Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Shri Dattatray Narayan Samant (contemner No.1) and his advocate Shri C.S. Joshi (contemner No.2) for using scandalous and defamatory language against a learned Judge in a civil application (C.A. No.1936 of 2007) filed in Writ Petition No.7445 of 2005. The offending words included allegations of 'malpractices', 'false statement', 'non application of mind', and 'deliberate act' against the Judge. The Court issued a show cause notice on 17.8.2007 and admitted the matter on 20.11.2007. Both contemners appeared and tendered unconditional apologies. The Court, after considering the facts and the law, held that the imputations scandalized the court and constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, taking into account the age of contemner No.1 (77 years) and the unconditional apologies, the Court convicted them but released them on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment or fine.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Scandalizing the Court - Sections 2(c), 12, 15 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Use of words 'malpractices', 'false statement', 'non application of mind', 'deliberate act' against a Judge in a civil application - Held that such imputations scandalize the court and lower its authority, constituting criminal contempt. The contemners were convicted but released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering their age and unconditional apology (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the use of scandalous and defamatory words against a learned Judge in a civil application constitutes criminal contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The Court convicted both contemners for criminal contempt but released them on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment or fine.
Law Points
- Criminal contempt
- scandalizing the court
- imputation of malpractices to judge
- advocate's duty
- mens rea in contempt
- apology as mitigating factor
Case Details
CRI. SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION No. 9 OF 2007
A.M. Khanwilkar, P.D. Kode
Mr. Ujwal Agandsurve (Amicus Curiae), Mr. C.S. Joshi (for respondent No.1 and in person)
High Court on its own motion
Shri Dattatray Narayan Samant and Shri C.S. Joshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against contemners for using scandalous language against a Judge in a civil application.
Remedy Sought
The Court sought to punish the contemners for criminal contempt of court.
Filing Reason
The contemners used words like 'malpractices', 'false statement', 'non application of mind', and 'deliberate act' against a learned Judge in a civil application filed in Writ Petition No.7445 of 2005.
Previous Decisions
Show cause notice issued on 17.8.2007; matter admitted on 20.11.2007.
Issues
Whether the use of scandalous and defamatory words against a Judge in a civil application constitutes criminal contempt of court.
Whether the contemners should be punished or released on probation considering their age and apology.
Submissions/Arguments
The contemners tendered unconditional apologies for the offending language.
The Court considered the age of contemner No.1 (77 years) and the fact that the apologies were genuine.
Ratio Decidendi
Scandalous imputations against a Judge, such as allegations of malpractices, false statements, and non-application of mind, constitute criminal contempt as they scandalize the court and lower its authority. However, the court may consider mitigating factors like age and unconditional apology and release the contemners on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Judgment Excerpts
The Court was constrained to issue said show cause notice while considering Civil Application No.1936 of 2007... after the counsel for the petitioner in said writ petition invited the offending averments in paragraph No.14 and also in some part of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the civil application.
Paragraph 14 of the said application is to the following effect :- 'The advocate for the applicants complained to the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, on 5.5.2006 for malpractices of J. Kakade i.e. (i) without assignment, how circulation granted in the matter ? (ii) Even during the course of argument J. Kakade failed to understand this matter not pertains to him, is total non application of mind or deliberate act. (iii) False statement that advocate...'
Procedural History
The Court issued a show cause notice on 17.8.2007 after the offending language was pointed out during the hearing of Civil Application No.1936 of 2007. The matter was admitted on 20.11.2007. Thereafter, the contemners appeared and tendered apologies. The Court delivered judgment on 3.6.2011.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 2(c), 12, 15
- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: 4
