COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. GULSHAN BAJWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The meaning of the expression 'contempt' in normal parlance is an act of state of despising, the conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a Court. It is so because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice and is liable to be punished. Even in its liberal construction, it conveys a strong feeling of combined dislike and lack of respect. In order to protect the dignity of Court and ensure proper administration of justice, the Legislature has enacted 'the Contempt of Courts Act', which deals with the various situations and varied conduct of parties, counsel or any person to ensure that the orders of the court are implemented and administration of justice is not hampered. Every citizen has a Fundamental Right of personal liberty and freedom of expression. Despite such Right, this Act granted jurisdiction to the court to punish for contemptuous behaviour made in writing or verbally. While reasonably protecting these rights and circumventing the Court's jurisdiction to punish for contempt, the initial Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 was replaced by the 1971 Act. The Legislature intended to caution the Courts that even where prima facie a contempt was committed, it still may not punish such a contempt if it had not substantially interfered with due course of justice and the defence was bona fide. Whatever be the enactment or the situation neither the Legislature is intended nor the courts vested with the duties of administration or dispensation of justice can condone acts of substantial interference with the administration of justice coupled with contempt in the face of the Court. These acts of contempt may be attempted by the party, their counsel and for that matter any person. The mode of committing such offence may be by filing applications, affidavits or submissions etc. Whosoever including an Advocate for a party, who are also called Officers of the Court, commits grave offences of contempt with the feeling of impunity and repeatedly, then there can hardly be any scope left for any Court to hold that they are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. Compelled with somewhat similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J and Hima Kohli, J, on 8.8.2006 having perused the contents of CM No. 9695/2006, directed the Registry to issue notice to the petitioner to show cause why appropriate action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or otherwise shall not be initiated against Mr. Gulshan Bajwa who is an Advocate practising in this Court and Petitioner-in-person in CWP No. 9244/2006. In that application, reckless and undesirable allegations were made against the Judges. Averments in regard to curses given by the petitioners to Judges, were made in that application.

(2.) Thereafter, this Division Bench of this Court on 17.8.2006 had noticed the conduct of Mr. Gulshan Bajwa as giving threats to a lady counsel appearing on the other side and opposing him in some cases. By the same order, the Court had directed the counsel to appear on the next date to explain his conduct.

(3.) However, notice for Contempt of Court was not issued at that stage. On 18.8.2006, none appeared when the case was called out at the initial stage, however, subsequently, Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal appeared and undertook to inform the petitioner/Mr. Gulshan Bajwa, Advocate to appear on the next date of hearing. Mr. Bajwa did not appear in the Court, though Mr. Rajeev Mehra standing counsel for Union of India informed that he was present in the premises of the High Court. Even on 21.8.2006, he did not appear but filed further applications making reckless allegations even against the Bench extending threats and filing transfer applications in the cases without taking instructions from the petitioners and, in fact, without their consent and knowledge. These facts were noticed in the order dated 21.8.2006. It was directed that all the Contempt Petitions may be listed before the same Bench, subject to and after obtaining order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. The Acting Chief Justice directed the matters to be listed before this Bench. On 22.8.2006, when the cases were listed, again nobody appeared on behalf of Mr. Bajwa, nor did he appear in person. There were certain subsequent orders passed, but despite all possible non-ordinary processes of service, Mr. Bajwa did not appear before the Court, nor any body appeared on his behalf. In fact, even the addresses given by him were found to be false and incorrect. It may not be necessary to refer to all those orders and we may refer to the order dated 31.8.2006, when the Court had issued formal notice to show cause as to why the petitioner be not dealt with and punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The order reads as under:-