STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYD Vs. J VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case has been taken cognizance of by this Court suo motu under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (for short 'the Act') against almost all the members including the President, Secretary and Members of Executive Committee of the Bar Association, Rajahmundry, on the basis of report dated 22-8-1995, of the District Judge, Rajahmundry, to answer a serious charge of interference and obstruction with the administration of justice, viz., they wrongfully detained the District Judge and two other Judicial Officers of Rajahmundry by preventing them from going to their Chambers and Courts for one hour, i.e., from 10-15 a.m. to 11-15 a.m. on 22-8-1995.

(2.) The gist of the report of the District Judge, Rajahmundry is as follows: The President and the Secretary of the Bar Association, Rajahmundry, the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein, respectively, approached him on 21-8-1995 and informed him that in pursuance of the resolution dated 18-8-95, of the Joint Action Committee of Andhra Pradesh State Advocates, the members of the Bar Association, Rajahmundry would prevent the Judicial Officers from entering into their Chambers for a period of one hour on 22-8-1995. His advice to convince them that the proposed action of theirs was not proper was not cherished by them. As usual, on 22-8-1995 himself and his colleagues, viz., I Additional and II Additional District Judges reached the Court premises at 10-15 a.m. in a Government vehicle. As the car crossed the main gate, the President and the Secretary and the Executive Committee Members along with 100 other senior and junior members of Rajahmundry Bar Association, forming themselves into a human chain, stopped and prevented it from proceeding further. Then, some of them went to the other complex, where Munsif Magistrates Courts are located and prevented the Munsif Magistrates from entering into their Chambers. Caught up in such piquant situation, they got down from the car and requested the members of the Bar to give way for them to go to their Chambers. But, it had no desired effect. Instead, it was made clear that they would not be permitted to proceed towards their Chambers. However, they were asked to go to the Bar Association. Left with no alternative and as a measure of tact, they followed the advocates to the Bar Association, where they were made to sit till 11-15 a.m. During their stay in the Bar Association, they were treated well and the members of Bar expressed their views politely. At 11-15 a.m. they were allowed to leave for their Chambers. The local Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police were also present throughout.

(3.) The District Judge, Rajahmundry along with his report dated 22-8-1995, sent two lists of advocates-one naming 87 advocates, who are alleged to have prevented himself and two other Additional District Judges, and the other naming 90 advocates, who are alleged to have prevented the Munsif Magistrates working at Rajahmundry. Based on the said information, initially cognizance was taken only against Respondents 1 and 2 and notice was ordered to them by order, dated 22-12-1995. Later by order, dated 25-3-1996, cognizance was taken against the other respondents also and there was a direction to issue notices to them. However, notices could not be served on Respondents 18, 19, 26, 34, 41, 51, 53, 59, 63, 70, 71, 75, 76, 109, 121, 122, 129, 134, 142, 143, 168 and 176. Then, on the direction of this Court to specifically state whether they are the practising Advocates and/or the members of the Bar Association, Rajahmundry, the District Judge by his report dated 7-8-1996, stated that except Respondent No.51 all others are neither Advocates nor members of the Bar Association, Rajahmundry. Regarding Respondent No.51, his report is silent. Infact, he was not asked to verify whether Respondent No.51 was an advocate or not. Thus, the fact remains that notice was not served on Respondent No.51. In the circumstances, we presume that he is neither an advocate nor a member of the Bar Association.