SATISH CHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. GANGA BUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. M. Sahai, J.-A member of legal profession known for its dignity and culture has it appears in complete disregard of his responsibility and obligations as an officer of the court has filed these applications under section 16 of Contempt of Courts Act read with Art. 215 of the Constitution of India and has indicated as many as five judges of this court for having interfered with due course of the Judicial proceedings and administration of justice while discharging their duties in violation of their oath administered to them under Schedule III of the Constitution. That such applications have been filed is not as astonishing as individuals can go wary as absolute rather abstruse silence of august body like Bar Association which has high traditions and is looked upon as Champion of Judiciary and o n whose shoulder lies the responsibility of vindicating honour of its two constituents, the Bar and Bench.

(2.) LEGAL issue, if any, that can be said mainly to arise out of these applications is if a Judge while deciding a case does not notice each and every case cited by the learned counsel or does not advert to various submission advanced during arguments or makes observation in course of discussion which may be at variance in the judgment or distinguishes a Supreme Court decision does he interfere with administration of justice and his conduct becomes contumacious within meaning of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act. But before narrating the facts of each application which shall expose its frivolity and high light the misconception raging in mind of applicant, a responsible member of society, on the majesty of law and the solemn and pious responsibility of a member of bar to maintain it, we consider it necessary to dispose of two applications, one filed for recall of our order dated 2nd May, 1988 and other for granting time to move a transfer application in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) REVERTING to the contempt applications we propose to take up Criminal Misc. No. 149 and 626 together as the former arises out of order dated 15th Oct., 1987 passed by Judge 'G' rejecting second bail application filed by applicant and latter out of observations made by a Division Bench of 'P and D' while directing Contempt Application No. 149 to be listed before another bench on request of applicant. Criminal Case No. 149 (C) of 1988 :