Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy, honble Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, Honble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate and the then President of Supreme Court Bar Association, Honble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi, Honble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria etc. Mr. Kapil Sibal who is Senior Advocate also sent a message to be published in the souvenir. In his message Mr. Sibal expressed concern about the plight of junior members of the Bar and also about falling standards of the legal fraternity. The message was not released to the press nor the souvenir was made available for sale but was circulated to its members and other members of the Bar. Initially, the message sent by Mr. Sibal did not invite any controversy whatsoever for about a month. However, Mr. Sibal, the learned Senior Advocate, decided to contest for the post of President of Supreme Court Bar Association and filed his nomination. Thereafter, a news item was published in the Sunday Times of India daily dated April 16, 1995 wherein certain excerpts from the message which was published in the souvenir of the Mehfil, were reported which suggested that Mr. Sibal had made a frontal attack on the judiciary.

(3.) The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are practicing advocates at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Their claim was that Mr. Sibal who is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and was contender for the Presidentship of Supreme Court Bar Association, had by sending a message which was published in the souvenir of the Mehfil committed a criminal contempt of the court. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were of the view that a real prejudice, which can be regarded as substantial interference in the administration of justice was caused because of the calculated and keenly studied attempt by Mr. Sibal to denigrate the institution of judiciary. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 claimed that the remarks made by Mr. Sibal against Honble Judges amounted to an unignorable and unpardonable mischief which had tendency to shake the faith of the people of the country in the judiciary. What was claimed by the petitioners was that Mr. Sibal had entered into a conspiracy with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to bring the administration of justice into disrespect which amounted to deliberate interference in the administration of justice and as he had imputed unsubstantiated charges of corruption against the Judges, he was liable to be hauled up for contempt of Court. Therefore, the petitioners instituted Criminal Contempt Petition No. 12 of 1995 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said petition was filed under Article 215 of the Constitution and prayer made was to punish the respondents for committing contempt of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Initially, the said petition was placed for preliminary hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge was of the view that what was alleged by the petitioners against the three respondents impleaded therein was criminal contempt and, therefore, in view of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the petition should be heard and decided by a Bench of not less than two Judges. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated May 16, 1991 directed the Registry to place the papers before Honble the Chief Justice for listing the matter before a Bench consisting of not less than two judges. Accordingly, the matter was placed for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench and the Bench issued show cause notice to the original respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stating that they were directed by the Division Bench to implead the Editors, Printers and Publishers of Mehfil-e-Wukala. The petitioners filed an application to implead the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as respondents in the contempt petition as they were editors of the Mehfil. The said application was granted and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were impleaded in the Contempt Petition. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Secretaries of Mehfil-e-Wukala filed Transfer Petition No. 251 of 1996 in this Court and prayed to transfer the Contempt Petition pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh to this Court. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the said petition was allowed and that is why the Registry has registered the case as Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 2 of 1997. On notice being served, Mr. Sibal and other respondents have filed affidavit in reply controverting the claims advanced by the petitioners.