APEX COURT HELD THAT
CONTEMPT OF COURT — Criminal contempt — Scandalising Court — Public allegations by Senior Advocate and President of High Court Advocates’ Association against High Court and Registry — Remarks describing High Court as “gambling den” and alleging preferential treatment to wealthy litigants — Apology — Repeated acts of similar misconduct — Distinction between contempt jurisdiction and withdrawal of senior designation — Held, allegations made by appellant had tendency to lower authority and dignity of High Court and shake public confidence in justice delivery system — Conviction for criminal contempt justified — However, considering overall circumstances, emotional stress during COVID-19 period, repeated remorse and substantial professional consequences already suffered by appellant by withdrawal of senior designation, Court inclined to take compassionate view on sentence.
(Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Ss.2(c), 12 — Constitution of India, Arts.129, 142, 215)
Contempt jurisdiction — Apology — Acceptance or rejection — Mere tendering of apology does not entitle contemnor to acceptance as matter of right — Discretion rests with Court exercising contempt jurisdiction — High Court justified in observing that apology lacked bona fides and appeared to be “paper apology” in light of repeated past conduct of appellant — Nevertheless, Supreme Court entitled to consider subsequent remorse, surrounding circumstances and overall proportionality while moulding relief.
Senior Advocate — Withdrawal of designation — Distinct from punishment for contempt — Recall of senior designation under High Court Rules and punishment for criminal contempt under Contempt of Courts Act operate in separate fields though arising from same incident — Withdrawal of designation cannot by itself obliterate contempt jurisdiction.
Held :
The statements made by appellant in press conference dated 05.06.2020, including branding the High Court as a “gambling den” and alleging favouritism towards affluent litigants, were wholly unwarranted and had clear tendency to scandalise institution and erode public confidence in judiciary. Paras 2, 3, 9 and 44.
The Supreme Court agreed with High Court that proceedings for criminal contempt and proceedings for recall of senior designation are distinct and independent in nature. Mere withdrawal of senior designation could not be treated as substitute for contempt jurisdiction. Paras 33 and 34.
Though High Court rejected apology as lacking sincerity in view of repeated past conduct of appellant, Supreme Court took note of appellant’s repeated remorse, emotional turmoil during COVID-19 period, pressure faced as President of Bar Association, and professional consequences already suffered owing to deprivation of senior designation. Paras 37 to 44.
Power under contempt jurisdiction must preserve majesty of institution while also balancing possibility of reform and redemption where circumstances so justify. Paras 35 and 36
