HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. ALI AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three Advocates of this Court have filed this application alleging that a Judge of this Court has committed contempt of Court by making, insulting and uncharitable remarks against an Advocate Dr. Sadanand Jha. While hearing a civil revision application for admission.

(2.) The civil revision application had been listed before S. Ali Ahmad, J., a Judge of this Court (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the opposite party' for admission on 19.7.1985. According to the petitioners' after the luncheon interval when the opposite party took his Seat Mr. Syed Imam Ali, Advocate mentioned to the court a caveat petition and an affidavit had been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 of that case, and, as such, the petitioner of that civil revision application be directed to hand over a copy of the petition to the caveator so that a proper counter -affidavit may be filed. He also made a prayer for adjournment of the case for a week. On this the opposite party asked the counsel for the petitioner of that case as to whether he was agreeable to the suggestion made by Mr. Syed Imam Ali. Mr. Naseem Ahmad, who appeared for the petitioner of that application, replied that he will have no objection to the adjournment, provided the operation of the order under revision was stayed. Then Mr. Syed Imam Ali said that the opposite party No. 3 had already come in possession, and, as such, staying the operation of the impugned order shall not be fair and only an order for maintaining status quo be passed. The counsel for the petitioner did not agree to this suggestion. On that the opposite party said that he shall pass the order when the case shall be called out in its natural turn. It has been stated that apart from Mr. Syed Imam Ali, Dr. Sadanand Jha, petitioners 1 and 2 had also been engaged on behalf of opposite party No. 3 aforesaid. When the case was called out for admission Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioner of that application and gave the background under which the civil revision application had been filed. The opposite party then called upon Mr. Syed Imam Ali and asked him whether he wanted time in that very case which was replied in affirmative. The opposite party then observed that if he adjourned the case for a week then he shall stay the operation of the impugned order. Upon this Mr. Syed Imam Ali again requested that only an order for maintaining status quo be passed because opposite party No. 3 had already come in possession. The opposite party replied that he usually did not pass status quo orders as he himself did not know what was meant by status quo. On this Mr. Syed Imam Ali prayed that the application itself be heard on merit because it was not maintainable. Thereafter, Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh resumed his argument. What happened thereafter has been stated in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the present application which are as follows:

(3.) It was essential to preserve the discipline, while administering justice, was realised centuries ago when Anglo Saxon Laws developed the concept of contempt of court and for punishment therefor. The acts which tend to obstruct the course of justice really threaten the very administration of justice. By several pronouncements such acts which tend to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice were identified and were grouped into 'civil contempt' and 'criminal contempt'. However, for a long time they were never defined leaving it to the courts to give their verdict whether under particular set of circumstances any such offence has been committed or not. Even in India in the earlier two Acts of the years 1926 and 1952 relating to Contempt of Courts the expression 'contempt of court' was not defined. However, in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') the Parliament has purported to define 'civil contempt' and 'criminal contempt' separately. The Act has also introduced several new provisions under different sections, including prescribing the procedure for initiating proceedings for contempt. The relevant part of Sec. 15(1) with which we are concerned is as follows: