STATE Vs. DARSHAN SINGH GOBIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judge, Small Cause Court. Amritear, has moved this Court to take proceedings against the respondent Darshan Singh for Contempt of Court under the provisions of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.

(2.) LA the suit filed by the respondent against the Municipal Committee, Amritear, evidence had been concluded and arguments were being heard by the learned Judge on the 16th of November 1966 when the respondent is said to have made a statement in Court that the Presiding Judge had colluded with the Municipal Committee and had accepted the "safarash" made by its officers. The respondent want to the extent of deciding that he would write to the President of India about this matter as he entertained no hope of obtaining justice. The respondent did not hesitate to make accusation that the "safarash" or recommendation had been received by the Court in his presence. The respondent readily signed the statement which he made in Court to this effect on the 16th of November, 1966 and there can thus be no manner of doubt that he actually stated in Court that the Presiding Officer was going to decide the case in favour of the municipality at the behest of its officer. Statements of both the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant were thereafter recorded by the Presiding Judge. Mr. Uhaman Lal Arora, the counsel for the respondent, stated that in his presence his client had made the statement containing derogatory remarks against the Court and this statement had actually been recorded as statement of the "plaintiff" in Court. Likewise the municipal counsel made the statement that the "plaintiff" had made derogatory remarks which had been recorded in the form of a statement in Court. After the statements of Darshan Singh and the parties' counsel had been recorded, the Presiding Officer forwarded the case to this Court to take appropriate action against Darshin Singh, making his own observation that he had no desire to decide the suit on account of the imputation which had been openly made by the respondent.

(3.) THE respondent was given notice of these proceedings for contempt and he has not chosen to appear himself or be represented through counsel. The statement made by Darshan Singh respondent clearly constitutes contempt of Court. As observed by Lord Russell of Killowen C. J. in The Queen v. Gray (1900) 2 QBD 36, "any act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a judge of the Court into contempt or to lower his authority, is a contempt of Court" Lord Hardwicke L. C. hag described this kind of contempt as "scandalising a Court or a judge" Judges and Courts no doubt are open to criticism, and if reasonable argument for expostulation is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law or the public good, no Court could or would treat that as contempt of Court, But the statement which was made by Darshart Singh respondent could not conceivably be desorbed as a mere criticism of this sort. It was a flagrant and open attack on the Judge himself, besides being extremely insulting. The power of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1952 (Act 32 of 1952), hereinafter called the Act is as follows: