STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. G M ANJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Constitutional functionaries, we are, entrusted with the task of strain-filled adjudicatory process dealing not only in ordinary litigation, but also of complex problems, be it constitutional, legal, medico-legal and even politico-legal. But, unpleasant is the task and added is the strain, when a litigation of this type erupts where we have to deal with a part of our own system i.e., Bar. But, undeterred, to uphold the decorum, dignity of the Court and supremacy of Rule of Law and to keep the flag of majesty of the Court flying always high, we thus proceed.

(2.) Sri. G. M. Anjaiah, Advocate-respondent (contemner) is not an youngster. He is 65 years old. He is not a novice to legal profession and had been a legal practitioner since last about 30 years.

(3.) On 27-2-1996, the respondents was sitting in the first Court waiting for his turn to argue for the appellant in W.A.S.R. No. 17949 of 1996 and W.A.M.P. No. 282 of 1996 to whom he was the counsel. Questioning the reconstitution of Public Works Committee of Secundarabad Cantonment Board, W.P. No. 26135 of 1995 was filed and against its dismissal, the above writ appeal was preferred. Stay of holding of the meeting of the reconstitution of the Public Works Committee convened by the Executive Officer of Secunderabad Cantonment Board was sought for, alleging that the same was in violation of the Cantonment Boards Act and the rules framed thereunder. The matter was in the list of the first Court on 23-2-1996. But, as the Full Bench hearing was going on in the first Court, the matter could not reach and on a mention being made by the respondent as also by some other counsel, whose matters did not reach, were directed to be listed-up before the second Court comprising of Justice Lingaraja Rath and Justice B. K. Somasekhara. Then in the above matter relating to this contempt, the second Court had granted stay of giving effect to the resolution of the reconstituted Public Works Committee, if any, passed on 24-2-1996, on which date the meeting of the Committee was convened. The stay, however, was limited till 27-2-1996. On 27-2-1996, the said case was listed at page 4 as item 9 in the first Court's list. The first Court comprising of the Chief Justice and Justice M.H.S. Ansari sat for the business of the Court and was hearing the matters. As usual, the matters were being called in seriatum and by 1-30 p.m. when the Bench rose for lunch recess, a case on first page was going on and the respondent made a mention to the Court in the forenoon that the matter was urgent and the same may be taken-up on out of turn basis, but the Court had asked him to wait. After lunch recess at 2-15 p.m. the respondent had again made a mention to take-up his case out of order, but the Court had asked him to wait as it was in the midst of hearing another matter. The Court had to rise at 3-30 p.m. for deliberations in Administrative Committee meeting to be presided by the Chief Justice. At 3-20 p.m. the first Court asked the counsel present there including the respondent to mention if there are any urgent matters. Then the respondent mentioned the matter which he was eager to argue and which he had mentioned thrice on that day to take-up out of order. After hearing the matter, the first Court felt that there was no such urgency which could not wait till the next day and more so, when the counsel for the respondent in the writ appeal was not present and when the respondent expressed his apprehension that the matter would become infructuous next day, the first court allayed his apprehension stating that if the matter is admitted, adverse decision, if any, taken against the appellant, would be reversed; but the respondent was not satisfied and was unrelenting. He went on insisting that the matter was urgent in spite of the fact that the Court answered in the negative. The respondent flared up and in high tone, to the annoyance of the Court and in intimidatory manner went on arguing that the Court's observation that the matter was not urgent was not correct, as the same Court having felt urgency on 23-2-1996, posted the matter before the second Court and the second court having felt the matter urgent passed interim orders limiting to 27-2-1996, that it could not be said that there was no urgency in the matter and that stay orders were bound to be extended. As the Court felt that the respondent's conduct crossing condonable limits of an Advocate as he was indulging in intimidatory tactics by shouting at the Court, it has warned him that he will be hauled-up for the contempt of the Court, which was committed in the face of the Court. But, the respondent in a rage, shouted at the Court that he was a responsible and senior Advocate, that he too has self-respect and that the Court cannot deal him in that fashion. The Court had no alternative, but to express that the respondent had committed contempt in the face of the Court and asked him to wait so as to serve a notice of show cause and to deal with the matter immediately and the show cause notice was dictated even ordering the arrest of the respondent and then both the learned Judges retired to the chambers of the Chief Justice. Meanwhile, two Police Constables were also summoned and they were present in the first Court hall. When the Chief Justice and Justice M.H.S. Ansari entered the chambers of the Chief Justice adjoining the first Court, the Administrative Committee members were present excepting Justice M. N. Rao, who came into chambers after the respondent had left the chambers. The Administrative Committee comprises of the Chief Justice, Justice Lingaraja Rath, Justice M. N. Rao, Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, Justice S. Parvatha Rao and Justice P. Venkatarami Reddy. Justice M.H.S. Ansari left for his chambers. The respondent then entered the chambers of the Chief Justice. The chief Justice had questioned the respondent as to how he behaved like that and said that it was not the first time that he indulged in such intimidatory tactics to overawe the Court to wrench favourable decisions, that he was told that, even before, he practised such methods and that at least there are three written orders to his knowledge where the learned Judges refused to hear his cases because he behaved in such intimidatory manner. The respondent shed tears and expressed regrets and also said that he had high respect for the judiciary, that because of the judiciary, he was able to survive and that he had fought many a battle against the atrocities committed by the Executives or Politicians. It is said that some time before, he had presented a Book on Socialism authorised by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, of whom, the respondent claims to be a staunch supporter, to the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice had advised the respondent to practise the said principles so that others also emulate him. The Chief Justice had informed the respondent that he was free to go as he had expressed his regrets and agreed to file written apology in the court, the next day. The arrest part, was, therefore, dropped. The respondent then left the chambers of the Chief Justice. Thereafter, there was slogan shouting outside the chambers of the Chief Justice by some people resulting in commotion and on hearing the same, the other learned Judge including Justice B. Subhashan Reddy and Justice M.H.S. Ansari, went into the chambers of the Chief Justice, and so did other Judges excepting very few, who had left the Court unknowing of the incident. Mr. V. Venkataramanaiah, Advocate-General also came, in fact before, some of the Judges entered the chambers of the Chief Justice and then came Mr. T. Bali Reddy, President of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association and Mr. K. G. Kannabhiran, a senior Advocate, Mr. K. G. Kannabhiran at first appeared to be agitated, but on the Chief Justice telling him as to what had transpired in the Court and Justice Lingaraja Rath telling him as to what had transpired in the chambers of the Chief Justice leading to the expressing of regrets by the respondent, he was satisfied and went out to bring the respondent, who was in the mob outside, but that was not to be. After waiting for considerable time when Mr. K. G. Kannabhiran was called in, he told the Chief Justice that the respondent did not admit of expressing any regrets, that he was reiterating that no contempt was committed by him and that he entered the chambers of the Chief Justice on being called by the Registrar and that tears rolled by when the Chief Justice asked him as to why he behaves in the Courts like that even incurring the wrath of three learned Judges, who passed written orders not to post his cases before them. Thereafter, the Advocate-General, Mr. T. Bali Reddy and Mr. K. G. Kannabhiran left the chambers of the Chief Justice and the respondent and others, who had gathered outside the chambers of the Chief Justice, dispersed. Late, it came to be known that advocates gathered in the Association hall of the Advocates.