Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3605 (MAD)

In Re: P. Dharmaraj v. .

2015-11-05

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2015
ORDER : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. 1. It is said that Judges and Lawyers are the two wheels of the Chariot of Justice Delivery System - a Chariot meant for the litigants and public at large. The unfortunate continued actions of the Madurai Bar Association in bringing this Chariot to a standstill and seeking to destroy the other wheel left no option, but to repair the Chariot of the Justice Delivery System. The result has been the unpleasant task of initiation of the contempt proceedings. 2. A reading of the orders passed in these contempt proceedings leave no manner of doubt of the pain and anguish expressed by the Division Bench over the resolutions passed by the Madurai Bar Association as well as its conduct. It is not necessary to deal in extenso with all those aspects, so far as the issue of the present reference is concerned, as that would be a matter to be determined in pursuance to the notice issued in the contempt proceedings. There was prima facie aggravated conduct on the part of the contemners by seeking to overawes the lawyers and cause disruption even in the contempt proceedings. The anguish is expressed by one of the Judges (S. Tamilvanan, J.) in a detailed order passed by him on 30.09.2015, in which various concerns have been expressed. It has been opined that number of larger issues arise for consideration, apart from the issue of contempt, and the matter should not be left to suo-motu contempt proceedings. Various contempt proceedings had even been initiated earlier against the lawyers. But in the present case the difference is stated to be the reports which showed that the advocates were calling for boycott of courts, conducting processions against a judicial order and continue to do so. The added aggravation was raising defamatory allegations against the Judges, and the police officials had unreasonable hesitation and failed to prevent the same on several occasions, even at the court premises. 3. The learned Judge was of the view that proper guidelines need to be given to prevent the illegal activity of advocates boycotting the Courts and taking out processions inside the Court premises, as well as in other premises, and thus a Larger Bench headed by the Chief Justice may be appropriate. 3. The learned Judge was of the view that proper guidelines need to be given to prevent the illegal activity of advocates boycotting the Courts and taking out processions inside the Court premises, as well as in other premises, and thus a Larger Bench headed by the Chief Justice may be appropriate. Vital issues of providing proper security arrangements by CISF or any other Central Force had to be decided and the decision of the Chief Justice, in this behalf, would be paramount to give full stop to the illegal boycotting of Courts and such other activities. Such a Larger Bench could also decide the issue of contempt and issue proper guidelines. 4. The learned Judge sought to emphasize that there was no difference of opinion in the Bench on the point that the Bench was empowered with adequate authority to deal with the contempt proceedings, but in the given facts, it may be decided by a Larger Bench. However, C.T. Selvam, J., while sharing the concern of S. Tamilvanan, J., in respect of several issues raised by him, expressed his inability to subscribe to the procedure sought to be introduced for referring the matter to the Larger Bench. The issues raised, it was opined, could be independently dealt with and that the contempt proceedings should be taken to a logical end and the same be rendered without fear or favour, without rancor or ill-will. 5. It is in view of the aforesaid difference of opinion that the matter is taken up by this Court. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The only notable submission was made by Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, who sought to persuade this Court that the matter should be dealt with either administratively or judicially by the Chief Justice to put a quietus to the issue, and improve the relationship between the Bench and the Bar. This course of action was not found feasible in view of the long drawn history which shows that all was not well. In any case, the issue before the Court was limited to the point, which arose after the difference of opinion i.e., whether the Bench dealing with the contempt matter should proceed to decide the issue of contempt alone or whether the expanded jurisdiction should be exercised to consider all other matters also by a Larger Bench for improving the administration of justice. 7. 7. One subsequent fact, after this difference of opinion came into being, is the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P (MD) No. 14573 of 2014 decided on 06th October, 2015. The said petition was really converted into a petition in the nature of Article 226 of the Constitution of India giving it a colour of Public Interest Litigation. This judgment expressed grave concerns about the various aspects affecting the administration of justice in the context of the conduct of lawyers in general, pointing out the various problems. In the end, number of directions have been issued, which have impact for the Bar Council of India, State Bar Council and the Central Government. 8. The aforesaid order was assailed by a third party by filing a leave to appeal and on the initial day of hearing of the said matter, while issuing notice on that application on 30th October, 2015, the First Court noticed the plea of the learned counsel for the Bar Council of India that they were also in the process of filing an appeal. Both the matters were listed before the Court on 30th October, 2015 and notice was issued on the appeal filed by the Bar Council of India and most of the respondents accepted notice. Some of the directions out of the ones issued by the learned single Judge were stayed, and in so far as the appeal sought to be filed by the third party is concerned, it was agreed that there was no need to pursue that appeal separately and the learned counsel representing the appellant in that matter was given liberty to assist the Court by making submissions. 9. In the course of consideration of the application for interim stay, it was noticed that there were various petitions pending before the First Bench dealing with different aspects of the matter of improvement of administration of justice in the context of role of the lawyers, as also the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council. Directions had been issued from time to time in those matters, which practically covered almost the entire gamut of the concern expressed by S. Tamilvanan, J in the present matter. Directions had been issued from time to time in those matters, which practically covered almost the entire gamut of the concern expressed by S. Tamilvanan, J in the present matter. Incidentally, another matter being suo-motu Writ Petition No. 29197 of 2015 initiated on 14.09.2015 was also listed on 30th October, 2015, where the aspect of security for the High Court was sought to be addressed by reiterating the directions for deployment of a Central Force, in view of the long history of tension between the lawyers and the police, which had prevented appropriate action by the police. It would, thus, be seen that the First Bench is already seized of all the different aspects beyond the issue of contempt jurisdiction, towards which S. Tamilvanan, J had drawn attention and decided that the matter be looked into under the supervision of the Bench headed by the Chief Justice. 10. I am, thus, of the view that though the concerns expressed by S. Tamilvanan, J are no doubt of great importance, they are being attended to in one proceedings or the other already pending before the First Bench, and thus, there is no need for larger issue to be examined in the contempt proceedings, as it would amount to only a duplication. 11. That is not the only reason why there is some reservation in following the course of action, as suggested by S. Tamilvanan, J. The nature and scope of contempt proceedings are limited in character. In fact, what ought to be looked into is only that aspect and if the other aspects were of importance, and were not being attended to, they could have been separately considered in appropriate proceedings. I would hasten to add that occasion for that does not arise in the present case, in view of the matters already pending. 12. The judicial pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court would support the course of action I seek to adopt. In Satyabrata Biswas & others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and others, 1994 (1) SCR 413), it was opined that the Court while dealing with contempt proceedings should strictly confine itself to determination of disobedience of the Court and refrain from dealing with other matters. In Satyabrata Biswas & others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and others, 1994 (1) SCR 413), it was opined that the Court while dealing with contempt proceedings should strictly confine itself to determination of disobedience of the Court and refrain from dealing with other matters. Similarly, in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot, 2006 (5) SCC 1 ), the purpose of court's powers to make findings of contempt was opined to ensure that orders of the court are obeyed in the context of violation of the orders of the Court. If one may say the complete chain of judgments on aspects of contempt seek to deal strictly with the issue of violation of Court orders in civil contempt and contumacious conduct to demean the institution in the criminal contempt proceedings, which has the tendency to interfere with the course of administration of justice. 13. I have no doubt that there is a need for an urgent closure to the issue initiated in the contempt proceedings, in the context of the jurisdiction sought to be exercised, without taking away from the importance of the other issues expressed by S. Tamilvanan, J., which in any case are receiving the attention of the First Bench in different proceedings. Thus, these proceedings are liable to be concluded in the context of the facts, which gave rise to these proceeding. 14. I would thus agree with the view expressed by C.T. Selvam, J. that though the concerns expressed by S. Tamilvanan, J are of importance, for all the aforesaid reasons, they are not required to be addressed in the present proceedings, and the present proceedings can continue to deal with the issue, which gave rise to the suo-motu contempt proceedings. 15. The matter be now placed before the Original Bench on 20th November, 2015.