Radha
Mohan Lal Vs. Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) [2003] Insc 71 (11 February 2003)
Y.K.
Sabharwal & H.K. Sema
[With
Criminal Appeal No.449 of 1993] Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
By the
impugned judgment and order dated 31st March, 1993, the High Court has come to the
conclusion that the appellant Radha Mohan Lal (Criminal Appeal No.445/93) and
his advocate, appellant Sualal Yadav (Criminal Appeal No.449/93) have committed
the contempt of court. Both have been sentenced to three months' simple
imprisonment each besides fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of
fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
The
basis for initiation and punishment for contempt of court is the averment made
in para 4 of the application dated 18th September, 1991 that had been filed
before a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a civil revision petition
which was listed before the learned Judge. The said para 4 reads as under:
"That
apart from it, the undersigned has been informed by his client-Shri Radha Mohan
Lal Vakil Ex. Chairman of the Municipal Council, Jaipur, that he along with
other non-petitioners have moved a complaint in writing against Hon'ble Shri
R.S. Kejriwal to the Hon'ble Chief Justice requesting him to list the above
revision before a Bench of which Hon'ble Shri R.S. Kejriwal is not a member as
they have reasonable grounds to believe that no impartial justice would be
imparted from this Bench.
In the
light of the above exceptional and extraordinary facts and circumstances of the
matter, the above revision may kindly be allowed to be listed before a Bench
not constituted of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kejriwal as the non-petitioners are
known to have lost faith in this Bench for reason obvious. In case the above
revision is not allowed to be listed before another Bench the applicant may be
allowed sufficient time to approach the Supreme Court for transfer of this
case." The revision petition arose out of an interim order passed in a
civil suit that had been filed by appellant Radha Mohan Lal and four others in
representative capacity allegedly to ensure that access to the temple which was
the subject matter of the suit is not obstructed as a consequence of
encroachments by the Rajasthan Sports Council. The interim order granted in
their favour had been assailed in the revision petition. It is claimed that
some observations made by the learned Judge on 13th September, 1991 in course of hearing of arguments led to about 50
senior citizens representing to the Chief Justice that the petition be heard by
some other Judge. On 18th September, 1991, when the matter came up for hearing
before the learned Single Judge, the fact of representation having been made to
the Chief Justice was given out and this led to the filing of the application
dated 18th September, 1991. Ultimately, the averments made in the application
led to initiation of proceedings for contempt of court and the finding of
contempt and punishment on the appellants as aforestated. Appellant Sualal Yadav
was the advocate for Radha Mohan Lal both in the revision petition as also in
the contempt petition.
When
Criminal Appeal No.445 of 1993 came up for hearing for the first time before
this Court on 3rd June, 1993, appellant Radha Mohan Lal, who was present in
Court, gave an undertaking to this Court through his counsel that he shall file
in this court on affidavit within one week an unconditional apology for the
allegations made by him against Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal of the High
Court of Rajasthan and shall appear in person in open court before the Hon'ble
Judge and shall tender such apology to him. Accepting that undertaking, this
Court directed stay of the impugned order. In terms of the order dated 3rd June, 1993, the appellant on 9th June, 1993 filed his affidavit tendering
unconditional and without any qualification his apology for any statement made
or pleaded before Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal in the pending revision
petition. It further appears that the appellant, in accord with his
undertaking, also tendered apology before Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal.
Learned
counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, has very candidly not made any
attempt to justify the actions of Radha Mohan Lal before the High Court in
filing the application as aforenoticed. Learned counsel has only argued for
acceptance of the apology. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has
impressive and unimpeachable credentials of being a freedom fighter and a vakil
(an advocate) and Chairman of Jaipur Municipal Council. It has been further
submitted that he is an old man of 82 years of age suffering from serious heart
ailment and for quite some time his mobility is limited to his room under
medical prescription. The appellant is a senior citizen who had no malice
towards the Hon'ble Judge. It is contended that during his long distinguished
career, the present episode was the result of a single momentary derailment
that was neither due to deliberation nor due to any motivation and once the
matter was before this Court, the appellant, on his own, even before hearing,
tendered unqualified apology and also volunteered to tender an unqualified and
unconditional apology before the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court in open Court
which was done immediately after the reopening of the High Court after summer vacation
in the year 1993.
Having
regard to the aforesaid facts, it appears that although the apology has been
tendered after the appellant had been found guilty of contempt of court and
after the High Court had inflicted the imprisonment on him but still the
apology seems to be sincere and not to ward of the punishment. We accept the
contention of Mr. Dhankar that the apology here is evidence of real contrite as
also of his consciousness of wrong done by him. In the case of M.Y. Shareef
& Anr. v. The Hon'ble Judges of High Court of Nagpur & Ors. [(1955) 1
SCR 757], a Constitution Bench of this Court accepted the apology that was
tendered before this Court for the first time.
In
view of the aforesaid, while we uphold the impugned judgment holding that the appellant
Radha Mohan Lal committed contempt of court but accepting the apology, we set
aside the punishment of simple imprisonment as also the fine imposed on him.
The
case of appellant Sualal Yadav is, however, different. He has persisted with
the same approach before this Court as he had before the High Court.
Unfortunately, he labours under an erroneous impression that it is not only his
duty but a constitutional obligation to say and submit before the Court
whatever he is instructed by his client. He submits that everyone has liberty
to have faith or not on a particular judge. A grievance was also sought to be
made by him that only Radha Mohan Lal was picked up and not others similarly
placed and likewise contempt proceedings were initiated against him and not
other advocates. The submissions are wholly untenable. We have already noticed
that Radha Mohan Lal, realizing his mistake, tendered unconditional and
unqualified apology even before the matter was heard before this Court. He has
also tendered apology in open court before the learned judge of the High Court.
The application was only signed by Radha Mohan Lal and this appellant and,
therefore, there is no substance in the grievance why proceedings were not
initiated against others. Even otherwise, such a contention is entirely
misplaced. It is unfortunate that despite having spent so many years in legal
profession, the appellant persists with his erroneous impressions about the
duties of the members of the Bar to say whatever they are asked by their clients
to say without any liability despite the settled position to the contrary.
In Shareef's
case (supra), the Constitution Bench held that the misconception in a section
of the Bar has to be rooted out by a clear and emphatic pronouncement and it
should be widely made known that counsel who sign applications or pleadings
containing matter scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying
themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor, with a
view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves guilty of
contempt of Court, and that it is no duty of a counsel to his client to take
any interest in such applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his
client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such
applications. Hope expressed in Shareef's case that this kind of conduct will
not be repeated by counsel in any High Court in this country, and no more test
cases of this kind would have to be fought out has been belied despite passage
of nearly 50 years.
The
liberty of free expression as was sought to be contended by Mr. Sualal Yadav
cannot be equated or confused with a licence to make unfounded and
irresponsible allegations against the judiciary. The imputation that was made
was clearly contemptuous. The effect is lowering of the dignity and authority
of the Court and an affront to the majesty of justice.
In Shamsher
Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana [(1996) 7 SCC 99], this Court
held that an advocate cannot escape his responsibility for drafting a
scandalous notice to a Magistrate on the ground that he did so in his
professional capacity.
An
advocate is not merely an agent or servant of his client. He is an officer of
the Court. He owes a duty towards the Court. There can be nothing more serious
than an act of an advocate if it tends to impede, obstruct or prevent the
administration of law or it destroys the confidence of the people in such
administration. In M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana
& Ors. [(1991) 3 SCC 600] while deciding a criminal appeal filed by an
advocate against an order of the High Court, this Court said :
"The
tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled el ements
who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is hi gh
time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to
such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the judge into submission, it is
all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which
would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage
caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned judge but also to the
fair name of the judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of
disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the
present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming a judge into
submission to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issues touching
the independence of not only the concerned judge but the entire institution.
The foundation of our system which is based on the independence and
impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory
remarks are made against the presiding judicial officers with impunity. It is
high time that we realise that the much cherished judicial independence has to
be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those
who are an integral part of the system. An independent judiciary is of vital
importance to any free society. Judicial independence was not achieved
overnight. Since we have inherited this concept from the British, it would not
be out of place to mention the struggle strong-willed judges like Sir Edward
Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and many others had to put up with the
Crown as well as the Parliament at considerable personal risk. And when a
member of the profession like the appellant who should know better so lightly
trifles with the much endeared concept of judicial independence to secure small
gains it only betrays a lack of respect for the martyrs of judicial
independence and for the institution itself. Their sacrifice would go waste if
we are not jealous to protect the fair name of the judiciary from unwarranted
attacks on its independence." In view of clear and well settled legal
position in respect of the rights and duties of advocates, we unhesitantly
confirm the finding of the High Court that the appellant, Sualal Yadav,
committed contempt of court.
The
question now to be considered is that of sentence. The appellant has been
sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
It is painful to punish anyone and more particularly a member of legal
profession for contempt of court but in order to secure the ends of justice, in
extreme cases, it becomes the duty of the Court to do so. Ordinarily, on the
facts of the case as abovenoticed, we would have been very reluctant to
interfere with the sentence imposed by the High Court but for the age of the
appellant. He is a senior citizen. His age is 81 years. We are told that he is
hardly in active practice anymore. He is stated to have already undergone one
day imprisonment. Despite the fact that he has been reckless and persistent,
yet we think that object of punishment will be served by reducing three months'
simple imprisonment to one already undergone by the appellant while maintaining
the fine and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
Criminal
Appeal Nos.445 and 449 of 1993 are, thus, disposed of in the above terms.
Back