PETITIONER:
RAM PARTAP SHARMA AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DAYA NAND AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/08/1976
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
UNTWALIA, N.L.
SHINGAL, P.N.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 809 1977 SCR (1) 242
1977 SCC (1) 150
ACT
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s. 19 (1)(b)--Finding of
committal of contempt is basis of acceptance of
apology--Judge exposing himself to public controversy cannot
shelter behind his office.
HEADNOTE
The appellants wrote a letter to the President of
India, with copies to some others including the Chief Jus-
tice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, criticising, the
behaviour of a High Court Judge, who, during his visit to
the Sessions Division of Bhivani, spoke against the Govern-
ment’s policies and canvassed for a communist system. The
High Court issued a notice against the appellants; making
out a case of criminal contempt of court. The appellants
tendered a conditional apology contingent on the courts
finding their action to be contempt of court. The apology
was accepted.
Allowing the appeals and dropping the contempt proceedings,
the Court.
HELD: (1) The elementary basis of acceptance of apology
is that there is to be a finding of committal of contempt.
The Full Bench fell into the error of accepting the apology
without finding that the appellants committed any contempt
In the absence of such a finding, no question arises for
acceptance of apology. [245 F, 246 F-G]
(2) Judges are, by reason of their office and nature of
work, expected not to get involved in controversial matters,
or to concern themselves with political issues or policies
undertaken by political parties. If any Judge addresses on
political problems or controversies, the Judge exposes
himself to discussion by public. He cannot in such a case
take shelter behind his office if the public discusses and
criticises the views expressed by him, and the protective
umbrella of the court cannot be used by way of bringing the
critics on the charge of contempt of Court. [246 A-D, F-G]
JUDGMENT
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos.
39-40 of 1976.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1-12-1975 of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Original Nos. 13-
Crl. of 1975 and 14-Crl. of 1975).
D. Mookherjee and Harbans Singh and V.M. Jain, for
the appellants.
Deven Chetan Das, Advocate General, Haryana and R.N.
Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by
RAY, C.J.---These are appeals under section 19(1)(b)
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the judgment and
order dated 1 December, 1975 of the Full Bench of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana.
243
The appellants wrote a letter on 20 February 1975 to the
President with copies to the Prime Minister, Chief Justice
of India, the Chief Minister of Haryana and the Chief Jus-
tice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The letter was
signed by 15 members of the Bar belonging to the District
Bar Association, Bhiwani. In that letter they brought to
the notice of the President that Justice D.S. Tewatia of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court visited the session division
of Bhiwani and inspected the Courts from 14 February 1975
to 19 February 1975.
In that letter they further stated as follows: "The
learned Judge met the members of the Bar on 15 February,
1975 in the Bar Room, Bhiwani. During the course of the
meeting, the learned Judge criticised the Government’s
policy in regard to its attitude towards the judiciary.
Besides the learned Judge was openly attacking the Govern-
ment in its political as well as administrative decision.
On the’ whole, he gave an impression that he was not a Judge
but a politician who had come to Bar Room. When the members
of the Bar who had gone to meet the learned Judge in the
P.W.D. Rest House, Bhiwani he discussed politics with them
and criticised the present executive in general and the
Congress Party in particular. He suggested the members of
the Bar to revolt against the present Government as it has
suppressed the civil liberation (sic) of the individuals and
has also failed miserably in all fields. The Judge further
said that the prevailing system of Government is not good in
this country and we must adopt the communist form of Govern-
ment which can save the nation. Later on he had some pri-
vate political discussion with the local C.P.M. leaders. He
also accepted the hospitality of the Technological Institute
of Textiles (Mills) people who also took him for a sight
seeing from Dadri to Pilani. The members of the District
Bar Association highly regret the attitude of Justice D.S.
Tewatia and urge the Government to take appropriate action
in this regard".
Five members of the Bar Association at Charkhi Dadri
sent a letter addressed to the President. with copies to the
Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Chief
Minister of Haryana, the Chief Justice of India and the
Prime Minister. In that letter they said that Justice D.S.
Tewatia visited the Bar and inspected the court at Charkhi
Dadri on 17 February, 1975. Thereafter they stated as
follows: "While talking with the members of the Bar, he
pointed out that the library of this Bar seems to be very
poor. Then Shri Virender Kumar Single, a member of the Bar
requested the honourable Judge to help the Bar either by
supplying books or by allocating the grant by the High Court
so that the needy Bar may be able to purchase necessary
books for the library. Then the Honourable Judge turned
down the request and replied that it is never possible in
the present system of Government of India. If you want this
kind of help then you should prepare yourself for the commu-
nist Government in India by creating such atmosphere in the
country. At another stage also during the course of his
discussion with the members of the Bar over the matter of
Rajasthan Law students demands in which they demanded a
grant
244
of Rs. 5000/- from the Government for the library of each
fresh law graduate and Rs. 200/- per month for a period of
two years the initial stage of their legal practice he
strongly emphasised the need for the communist system of
Society and Government in India to fulfil these demands.
The learned Judge also met Smt. Chandrawati separately and
discussed with her the political affairs of the State. He
also expressed his desire to see Comrade Dharam Singh a
member of the Marxist Communist Party at his residence
before Smt. Chandrawati. During his stay in the rest house
he also discussed the teachers agitation and individual
position of various political leaders in the State. He
also enquired all about Shri Sohan Lal a leader of the
teacher’s movement in the State". The letter concluded by
saying that the Hon’ble Judge during his entire stay in his
tour deliberately showed the bent of his mind towards commu-
nism while exchanging view on various matters.
The appellants took a copy of their letter to the Chief
Justice of Punjab and Haryana. The appellants could not see
the Chief Justice and left the letter with the Registrar in
a closed cover. The Registrar told them that the closed
cover could reach the Hon’ble Chief Justice,
A notice was issued by the High Court on 12 March 1975
as follows: "Letter dated 20th February, 1975 a copy of an
application dated 20 February, 1975 signed by 15 members of
the District Bar Association, Bhiwani, has been placed for
the consideration of this Bench. On a perusal of the con-
tents thereof, a prima-facie case of criminal contempt is
made out. We therefore direct that the contempt of Court
(Punjab ’and Haryana) Rules, 1974 be issued to each of the
signatories of the above said application, returnable for
the 1st of April, 1975". The High Court did not take any
action against two persons on the letter written by five
members of the Bar Association of Charkhi Dadri.
Each of the appellants affirmed an affidavit in this
pattern. "It is an article of faith with the deponent that
dignity and respect of all Courts and of all Judges and
particularly of the High Court must be maintained for,
amongst other reasons, on that depends the orderly function-
ing of the society as also prestige of the profession to
which the deponent has the honour to belong. The deponent
has been taught to believe that a Judge ought always to
steer clear of all avoidable controversial matters. The
deponent most respectfully submits that the contents of the
letter which he and others addressed to the President of
India cannot be construed as scandalising the Hon’ble Judge
or the Court in any manner to weaken people’s faith in the
administration of justice. The letter in question was
addressed by the deponent to the President of India with
copies to others with the sole object of conveying the
opinion that the public expression by the Hon’ble Judge of
his personal views on controversial political matters con-
cerning the merits and demerits of the present system of the
Government was not in keeping with the well accepted role of
proverbial aloofness of a Judge. The letter was addressed
,bona fide, in good faith and without
245
any ill-will and no publicity was given to it. It was
intended to be a privileged communication made solely with a
view to uphold the dignity of the Court. In order to
prevent unwanted disclosure of its contents, the communica-
tion in question was brought personally by two members of
the Bar Association, Bhiwani to Chandigarh in a closed
cover addressed to the Chief Justice for being handed over
to him for his personal attention. The deponent submits
that the contents of the letter. have no relevance or
relation to the functioning of the learned Judge of the High
Court. The letter does not interfere much less substantial-
ly with due course of justice or proper administration of
law by the courts. The deponent submits that there was no
intention whatsoever on his part to scandalise the Hon’ble
Judge or this Hon’ble Court or to lower the authority or
undermine the prestige of the learned Judge or of the Hon’-
ble Court or to weaken in any way the confidence of the
people in the administration of justice. The deponent
respectfully submits that the communication does not bear
out any foundation for an action for criminal contempt. In
any case, if in view of this Hon’ble Court, the action of
the deponent in addressing the letter in question constitut-
ed for any reason contempt of court, one would be more sorry
than the deponent himself. Therefore, the deponent tenders
his apology to this Hon’ble Court, for the same, and prays
for its acceptance."
The Full Bench of the High Court consisting of Justice
Surjit Singh Sandhawalia, Justice Prem Chand Jain and Jus-
tice Bhupinder Singh Dhillon extracted portions from the
affidavit of the appellants to which references has been
made. The Full Bench thereafter referred to paragraph 9 of
the affidavit where the deponents said that "if in view of
this Hon’ble Court the action of the deponent in addressing
the letter in question constituted for any reason contempt
of court, no one would be more sorry than the deponent
himself. Therefore, the deponent tender his apology to this
Hon’ble Court for the same and prays for its acceptance".
After the recital of paragraph 9 the judgment of the Full
Bench said as follows: "In view of the averments made in
the affidavit filed in rely and in particular in paragraph 9
thereof we accept the apology tendered on behalf of the
respondents and discharge the rule issued against them".
In our view the judgment is utterly unsound and unsus-
tainable. The elementary basis of acceptance of apology is
that there is to be a finding of committal of contempt. The
deponents stated that if the Court is of the view that the
letter of the deponents constitute for any reason contempt
of court, the deponents tender apology. It is a conditional
apology. The condition is that if there is contempt the
deponents tender apology. In the absence of any finding by
the High Court that the appellants committed any contempt
of court there was never any occasion for acceptance of
apology.
It appears before us that the allegations in the letter
were not disputed and challenged. The High Court proceeded
on the basis that the letters written by the appellants were
correct. It is indeed curious
246
that the High Court in the notice referred to the letter of
the appellant and said "on a perusal of the contents thereof
a prima facie case contempt is made out". The High Court
did not mention which particular portion of the letter
constituted contempt of court.
It is necessary to state here that if any Judge address-
es on political problems or controversies the Judge exposes
himself to discussion by public. The reason is that the
Judge travels from his judicial work and descends into the
arena of politics and parties. The Judge cannot in such a
case take shelter behind his office if the public discusses
and criticises the views expressed by him. The reason is
obvious. It is no part of the duty of a Judge nor is it a
duty in discharge of office of a Judge to go and address a
meeting on political matters to redress grievances of the
people.
However, if the speech of any Judge is criticised and if
it becomes a disputed question of fact as to whether any
Judge did speak or not as is alleged by the writer the
matter would have to be ascertained by the court on facts
whether the Judge concerned did speak on the matters
ascribed to him before the court would take any action
against the persons who would criticise the Judge’s speech.
We wish to make it clear that if on facts it appears
that the Judge did say things or matters about politics such
utterances or views or observations will be the personal
opinions expressed by the Judge, and, therefore, the protec-
tive umbrella of the court cannot be used by way of bringing
the critics on the charge of contempt of court.
It also appears in the letter that there is an allega-
tion that the Judge accepted hospitality of some organisa-
tion. To say that will not by itself be a contempt. All we
need say is that it will not be correct and proper for any
Judge to accept the invitation and hospitality of any busi-
ness or commercial organisation or of any political
party or of any club or organisation run on sectarian,
communal or parochial lines. Invitations by the Bar Associ-
ation or social invitations naturally Stand on a different
footing and no one will find an exception to any Judge
attending a social function.
Judges are by reason of their office and nature of work
expected not to get involved in controversial matters, or to
concern themselves with political issues or policies under
taken by political parties as a part of their political
programme.
We are of opinion that the Full Bench fell into the
error of accepting the apology without finding that the
appellants committed any contempt. In the absence of such a
finding no question arises for acceptance of apology.
In view of the fact that the High Court proceeded on the
basis that the allegations in the letter were unchallenged
we are of opinion that the matters did not constitute any
contempt. The High. Court should have dropped the proceed-
ings and not pursued the matter.
247
The judgment is set aside. The contempt proceedings are
dropped. We should state here that the Advocate General of
Haryana quite fairly stated that the letter did not consti-
tute any contempt.
M.R. Appeals
allowed.
248