Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 652 (MP)

In Ref Smt. Suchitra Dubey v. .

2010-07-06

A.K.MISHRA, S.C.SINHO

body2010
ORDER Mishra, J. -- 1. This reference has been made vide order dated 14. 12.2000 passed in W.P. No. 5915/2000. The contemnor has filed the writ petition assailing order dated 9.5.1997 by which she has been reverted from the post of Additional District Judge to that of Civil Judge Class I after Depru1mental Enquiry. Certain allegations of bias were made against the then Chief Justice of this Court in the writ application in Paragraphs 5.7,5. 14,5. 16,5.17 and 6.1. It was also averred in the petition that punishment imposed by Full Court was vitiated due to hostility of the then Chief Justice. 2. Single Judge opined that the averments made that the then Chief Justice of this Court was in position to influence the decision of the Full Court on the administrative side, was also improper. The averments were made to malign the image of the then Chief Justice of this Court and also of this Court. The petition was filed by a senior member of Bar under his signatures, thus an attempt was made to undermine the prestige of this Court and to shake the faith of the public in the independence of judiciary. 3. An-application was filed by the contemnor I.A. No. 1583/2001 tendering unconditional apology. It was also mentioned that she is deleting the name of respondent No.2, the then Chief Justice from the cause title and also Paragraphs 5.7,5.14, 5.16, 5.17 and 6.1 of the petition It was also submitted that she was replacing Para 4 by way of filing an amendment application. She has sent an application for voluntary retirement on 11.10.2001. In support of the application an affidavit has also been tiled by the contemnor. An additional affidavit has also been filed by the contemnor on 22.8.2004 pointing out that initially petition was drafted at Bombay under guidance of Shri A.K. Sakhare his junior prepared and drafted the petition (C-1) was drafted thereafter it was corrected by yet another Counsel Shri Kuldeep Bhargava an advocate of Ujjain it was notarized on 22.7.2000. Petition (C-2) was prepared. Shri Kuldeep Bhargava advised petition to be filed through some Counsel at Jabalpur. Shri Shukla. Sr. Counsel of this Court was approached and it was decided to tile the same petition in the Court However, petitioner discussed the matter with yet another Advocate Shri. A.D. Deoras on being so advised. Petition (C-2) was prepared. Shri Kuldeep Bhargava advised petition to be filed through some Counsel at Jabalpur. Shri Shukla. Sr. Counsel of this Court was approached and it was decided to tile the same petition in the Court However, petitioner discussed the matter with yet another Advocate Shri. A.D. Deoras on being so advised. Shri Deoras has suggested that the petition dose not contain the averments necessary to prove the mala fide therefore, substantial changes were made in the petition. He also imp-leaded the then Chief Justice of this Court. Similarly the counsel made changes in the petition. 4. The contemnor suffered with Neuro-Psychiatric complications for a long period thus she could not evaluate the propriety of improvements so made and agreed to include the same in the petition. 5. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri Mukesh Sahu for contemnor has submitted that The Single Bench of this Court had advised to delete certain paragraphs, however, Counsel who was appearing did not inform the petitioner for deleting the paragraphs which were objectionable. Without consultation with the petitioner, it was informed to the Court that the averments were not to be deleted the Counsel was responsible for not deleting the averments due to which the reference has been made. Thus the unconditional apology which has been tendered. deserves to he accepted considering the psychiatric disorder with which the contemnor suffered. 6 Shri Deepak Awasthi, learned Government Advocate appearing for State has submitted that it is a case of serious contempt as apparent from the averments made in the petition. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the averments made in paragraphs 5.7,5. 14,5. 16,5.17 and 6.1 or the petition amounted to willful disregard of this Court. Even Full Court was not spared by making uncalled for averments in the petition. It is not in dispute that the counsel who has made the amendment as per petitioner, has informed her about the averments which were made in the petition and thereafter petitioner as per reply filed in the contempt petition, has agreed for filing the petition in the amended form. It is not in dispute that the counsel who has made the amendment as per petitioner, has informed her about the averments which were made in the petition and thereafter petitioner as per reply filed in the contempt petition, has agreed for filing the petition in the amended form. She came to Jabalpur, she consulted with various lawyers, went to Bombay and also to Ujjain for consultation thus, it could not be said that she did not understand the implications of wild allegations which she had made against the then Chief Justice and decision of Full Court rendered on administrative side Her conduct is such which deserves to be deprecated for making aforesaid allegations. 8. In this case. Senior Counsel for the contemnor Shri Ajay Mishra urged to accept un-conditional apology tendered by contemnor. 9. Shri Deepak Awasthy. Govt. Advocate urged a Judicial Officer in the cadre of higher judicial services like the contemnor ought to have known the serious implications in the averments in the petition. If she did not know of their implications she docs not deserve to hold the post she docs. Contemnor is not entitled for any sympathy. Learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that a Judicial Officer who makes scandalous allegations must not be permitted to assume that she/he can do so and then plead immunity from punishment by expressing apology. 10. In Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court. (1974) 1 SCC 374 the appellant a District Judge was suspended and a spate of litigation in that behalf had ensued. When an order of suspension was set aside by the Government in exercise of his power under Article 235 the High Court further ordered suspension of him pending enquiry of the allegations made against Judges in a memorandum and letters sent to the Governor in a valedictory criticism of the Judges in their function on the administration side. When contempt action was initiated he challenged the jurisdiction of the Court and the competency to initiate action for contempt on the specious plea that the acts done by the High Court were on the administrative side and were not judicial actions. A three Judge Bench had negatived the plea and convicted the appellant under section 12 of the Act. When contempt action was initiated he challenged the jurisdiction of the Court and the competency to initiate action for contempt on the specious plea that the acts done by the High Court were on the administrative side and were not judicial actions. A three Judge Bench had negatived the plea and convicted the appellant under section 12 of the Act. When the matter had come up before this Court a Constitution Bench considered the gravamen of the imputations and had held that the allegations made against the Court in the memo submitted to the Governor constituted scurrilous allegations against the High Court. Again some of the allegations made in the memo of appeal and various communications to the Supreme Court were held to constitute contempt of the Court and the conviction was confirmed though sentence was reduced. Apex Court held that imputation of improper motives bias and prejudice constitutes contempt under section 2 (c) of the Act. 11. In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., (1984) 3 SCC 405 the conduct of an Advocate in using abusive language in pleadings and vilification of a Judge was held to constitute contempt under section 2 (c) (I) of the Act and his sentence under section 12 of the Act was upheld. In S. Mulgaokar reference. (1978) 3 SCC 339 the conduct of a Senior Advocate in publishing a pamphlet imputing improper motives to the Magistrate who decided his case was held to constitute substantial interference with the due administration of justice. His conviction was accordingly upheld though sentence was reduced. In K.A. Mohd. Ali v. C.N. Prasannan, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 509 while arguing the case, the counsel raised his voice unusually high to the annoyance of the Magistrate and used derogatory language against the Magistrate before whom he conducted the trial of an accused. His conviction and sentence for contempt was accordingly upheld. 12. No doubt about it that after realizing the consequence of making the aforesaid averments she has filed an application for deleting the aforesaid averments from the petition. It appears that she was suffering with some psychiatric disorder. If such averments were made by layman, we might have probably accepted the apology. If we accept apology in such case the Court will fail in its duty. It appears that she was suffering with some psychiatric disorder. If such averments were made by layman, we might have probably accepted the apology. If we accept apology in such case the Court will fail in its duty. If such trend as are displayed in this petition by the contemnor arc allowed to go to Scot-free that may be a danger. The strongest, words are not enough to deprecate the conduct of the contemnor. By now 10 years have passed since tiling of the petition, contenor, who is a lady is no more in service In aforesaid circumstances we desist from imposing the sentence of imprisonment at this stage and impose fine of only Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five thousand only), with a rider that her conduct shall be kept under a watch for three years from today. In case her conduct is again found to be of repeating such act we may reconsider the matter. Let amount of fine be deposited within 45 days from today. 13. Contempt petition disposed of.