JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amar Saran, J.—A reference was sent by the District Judge, Pilibhit, dated 30.3.2009 to the Registrar General, Allahabad High Court stating that he has received two letters from the Bar Association of district Pilibhit. The letters complained that the bail application of Varun Gandhi was to be heard in the Court on that date, but the District Administration had barricaded the roads leading to the Civil Courts premises, and the Police Administration was preventing Advocates, their Clerks, employees of the Judiciary and Collectorate, the litigants and public from reaching the Court premises, even though, some of them were carrying identity cards. It was further complained that heavy police contingents were deployed at different entry points for reaching the Pilibhit Civil Courts and they were falsely telling the people that the Courts were closed on that date and they should go home. As a matter of fact, the Courts were completely open and the Police and District Administration were misleading the public that it was an undeclared public holiday. All this interfered with the functioning of the Court at the Pilibhit Judgeship. The Advocates had made a request to the District Judge to ensure that no adverse orders were passed against the litigant public and that Courts be refrained from issuing warrants against the litigants on account of their non-appearance in the Courts. The Bar Associations letters even requested that proceedings of contempt be drawn up against the Police Officers and District Officers as the working of the Civil Court had been made non-functional by the Police and District Administration. Hence a report was being submitted to the High Court for information. 2. The report of the District Judge was accepted. In the office note of the Joint Registrar (Inspection) it was also pointed out that as a photo copy of the District Judge’s letter dated 30.3.2009 had also reached the Administrative Judge, Pilibhit, he passed an order directing that the report of the District Judge, Pilibhit be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. The Hon’ble Chief Justice passed an order dated 8.4.2009 for placing the matter before the Court on the judicial side. 3. The Hon’ble Chief Justice passed an order dated 8.4.2009 for placing the matter before the Court on the judicial side. 3. On 18.5.2009 a Division Bench after perusal of the report of the District Judge, Pilibhit on 30.3.2009 issued notice to Sri Ajay Chauhan, District Magistrate, Sri Prakash D., Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, Sri D.K. Chaudhary, Additional Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit and Sri R.C. Verma, Station House Officer, Pilibhit asking them to show cause as to why proceedings of criminal contempt be not drawn against them and they may not be punished. The replies of the Officers were called for and the matter was directed to be listed on 8.7.2009 before the appropriate Bench. The Officers appeared on 8.7.2009 and a discharge application alongwith affidavits dated 5.7.2009 have been filed on behalf of the alleged contemnors. 4. We have heard Sri Zafar Naiyer, Additional Advocate General on behalf of the alleged contemnors on 23.7.2009, when we reserved our orders, which we now proceed to deliver. 5. Sri Naiyer invited our attention to the affidavits of the District Magistrate, Pilibhit, Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit and ASP, Pilibhit which mention that due to inflammatory speeches made by Sri Varun Gandhi generating hatred between different communities, the deponent had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of any happening, which may have resulted in serious offences involving lives. It was denied that any direction was issued for preventing the Advocates, their Clerks, Collectorate staff or bona fide litigants from access to the Court premises to attend their cases and they were not stopped by the Police Authorities or Administration from participating in the Court’s proceedings. It was denied that any propaganda was made by the Police Authority or the District Administration that the Courts had been closed and no judicial business was to be transacted and they returned to their homes. 6. It was also pointed out that an F.I.R. was lodged against Sri Varun Gandhi on 17.3.2009 in Case Crime No. 255 of 2009 under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 188 and 505 (2) IPC and Section 125 of People’s Representation Act, 1951. He had surrendered before the C.J.M.’s Court at Pilibhit on 28.3.2009. A mob consisting of several thousand persons had surrounded the Court premises. He had surrendered before the C.J.M.’s Court at Pilibhit on 28.3.2009. A mob consisting of several thousand persons had surrounded the Court premises. The C.J.M. has accepted the surrender and passed an order sending Sri Varun Gandhi to judicial custody in the District Jail, Pilibhit and 30.3.2009 was fixed for his appearance and consideration of his bail application. When Sri Varun Gandhi was being taken to the District Jail, Pilibhit by the police authorities, a huge mob of several thousand supporters of Sri Varun Gandhi tried to obstruct the implementation of the judicial order and raised slogans against the District Administration. They even surrounded the District Jail to forcibly secure the release of Sri Varun Gandhi. Thereafter, the mob, which was accompanying Sri Varun Gandhi indulged in using criminal force and began pelting stones causing injuries to the jail staff. They also attacked the residences of the Jailer and Deputy Jailer in the jail premises, damaged their cars, and broke their window glasses. Due to pelting of stones and brick batting several jail staff and constables namely Sri Muzaffar Khan, Sri Vinod Kumar, Sri Ashok Kumar, Sri Shiv Kumar Maurya (Jail constables) and Sri Vimal Pandey, Deputy Jailer, District Jail suffered injuries and the District Administration had even to use water canons, tear gas, and rubber bullets to disperse the volatile crowd and for maintaining law and order. It was to prevent a similar explosive situation breaking out on 30.3.2009 that the District Administration had to make several arrangements and it had to spend sleepless nights in this efforts to prevent any kind of skirmishes between the two groups as well as for ensuring the safety of Sri Varun Gandhi for his peaceful appearance and exit from the Court and to prevent any ugly event. For this purpose, the Administration had to adopt a foolproof method and with this end barricading had been done outside the Court premises and searches had to be made of the people visiting the Court. The lawyers, their clerks, Collectorate Court staff and bona fide litigants were not obstructed at any point of time. It was claimed that the Court functioned in a normal way. No complaint in writing or otherwise was made by any litigants either in the Court or to the District Administration that he had been prevented from attending Court. The lawyers, their clerks, Collectorate Court staff and bona fide litigants were not obstructed at any point of time. It was claimed that the Court functioned in a normal way. No complaint in writing or otherwise was made by any litigants either in the Court or to the District Administration that he had been prevented from attending Court. No name or designation of the persons of the District Administration, who were allegedly obstructing the alleged litigants or alleged lawyers or their clerks and collectorate staff who were prevented from reaching the Court premises were mentioned in the letters of the President of the District Bar Association. It was further mentioned in the affidavits that a large number of lawyers and litigants wanted to catch a glimpse of Sri Varun Gandhi and they were crowding the passage to the entry point to the Court as spectators. It was also mentioned that the District Judge, Pilibhit had passed an order on 30.3.2009 to the following effect : “Call for report from District Magistrate and S.P. Pilibhit about allegations made in resolutions of Bar Association by today evening." 7. The noting made by the District Judge, Pilibhit on the said letter of the President of Pilibhit Bar Association, calling for a report from the District Magistrate, Pilibhit about the allegations made was not brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, although the District Magistrate, D.I.G., D.M. and S.P. were they were present inside the Court premises from 2 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. No preliminary enquiry was even made to ascertain the veracity or authenticity of the allegations made in the Advocates’ letters before referring the matter to the High Court. 8. It is pointed out that there was no material for showing that the alleged contemnors had wilfully enaged in contumacious conduct for obstructing the functioning of the Civil Courts and thereby interfered with the administration of justice. As a matter of fact, the District Magistrate and others were extremely concerned with maintaining law and order and barricading of all the Court premises was done in the larger public interest to control a volatile situation and to provide safety to Sri Varun Gandhi. As a matter of fact, the District Magistrate and others were extremely concerned with maintaining law and order and barricading of all the Court premises was done in the larger public interest to control a volatile situation and to provide safety to Sri Varun Gandhi. As a result of the action of the authorities any untoward incident was avoided, but sadly instead of their efforts being appreciated the present respondents are being proceeded against for alleged contempt of Court, without any fault on their part. 9. It was also pointed out that the Civil Court had functioned and the report of the Senior Prosecuting Officer and DGC (Civil) have been annexed which show that all the 9 pending bail matters and 9 complaints were heard in the Court of the District Judge, who passed orders in some of these matters. In the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, 2 criminal cases were decided; in one case charge was framed and the Civil appeal was heard likewise. Some matters in the Court of CJM, Pilibhit, ACJM-1, Special Court (SC/ST Act), Special Court (EC Act), FTC No. 2, Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Court of ACJM-2, Court of JM and Additional JM-3, were also transacted. 10. It was also mentioned in the affidavit that if the Hon’ble High Court comes to the conclusion that any contempt has been committed, the respondents tender unconditional apology as they have the highest regard for the administration of justice, and they will abide by any orders of this Court or any other Courts. In the light of these submissions, it was prayed that the contempt notice against the respondents (alleged contemnors) be discharged. 11. Having perused the discharge applications, the affidavits filed by the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit and ASP, Pilibhit, we are inclined to think that the District Judge, Pilibhit, did act with a little haste by sending information to the High Court on 30.3.2009 without making his own detailed enquiry into the matter. It was rightly pointed out that in one of the letters sent by the President of the District Joint Bar Association, Pilibhit, an endorsement had been made seeking a report from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, about the allegations made in the resolution of the Bar Association by the same evening (30.3.2009). It was rightly pointed out that in one of the letters sent by the President of the District Joint Bar Association, Pilibhit, an endorsement had been made seeking a report from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, about the allegations made in the resolution of the Bar Association by the same evening (30.3.2009). Also as it was mentioned in the aforesaid affidavits filed by the alleged contemnors that the DIG, DM and SP were throughout present in the Court compound from 2 pm to 4.15 pm, they could very well have been shown the letters of the bar associations and their comments/explanations could have been solicited in the matter. There is no indication that any clarification was taken from the authorities before sending the reference to the High Court, which appears to be largely based on the letter of complaint of the advocates alone. Based on the reports of the Senior Prosecuting Officer and the DGC (Civil), which have been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit it is apparent that Courts did function on the date, though the functioning may not have been optimal, but it could certainly not be said that the functioning of the Courts were completely paralysed. 12. We can also not lose sight of the fact that the administration was confronted with a very difficult situation in the background of the incidents which had occurred two days earlier on 28.3.2009 when thousands of supporters of Mr. Varun Gandhi had gathered when he came to the District Jail, Pilibhit and they had even pelted stones and indulged in other sorts of vandalism causing injuries to some personnel including the jailor, because of which the administration had even resorted to some force to quell the volatile mob. The administration had every ground to be apprehensive that a similar explosive situation could take place when Mr. Varun Gandhi was to appear in the Court on 30.3.2009 for the purpose of hearing of his bail application. It was in that context that the administration had set up barricades for ensuring that only bona fide litigants, lawyers, their staff and Court staff and others could go to Court on that day and it might have restrained the general public and supporters of Varun Gandhi from gathering there as they may have apprehended some aggressive behaviour and disturbance of the peaceful situation in the Court premises by these persons. This might have restricted the entry of some members of the general public and, perhaps, also have caused some hindrance to the lawyers their staff and clerical staff and some bona fide litigants from entering the Court premises, but, in our view, it could not be described as a deliberate and wilful contumacious act done with the intention of obstructing the administration of justice, with the intention of paralysing the work of the Civil Court, so as to bring the matter within the four corners of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is noteworthy that no particular litigants or affected persons have come forward to show that the hearing in their cases were actually prevented or that their access to the Courts was denied. 13. We also find the conduct of the lawyers in immediately shooting letters to the District Judge complaining against the measures taken by the administration for restricting the entry to the Courts on that date as a grave obstruction in the administration of justice, a little surprising, when we see that for the smallest reasons, real or supposed, and for the most trivial causes the lawyers readily resort to strikes which results in complete paralysis of the functioning of the Courts, which cause litigants to return in dismay and their cases keep hanging in Courts for long periods of time, attracting the ire of the Supreme Court and this Court time and again. In contrast on the fateful date (30.3.2009), the Courts do appear to have functioned, though the functioning might not have been total because of the measures taken by the administration. But we must not forget the Catch 22 situation with which the administration was confronted. If they had not taken the measures they took, there could well have been an attack or a skirmish in the Court premises, and danger to life and property, for which they would have been taken to task, and if they took action as they have done, they are now facing charges of contempt. They seem to have acted however for preventing damage to the Court premises and for maintaining the law and order situation, when tempers of the contending parties was so high. They have also tendered their unconditional apology in case this Court thinks that their actions were a little excessive. They seem to have acted however for preventing damage to the Court premises and for maintaining the law and order situation, when tempers of the contending parties was so high. They have also tendered their unconditional apology in case this Court thinks that their actions were a little excessive. In the light of all the aforesaid circumstances we are inclined to discharge the notice of contempt against the respondents. 14. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. 15. But before parting we must caution the contemnors that whenever such a volatile situation arises or is likely to arise, they must take extreme care and precaution and instruct the police and other subordinate officials to act with restraint and to ensure that the access of the litigants and persons connected with the Courts are not interfered with and the public is not denied its right to seek justice in the Courts of law. ————