DELHI TAMIL EDUCATION ASSN Vs. J SAMIMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner alleges that respondent had threatened its Advocates and had also lodged a complaint against one of them. Whether the alleged threat extended to an Advocate on phone amounted to a criminal contempt is the question. Petitioner society is running some seven schools in NCT Region. Respondent was its Secretary who is said to have been removed on 3.10.1999 resulting in some litigation between the parties. Petitioner has filed Suit No.2301/01 against him and obtained an ex-parte restraint order on 15.10.1999. He had, in turn, sought vacation of this order and it was in or around this time that petitioner moved this contempt petition alleging that respondent had threatened its President Mr.Srinivasan, a Supreme Court lawyer and three other counsel M/s.Ravi, V.Sudeer and Senior Advocate Mr.Krishnamani on phone asking them to withdraw from the brief or face dire consequences. He had also scandalised the court by publicly declaring before students that petitioner had "purchased interim orders" and had also lodged a complaint against one Mr.Srinivasan before Bar Council and threatened other counsel of similar complaints before SC ST Commission. All this, it is asserted, amounts to criminal contempt of court.

(2.) Petitioner has also filed written submissions citing some judgments including 1947 (48) Crl.L.J. page 757 (N.L.Bhalla Vs. Kishori Lal), AIR 1964 Patna 245 (Y.P.Sinha Vs. P.N.Sinha) and a Supreme Court judgment. in 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 130 (R.A.Shukla Vs. Arvind Shukla) to support its case and to show that if an Advocate was threatened and insulted in the performance of his professional duties or was coerced to withdraw from the brief, it constituted a criminal contempt. Respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations and dubbing petitioner's action as motivated and directed to stall the vacation of the stay order obtained against him and the dismissal of the suit which according to him was based on false and fabricated documents. He admits and justifies the complaint lodged by him against Mr.Srinivasan before Bar Council for his alleged professional misconduct.

(3.) It requires to be made clear at the very outset that contempt of court jurisdiction is not invokable for adjudication of rights or liabilities of the litigating parties or for enabling them to settle their personal scores or to be used as a weapon to gain an upper hand or advantage in the litigative spirit. Nor was it available to satisfy one's feelings of grudge and vengeance. It was exercisable on the contrary to protect the dignity of the court and the majesty of law and also to safeguard the public right in the fairness and impartiality of administration of justice. A contempt of court is a matter between court and the alleged contemner and a litigant inviting attention of the court in this regard does not become either a petitioner or a complainant in a contempt proceedings. He is at best an informer and his duty ends with bringing any factual or legal position before the court and it was then for the court to act or not to act depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and to decide whether an act complained of amounted to a contempt, more so a criminal one and was liable to be punished. A litigating party would not assume the role of a prosecutor and insist upon committing of opponent for contempt irrespective of whether or not the court felt satisfied about it. Contempt of Courts Act 1971 defines the contempt into civil and criminal contempt. Criminal contempt carried with it an element of criminality aimed at eroding the majesty of law and undermining the authority of court. Section 2(c) of the Act defines it to mean "publication of any matter or doing of any other act whatsoever which (i) scandalises the court or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the court; (ii) prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere or obstructs or tends to obstruct administration of justice in any manner.