Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal contempt reference made by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against Dr. Leo Rebello, an accused in a pending criminal case. The Magistrate reported that the respondent had persistently harassed, intimidated, and threatened her, obstructed judicial proceedings, and sent highly objectionable and insulting correspondence, thereby scandalizing and lowering the authority of the court. The reference detailed multiple incidents between December 2011 and August 2014, including the respondent barging into the courtroom, shouting, using threatening language, causing the court's board to collapse, and sending postcards and Facebook messages with derogatory content. The Magistrate had issued a show cause notice to the respondent before making the reference. The High Court initially issued notice before admission and, after hearing the respondent, found a prima facie case and granted Rule. The respondent filed objections and an application for recusal of the Bench, alleging bias. The Court dismissed the recusal request, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, which held that judges should not recuse themselves on account of unfounded allegations, as that would breach the oath of office under Article 219 of the Constitution. The respondent did not press the recusal application at the hearing and requested a fair decision. The Court observed that obstruction of court proceedings, scandalization of the court, and intimidation of a judicial officer prima facie amount to criminal contempt. The matter was reserved for judgment. The judgment itself is incomplete in the provided text, and the final order is not available.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Scandalizing the Court - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(c)(i) to (iii) - The respondent sent several objectionable letters, postcards, and messages to the Metropolitan Magistrate, making insulting and threatening insinuations, which scandalized and tended to lower the authority of the court. Held, prima facie, such acts fall within the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (Paras 4, 5) B) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Obstructing Judicial Proceedings - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(c) - The respondent barged into the courtroom, shouted loudly while other proceedings were ongoing, used threatening and insulting words against the presiding officer, and caused the court's board to collapse, thereby obstructing judicial proceedings. Held, such conduct interferes with the administration of justice and prima facie constitutes criminal contempt. (Paras 1, 4) C) Recusal of Judges - Duty to Hear - Constitution of India, Article 219 - The respondent filed an application seeking recusal of the Bench, alleging bias. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents and held that judges must not recuse themselves on unfounded or motivated allegations, as doing so would breach the oath of office to perform duties without fear or favour. (Paras 10-12) D) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 15(2) - Reference by Subordinate Court - The Metropolitan Magistrate, facing persistent harassment and contemptuous conduct from the accused, made a reference under Section 15(2). On perusal of the reference and material, the High Court found a prima facie case and issued Rule, thereby taking cognizance of the alleged criminal contempt. (Paras 2, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acts of the respondent constitute criminal contempt of court under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and whether the High Court should proceed with the reference under Section 15(2) of the said Act.
Law Points
- Scandalizing and lowering the authority of the Court amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Courts should not recuse themselves merely on unfounded allegations of bias
- A motivated recusal application is an interference with due justice
- Threatening and intimidating judicial officers constitute contempt
- Obstruction of judicial proceedings by creating ruckus and shouting in court constitutes criminal contempt
- Sending objectionable and insulting correspondence to a judicial officer amounts to criminal contempt
- The oath of office under Article 219 of the Constitution requires judges to perform duties without fear or favour
- Prima facie case for grant of rule in contempt reference established by persistent misconduct.
