TAPAN ROY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case we are required to deal with a flagrant type of aggressive criminal contempt amounting to a worst form of savagery. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal on 17-12-96 rejected the prayer for confirmation of interim-bail of certain accused persons in G.R. case No. 153/93 and to take the accused persons in custody. This enraged their lawyer Shri Tapan Roy, the contemner No. 1 and other including his law clerks Shri Swapan Adhikary and Shri Somnath Chatterjee, the contemners Nos. 2 and 3 respectively so much so that they became furious, challenged the order, abused the learned SDJM in filthy languages in open Court which are unquotable, and created chaos and terror in the Court room. The contemner Tapan Roy even attempted to assault the learned SDJM by throwing articles as wooden ruler, ink pot towards him thereby causing injury on the person of GRO, and the learned SDJM for protecting himself in the circumstances, stepped down from the Ejlash and took shelter in his chamber but Tapan Roy and the said two clerks Swapan Adhikary and Somnath Chatterjee chased him to his chamber uttering filthy languages against the learned SDJM who was however saved from further enslaught of the raiders by the intervention of GRO, CSI, Court Staff and the SDJM's security guard who closed the doors of the chamber although Shri Tapan Roy and his two clerks even tried to break open one of the doors by kicks. Court's properties were also damaged. On the basis of the report of the above noted incident from the SDJM, Ghatal through the District Judge, Midnapur showing horrendous and scandalous perpetration of outrageous contempt of Court by the said contemners, this Court took cognizance of the matter and directed the contemners to personally appear before this Court and show cause as to why they should not be appropriately dealt with for contempt. Pursuant to that order all the contemners appeared before this Court on 14-1-97 and also filed affidavits. In the affidavits the contemners tendered unconditional apology for the incident and prayed that this Court might be pleased to take liberal and lenient view of the matter and accept the unconditional apology and drop the contempt proceeding. However the affidavits also contained certain exculpatory statements as a result of which this Court thought it fit that the question of facts should be decided first before taking up the question of considering the un-conditional apology tendered by the contemners. This Court had also received in the meantime an administrative report of enquiry held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the incident and statements recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in course of his administrative enquiry which was undertaken under the direction of the District Judge before this Court took cognizance of the matter. A copy of the said report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Midnapur along with the copies of statements recorded by him was made over by this Court on 14-1-97 to Sri Milan Mukherjee. The learned Advocate appearing on that day for the contemners and the contemners were given liberty to affirm and file further affidavits in the matter on 21-1-97. In view of the circumstances the contemners however, through their learned Advocate, withdrew the affidavits affirmed and filed in Court on 14-1-97. On 21-1-97 the contemners however affirmed and filed new affidavits wherein no controversy about the factual aspect of the matter was raised. On the other hand they tendered unqualified apology for whatever had happened in the Court on 17-12-96. It was also stated in these affidavits that unqualified apology was tendered in sincere and true repentence and not as a matter of defence. Mercy was also prayed for in the affidavits. It was also submitted by Mr. Balai Ch. Roy, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the contemners appearing on that day that the contemners were sincerely repentant and they had no defence to offer and were completely at the mercy of the Court and it was further proposed that they would tender unqualified apology to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal in open Court. In view of such submission this Court allowed the contemners opportunity as prayed for, to tender unqualified apology to the learned SDJM, Ghatal in open Court during Court hours on 27th January, 1997 and the learned SDJM. Ghatal was also directed to send a report in the matter on the next day to the Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court. The matter was also directed to be 1isted on 31-1-97 for consideration as to whether the apology as tendered was to be accepted and as to what final order was to be passed in the matter. Accordingly the matter has come up before us today again and the three contemners are also personally present and represented by their learned Advocate. The report of the SDJM, Ghatal also has been placed before us showing inter alia that the contemners tendered unqualified apology before the SDJM, Ghatal and prayed for mercy. In this background we are now required to settled as to what final order is required to be passed by us in this matter.

(2.) The incident recorded above constitutes criminal contempt of extreme notoriety. It is indeed a nauseating specticle that an Advocate, failing to obtain a favourable order of the Court is hurling unquotable abuses and missiles at the Magistrate in open Court and is chasing him to his chamber where the Magistrate has taken shelter in closed doors after fleeing from the Court room to protect himself from the onslaught of the raiders who are an enraged Advocate and his clerks. There is no doubt that inspite of the growing sense of indiscipline and disrespect for everything everywhere, incident of such enormity and notorioty as happened here are not yet many in civilised circles. But it required not much research to appreciate what a tremendous subversive impact of such an incident; infrequent though - is bound to reflect on the entire system of judicial administration as well as in the public mind. The Court, thee rule of law, the administration of justice and the cherised nobleness of the profession associated therewith are all but to reduce themselves to rediculously fracical entity if a Court's judicial orders lands a Judge or Magistrate to a humiliating, degrading and dangerous consequence of such appalling magnitude. This Court as the custodian of the rule of law and of the judicial administration in the State, and being entrusted with the inalienable task of exercising Control and supervision over the administration of justice cannot afford to abdicate its responsibility by taking a light view of an incident of this nature. The impact of such an incident cannot also remain confined only to one Court where it happened. It is bound to have a widespread repercussion making all Courts throughout the territory extremely shaky. If the Judges and the Magistrates in discharge of their judicial function have to labour under an apprehension that they may be exposed to such physical and verbal onslaught by reason of any judicial order passed in any matter, it will be well-nigh impossible for them to properly discharge their judicial responsibility without fear which will amount to a virtual liquidation of the judicial independence at the cost of the rule of law. As we have already pointed out the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Midnapur also made an administrative enquiry under the administrative direction of the District Judge before this Court took cognizance of the matter and the report of the CJM is on record to confirm the incident reported by the SDJM. A copy of the said report of the CJM along with the statements recorded by the CJM was also supplied to the learned Advocate for the contemners.

(3.) The horrifying effect of the incident will be also evident from the statement made by Shri Mir Hasmat Ali, Munsif, Ghatal to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Midnapore. According to his statement while he was holding Court on the concerned date at about 4 p.m. he heard a strong hue and cry from outside and he was compelled to adjourn the hearing of the suit and came down from the Court room to his chamber and then he started watching through the window of his chamber and found some young Advocates including the contemner Tapan Roy using abusive words towards the SDJM. The learned Munsif has also, in his statement, given out the abusive languages hurled at the SDJM at that time which we refrain from quoting here as these are unquetably indecent. The learned munsif has also stated that he found some Mohorars of the Court including the Mohorars of Tapan Roy abusing in the language quoted by him which however for the sake of decency we refrain from reproducing here. The learned Munsif has then stated in his statement that he became afraid and could not dare to come outside his chamber. So, that was the effect on another Judicial officer while discharging judicial funtion in the same station in a different Court room in the neighbourhood of the Court of SDJM. Not only that the learned Munsif could not carry on his judicial function by reason of the situation created by the contemners but he became mortally afraid and did not dare to come out of his chamber on seeing what was being done by the contemnors. The interference with the administration of justice by reason of the contumacious vandalism of the contemners was thus not only confined to the Court of the SDJM where the contemnors carried on their contumacious operation. But it also directly affected the other Court, namely, the Court of the Munsif. The acts of the contemnors were thus a flagrant interference with the administration of justice in general in addition to the effect produced on the Court that was the direct target of attack of the contemnors. The incident was also reported in some of the widely circulated dailies of the State, namely, the Bartaman and the Ananda Bazar Patrika of the 19th December and 20th December, 1996 respectively. The effect of the contumacious conduct of the contemnors was therefore bound to have a wide spread demoralising refection upon the entire mechanism of the administration of justice in the State as well as in the public mind and this Court therefore as the guardian of the administration of justice in the State cannot afford to take a lenient view of the matter else the same is bound to perpetuate a demoralising effect on the justice delivery system as a whole and in the public mind as, well thereby delivering a mortal blow to the vituality and efficacy of the administration of justice which is as much necessary for the nourishment and survival of the rule of law in a democratic set up.