PETITIONER:
HARGOVIND DAYAL SRIVASTAVA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
G.N. VERMA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/01/1977
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
KAILASAM, P.S.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1334 1977 SCR (2) 601
1977 SCC (1) 744
ACT
Contempt of Courts Act 1971---Criminal contempt--Duty of
members of the bar to protect dignity and decorum of judici-
ary.
HEADNOTE
The appellant No. 1 is the President of the Oudh Bar and
appellant No. 2 is the Chairman of Action Committee of the
Oudh Bar Association. They met and passed a Resolution
that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court was acting in
a most partisan manner under the influence of the Allahabad
Bar and that it was unbecoming of the office which he holds.
The High Court issued notices for contempt, inter alia,
to the appellants. The High Court discharged the notices
but made certain observations against the appellants.
HELD: 1. If the High Court found that there was any
contempt it should have punished the appellants. The High
Court confused criminal contempt with contumacious con-
duct. This Court is unable to find that the High Court
found contemners guilty of criminal contempt. [602 D, G,
H]
2. There is no gainsaying that the members of the Bar
did not act with dignity in regard to the resolution. The
language used by them was unfortunate. It is the duty of
lawyers to protect the dignity and decorum of the judici-
ary. If lawyers fail in their duty the faith of the people
in the judiciary would be undermined to a large extent. It
is said that lawyers are the custodian of civilization
Lawyers have to discharge their duties with dignity,
decorum and discipline. [603 C-D]
JUDGMENT
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 315
of 1974.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1974 of
the Allahabad High Court in Contempt Case No. 43/73.
D. Mukherjea, R.N. Sharma, Umesh Chand, R.N. Trivedi,
S.P. Pathak, Hari Nath Tilhari, S.R. Srivastava, M.N. Sharma
and O.P. Lal for the Appellants.
Yogeshwar Prasad, (Miss) Rani Arora, S.K. Bagga and (Mrs.)
S. Bagga, for Respondent No. 1.
O.P. Rana for Respondents 2 and 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. This appeal is against the judgment and order
dated 22 May 1974 of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal
Contempt Case No. 43 of 1973.
The High Court issued notices to five persons on the
ground that they committed contempt of Court.
602
The two appellants before us are the President of the
Avadh Bar Association and the Chairman, Action Committee of
the Avadh Bar Association.
There were three charges against the appellants. It is
not necessary to refer in detail to the same. The gist of
the charge against the appellants was that they had met and
resolved that the Chief Justice was acting in a most parti-
san manner under the influence of the Allahabad Bar. The
text of the resolution was this--"The Action Committee is of
the opinion that the Chief Justice is acting in the dis-
charge of administrative power under clause 14 of the U.P.
High Court’s Amalgamation Order, 1948 in a most partisan
manner under the influence of Allahabad Bar quite unbecoming
of the office which he holds".
The High Court discharged the notices. The High Court
yet made certain observations; some of which are confusing,
some of which are conflicting and some of which are vague.
If the High Court found that there was any contempt it
should have punished the appellants. The High Court however
discharged the notices.
The High Court held that the Chairman of the Action
Committee, described as contemner No. 2 was actively associ-
ated with the passing of the resolution which contained
disparaging remarks about the Chief Justice and since he
also issued that resolution for publication in newspapers,
he is guilty of ’Criminal Contempt’.
The High Court held that since the resolution was passed
under the presidentship of the first appellant described as
contemner No. 1, he is as much guilty of having committed
contempt as contemner No. 2 was.
The High Court further held that contemners Nos. 1 & 2
are guilty of contumacious conduct, and the High Court gave
the ground that they were responsible for the passing of the
resolution. At another place the High Court used words
showing that the conduct of the appellants individually was
considered only "indiscreet" by it.
The High Court confused ’criminal contempt’ with ’contu-
macious conduct’. The matter becomes clear when the High
Court said "we do not propose to punish contemners Nos. 1 &
2 for the contumacious conduct of which we have adjudged
them guilty though we express. our disapproval of that
conduct and hope that the indiscretion will not be
repeated".
We are unable to find that the High Court found the
contemners guilty of criminal contempt. It is true that the
High Court referred to the contumacious conduct of the
appellants but the High Court did not wish to proceed
against the appellants. The High Court said on that aspect
as follows:
603
"It is a matter of regret that the contem-
ners who are prominent members of the Avadh
Bar, should have themselves embarked on the
path of vilifying the Chief Justice of this
Court and that we do not want to be over-
sensitive in the matter, keeping in mind the
surrounding circumstances in which the contu-
macious act was committed by them. and also
keeping in view the fact that it was a single
act of the Chief Justice for which the attack
was made, we do not propose to punish contem-
ners for the contumacious conduct for which we
have adjudged them guilty, though we express
our strong. disapproval of that conduct and
hope that the indiscretion will not be repeat-
ed".
Counsel for the appellants did not justify the language
of the resolution. There is no gainsaying that the members
of the Bar did not act with dignity in regard to the resolu-
tion. The language used by them was unfortunate. Counsel
for the appellants rightly said that was not proper and it
should not have been passed in that manner.
It is the duty of lawyers to protect the dignity and
decorum of the judiciary. If lawyers fail in their duty the
faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a
large extent. It is said that lawyers are the custodians of
civilisation. Lawyers have to discharge their duty with
dignity, decorum and discipline.
In view of the fact that the notices were discharged,
the appeal is disposed of with the foregoing observations.
P.H.P.
Appeal allowed
604