SHRI NATH PATHAK Vs. SHIVA NAND TIWARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A lawyer is the applicant in this matter, Mr. Shrinath Pathak, by name. He complains that a Cabinet Minister of the State holding the portfolio of Minister of Excise, is in contempt for "scandalizing" the High Court in statements to the Press, that he has denigrated the dignity of the High Court so as to lower its image in the eyes of the Public, and his statements tend to interfere with the independence in functioning of the judiciary. The Court will deal with this matter later. Firstly, it is necessary to record the manner in which the present contempt action has been inserted into the records of the High Court. On Thursday 21 August, 2003, during the afternoon session of the Court, Mr. Pathak, as a lawyer, interrupted the proceedings by interjection mentioning that the Court must notice what a Cabinet Minister has said to the Press. In his hand he carried a newspaper which he brandished before the Court. He said that the Court should take suo motu notice on the statements of the Minister. The Court indicated to him in no uncertain terms that this was no way to make a mention, by interrupting proceedings of the Court; that the Court had no intention of issuing a suo motu notice of motion in this matter and that if any matter comes to the Court it will be dealt with. Mr. Pathak insisted that the Court take out notice, the Court told him that there is no occasion for the Court to act, and if a formal cause is filed the Court will consider it as it deems fit.

(2.) WHAT Mr. Pathak did subsequently is not very correct. He was fully conscious of the fact that what he was proposing or mentioning came within the classification of criminal contempt. There is no doubt in this. He had made a mention that the division of the Chief Justice take out suo motu proceedings as criminal contempt and issue a notice to a Minister who is said to have made some statements in the Press. Mr. Pathak is a lawyer. He is also counsel for the Government of India. He can hardly pretend not to know that the matter in which he required the Court to take suo motu action would be a case which will become a matter, if cognizance is taken, before this Bench, that is the division in the Chief Justices Court.

(3.) MR . Pathak didnt seem to show any regret and continues to claim that what he filed, wherever he filed it, was justified.