REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2007
Anup Bhushan Vohra .... Appellant(s)
Versus
The Registrar General,
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta .... Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 340, 345, 346, 358, 362,
388, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398,
399 and 400 of 2007
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) These appeals, under Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), are filed
against the common judgment and order dated 02.03.2007
1
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
at Calcutta in Suo Moto Contempt Motion being Crl.C.P.No.1
of 2007 with C.R.R. No. 187 of 2007 whereby the High Court
found all the appellants guilty of criminal contempt and
sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of
six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and, in default of
payment of fine within a period of one month, to further
undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2) Brief facts:
a) A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who
were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri
named "Circuit Bench `O' Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay
Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri" (hereinafter referred to as
"the Committee"). The Committee had passed a resolution for
the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and
in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in
front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members of the
Committee put theirresolution into action on 15.12.2006 and
started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court
premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of
2
persons started sitting in Satyagrah. They prevented the
Judicial Officers including the District Judge, Jalpaiguri to
enter into the Court premises from that day. In order to
overcome the said situation, the District Judge drew attention
of such fact to the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station,
Jalpaiguri for extending police help, but no action was taken.
Subsequently, the District Judge brought the matter to the
notice of the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta
for taking necessary steps.
b) After taking note of the situation, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.
S. Sirpurkar, the then Chief Justice of the High Court,
instructed the District Judge through the Registrar General to
seek necessary help and protection from the Superintendent of
Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate steps so that the Judicial
Officers could enter the Court premises and attend the judicial
work. The District Judge conveyed the said decision of the
High Court to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri but
failed to get any response from him. Subsequently, he
approached the District Magistrate but no action was taken
from his end also. Failing to get any response either from the
3
Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri,
the District Judge sent a note to the then Chief Justice of the
Calcutta High Court who gave direction over phone to the
Director General of Police to take effective steps without any
further delay. The Director General of Police gave assurance
that he would take up the matter with the Home Secretary,
Government of West Bengal and also suggested the Registrar
General to inform the District Judge to write to the District
Magistrate, Jalpaiguri to take steps for ensuring proper
functioning of the Court with a copy to the Superintendent of
Police, Jalpaiguri. On 12.01.2007, the District Judge again
wrote to the District Magistrate. In spite of that, no effective
development had taken place and the Judicial Officers and the
District Judge were unable to enter the court building.
c) In view of the above situation, the District Judge sent a
Fax message to the Registrar General of the High Court
requesting him to take appropriate instructions and
directions. On the basis of the said information, on
15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court
sitting in a Bench issued two Suo Motu Rules of Contempt,
4
one, against the 16 persons actively associated with the
aforesaid Committee to show cause as to why they are creating
impediments in functioning of the judiciary in the District
Court by obstructing Judicial Officers from entering into the
Court premises and the other upon the Director General of
Police, Government of West Bengal, the District Magistrate,
Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and the
Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri to show
cause as to why they remained silent spectators in spite of
repeated directions.
d) On the same day, the Committee withdrew the Satyagrah
and removed the rostrum and cleared the entry gate. In
response to the Rules, the appellants herein filed their
affidavits before the High Court. After examining the
appellants herein, the High Court, by impugned judgment
dated 02.03.2007, imposed simple imprisonment for a term of
six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine within a period of one month, to further
undergo imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the order
5
of the High Court, the appellants/contemnors have filed these
appeals under Section 19 of the Act.
3) Heard M/s Mukul Rohtagi, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, R.
Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, P.C. Sen, Tara
Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.
Pradip Kr. Ghosh and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior
counsel for the respondent-High Court.
4) Since we are going to dispose of all the 18 appeals by this
judgment, the following details pertaining to these appeals are
relevant:
S.No. Name Age Profession Case Number
(Crl. Appeal)
1. Sri Mukulesh Sanyal (Dead) 84 Editor of a No. 395/2007
local weekly
2. Sri Chitta Dey 84 Trade No. 390/2007
Unionist
3. Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowmic 83 Advocate No. 394/2007
4. Sri Samarendra Prosad 78 Business No. 396/2007
Biswas
5. Smt. Pratima Bagchi (Dead) 74 Teacher No. 399/2007
(Retd.)
6. Sri Jiten Das 73 Ex.M.P. No. 362/2007
(Retd.
Professor)
7. Sri Sadhan Bose 73 Business No. 398/2007
8. Sri Amal Roy 64 Political No. 392/2007
Worker
9. Sri Debaprasad Roy 63 M.L.A. No. 358/2007
10. Sri Anup Bhushan Vohra 63 DGP, W.B. No. 339/2007
(D.G.) (Retd.)
11. Sri Prasanta Chandra 58 Dy. S.P., No. 346/2007
(Inspector-in-Charge) Murshidabad
6
12. Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta 57 Teacher No. 393/2007
13. Sri Rabindra Narayan 57 Business No. 400/2007
Chowdhury
14. Sri Somnath Pal 46 Business No. 388/2007
15. Sri Sanjoy Chakraborty 44 Secretary of No. 397/2007
an NGO
16. Sri Prabal Raha 40 Social No. 391/2007
worker
17. Sri Tripurari (S.P.) 39 D.C. Central No. 345/2007
18. Sri R. Ranjit 38 D.M., No. 340/2007
Jalpaiguri,
W.B.
5) Since all the appellants were proceeded for criminal
contempt under the Act, it is useful to refer the relevant
provisions applicable for disposal of these appeals. Section 2
(c) of the Act defines "criminal contempt" which reads as
under:
"2.(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by
words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other
manner;"
Section 12 of the Act provides punishment for contempt of
court. The procedure to be followed has been dealt with in the
Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975. It is
7
settled law that the law of contempt must be strictly
interpreted and complied with before any person can be
committed for contempt.
6) In Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr.,
AIR 2011 SC 1645 = (2011) 5 SCC 496, this Court, while
considering the criminal contempt held that the court should
be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the
charge and further held that the punishment cannot be
imposed on mere probabilities and the court can not punish
the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on
conjectures and surmises. How the criminal contempt has to
be proceeded with has been explained in para 9, which reads
as follows:
"9. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in
nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as
required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as
per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved
beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged
contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not
permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings
on mere probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the
alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on
conjectures and surmises. As observed above, the contempt
proceeding being quasi-criminal in nature require strict
adherence to the procedure prescribed under the rules
applicable in such proceedings."
8
In para 23, it was further held that any deviation from the
prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned lightly
and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings taken to
initiate action for contempt.
7) With this background, let us analyse whether the
appellants have committed criminal contempt in terms of
Section 2(c) of the Act and whether the High Court is justified
in imposing simple imprisonment for a term of six months
with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and, in default, to further
undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
8) The impugned order of the Division Bench shows that
these appellants were punished for criminal contempt not only
on the ground that they prevented the Judicial Officers
including the District Judge and other staff members from
entering into the District Court at Jalpaiguri, but also on the
ground of alleged serious lapses/inaction on their part. It is
useful to refer the findings recorded by the Division Bench
regarding the role and part played by the appellants which are
as under:-
"We, therefore, unhesitantly come to the conclusion
that the Director-General of the Police, the District
9
Magistrate of the District, the District Superintendent of the
Police and the Inspector-in-charge of the local Police Station
have committed not only the Criminal Contempt of the
Judges Court in the District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately
taking no action against the agitators resulting in
interference with due Administration of Justice in the said
District and at the same time the Director-General of Police
has in addition to that also committed further contempt of
this Court by disobeying the order of the then Chief Justice
to take immediate step for restoration of the function of
Judiciary in the said District.
We disbelieve the statements of the three Officers of
the District Administration that the learned District Judge
never sought for Police assistance and on the other hand,
supported the agitators. In his affidavit, the District
Magistrate was constrained to admit that at least on
January 10, 2007 the learned District Judge-in-Charge in
writing asked for his assistance but in spite of such fact, he
did not find any time to take appropriate step till January
15, 2007, the day on which we issued the Rules and directed
the Chief Secretary to take appropriate step for restoration of
the functions of Judiciary in the District. Moreover, the fact
that a G.D. was lodged complaining obstruction to the entry
of the employees of the Court was sufficient for taking action
to see the Judiciary could function in the District in
accordance with the Constitution of India and further
request for Police help at the instance of the learned District
Judge was unnecessary. The justification sought to be given
that the agitation was peaceful was insignificant in the fact
of the present case in view of the fact that the question of
"breach of peace" arises if there is a resistance at the
instance of an opposition group. The Judges are not
expected to wrestle with those agitators by taking the law in
their own hands of the purpose of entering the Court
premises. They complied with the law of the land by drawing
attention of the local Police by lodging a G.D. through an
employee of the Court and at the same time, it has been well
established from the materials on record that the local
administration was quite alive to the situation that due to
the purported "Satyagraha" by staging agitation and raising
a rostrum at the main entrance gate of the Court premises,
there was interference with due Administration of Justice
and in such circumstances, it was the duty of the local
administration to take step of their own once they found
commission of a cognizable offence."
1
9) As stated in the earlier paras, a Committee constituted of
some local persons, who were active in public life, along with
the lawyers at Jalpaiguri, had passed certain resolutions to
stage Satyagrah for the formation of High Court Circuit Bench
in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. As a follow-up
action, the Members of the Committee put their resolution into
action on 15.12.2006 outside one of the two gates of the
District Court premises that is the main gate and put up a
rostrum there on which a number of persons started sitting in
Satyagrah.
10) It is the stand of the police that on being aware of the
said resolution of the Committee, on 15.12.2006, a police
picket consisting of three officers and four constables was
deployed under Sub-inspector Dilip Kumar Sen at the place of
Satyagrah to watch and monitor the law and order situation.
It was pointed out that the Sub-inspector Dilip Kumar Sen
noted the above details in the General Diary (GD) of Kotwali
P.S., under GDE No. 899 dated 15.12.2006 recording that the
Judicial Officers and the staff of the District Court had arrived
at the court premises, but they were persuaded by the
1
members of the Committee not to enter into the Court. The
officer has also recorded that the Judicial Officers did not ask
the police for help to enter into the court. Mr. Rohtagi, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant- Anup Bhushan
Vohra, former Director General of Police in Criminal Appeal
No. 339 of 2007 has brought to our notice a true extract of GD
entry made on 15.12.2006 under GDE No. 899 which reads as
under:-
"It is important to add here that each of the Judges and
Magistrates (total of 11) of the said District Court are
provided with one armed policemen and two other security
guards as normal security to enable them to fulfill the duties
of their office: i.e. the Judges and Magistrates of the District
Court always had 27 security guards including 9 armed
guards."
The further information relates to GD entry made on
19.12.2006 under GDE No. 1152, in which the S.I. detailed for
duty at the District Court recorded that with force he was
present at the main gate of the court premises and at 1050
hrs. when some of the Judicial Officers had arrived at the
main gate of the District Court, they were requested "with
folded hands" by the agitating Members of the Committee not
to enter into the court. The Judicial Officers, thereafter,
returned back. The S.I. and his force were standing at the
1
spot, but there was no order/request by the Judicial Officers
for help to enter into the court. It is also pointed out that in
all those days, there was no pushing or cajoling, no
threatening gestures made, no law and order problem and no
circumstance was created for the police to interfere using
force.
11) Apart from the GD entries made in those dates, similar
effect GD entries were made at the local police station by the
concerned police officials who were detailed with force for duty
at the District Court on 22.12.2006, 26.12.2006, 27.12.2006,
31.12.2006, 02.01.2007 and 05.01.2007 under GDE Nos.
1338, 1620, 1690, 1916, 91 and 275 respectively. All those
GD entries are placed before us in the form of annexures. By
pointing out these details, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants pointed out that there was no intimation by
the High Court till 05.01.2007. They also highlighted that at
no point of time, there was any law and order problem and
there was no coercion exercised by any of those conducting
Satyagrah. On every single day from 15.12.2006 to
05.01.2007, whenever Judicial Officers of the District Court,
1
Jalpaiguri attempted to enter into the Court premises, they
were requested by the persons sitting in Satyagrah not to
enter the court premises and thereupon the Judges and the
officials and the staff voluntarily complied with and went back.
12) From the materials placed on record, it is seen that only
on 05.01.2007, the Registrar General of the Calcutta High
Court, for the first time, spoke over phone to Shri Anup
Bhushan Vohra, DGP to enquire whether he knew about the
problem which was "deteriorating" as no work was taking
place in the Court at Jalpaiguri. In the affidavit filed by Mr.
Vohra, it is stated that the Registrar General then handed over
the phone to the then Chief Justice of the High Court - Hon'ble
Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, who directed him to "keep the
situation under watch". The affidavit further shows that the
appellant Vohra assured the then Hon'ble Chief Justice that
he would speak to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and
the Home Secretary of the State. According to him, as assured
to the then Chief Justice, he informed both the officers. He
also mentioned that this was not done in writing, but orally
over phone to Mr. Prasad Ray, Home Secretary and Mr.
1
Tripurari, Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. The assertion
of the DGP in the form of an affidavit shows that there was no
order by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice either on the
administrative side or on the judicial side but only over phone
he was asked to watch the situation and, in turn, he also
assured him as well as intimated the same to the Home
Secretary and Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. In those
circumstances and in view of the the materials placed by the
DGP, the conclusion of the Division Bench that there was an
"order" by the then Chief Justice is factually incorrect.
13) It is brought to our notice that for the first time, that is,
on 09.01.2007, the District Judge communicated to the
Registrar General of the High Court regarding cessation of
work by the Members of the Local Bar Association, Jalpaiguri
and the Committee for Circuit Bench of the High Court at
Calcutta. The contents of the said letter are also relevant,
which reads as under:
"To
The Registrar General,
High Court, Appellate Side,
Calcutta.
Dated : the 9th January, 2007.
1
Sub: Cease work by the members of the Local Bar
Association, Jalpaiguri and Samannyay Committee for
Circuit Bench of the Hon'ble Court at Calcutta.
Sir,
With due respect, I am to inform that today i.e., on
9.1.07 I, along with all Judicial Officers, had been to the
Court but at the entrance gate of the Court premises we
were obstructed to enter into the premises.
I held discussion with the agitating members and
insisted that we should be allowed to enter into the premises
for smooth functioning of the judicial administration but it
was impressed by the agitating members of the Samannyay
Committee, mainly, along with member of local bar that
when the door for discussion is open we should
communicate the Hon'ble Court that the impasse can only
be resolved by discussion from and on behalf of the Hon'ble
Court. The agitating members did not agree to my proposal
to allow us to enter into the premises
The recent resolution, enclosed herewith, will show
that they have taken up different agitation programs till
15.1.07 copy of which is enclosed herewith. When
persuasion failed, we have come to the chamber and office of
the District Judge at his bungalow where all the members of
the office staff have also came.
This is for your information and we are soliciting
necessary instruction from your honour's end.
Yours faithfully,
(S. Bhattacharjee)
Add District Judge, 1st Court and
District Judge-in-Charge,
Jalpaiguri.
Memo No. 17/G Dated: 9.1.07.
Copy forwarded to the Superintendent of Police,
Jalpaiguri, for information and necessary action.
Sd/-(S. Bhattacharjee)
1
Add District Judge, 1st Court and
District Judge-in-Charge,
Jalpaiguri."
It was highlighted that no immediate response was received by
the District Judge from the Registrar General, particularly, as
to the contents of his letter.
14) However, on 10.01.2007, it was pointed out that for the
first time the Addl. District Judge/District Judge-in-Charge
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, wrote directly to the District Magistrate
Mr. R. Ranjit (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2007)
requesting him to look into the matter and make endeavour to
resolve the crisis so that the Judges could enter into the court
premises to discharge their functions. The GD entry made on
10.01.2007 under No. 614 recorded that police force was
present at the main gate of the District Court from 1000 hrs.
to 1300 hrs. and the Judicial Officers had come in some
vehicles and after talking to the Members of the Committee,
who with folded hands requested them not to enter into the
court, they left the place. It was emphasised that even on this
day, there was no request from the Judicial Officers to the
police to help them enter into the court.
1
15) The GD entry made on 13.01.2007 under No. 795 was
pressed into service which shows that a strong police
arrangement was made at the District Court where Shri T.K.
Das Addl. Superintendent of Police (HQ), Shri Swapan Kumar
Das, Dy. Superintendent of Police (HQ) and Shri David Ivan
Lepcha had supervised the duty and Shri Ashok Das,
Executive Magistrate, was also present. It was pointed out
that in the afternoon of 13.01.2007, the District Magistrate,
the Superintendent of Police and other officers convened a
meeting at the Circuit House with the Members of the
Committee and had told them in no uncertain terms that
administration will not wait for any "amicable settlement" any
further and would resort to applying force on 15.01.2007 to
ensure proper functioning of the court. This was conveyed
over phone to the District Judge and it was also informed to
him that heavy police arrangement would again be made on
15.01.2007 onwards to ensure that Judges and Magistrates
may enter into the court without any hindrance. This was
also stated in the GD Entry No. 961 dated 15.01.2007. When
the Addl. District Judge/District Judge-in-Charge arrived at
1
the court gate at 1030 hrs., he was requested by the Addl. SP
to enter into the court premises, but after seeing a large
gathering of the Members of the Committee and their
sympathisers, the District Judge decided not to enter the court
and returned back. It was recorded in the said GD entry that
the Members of the Committee and their sympathisers were
successfully persuaded to remove the rostrum from the gate of
the court premises, which they themselves removed. The
court gate was opened by 1530 hrs., and the District Judge
was also intimated about the same. Apart from the above
information, it was also pointed out that between 15.12.2006,
the day from which the Committee started agitation
to15.01.2007 when they called off the agitation, all
bail/custody matters were dealt with by the
Judges/Magistrates at their official residences in Jalpaiguri,
arrested accused persons were produced by the police before
them and in total 192 such cases were dealt with by the
Magistrates at their residences during the said period, namely,
15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.
1
16) Apart from the above details, Mr. Vohra has also
highlighted that he was informed of the importance of the
situation only on 05.01.2007 and no specific
information/report was received before this date from any
State or Central Government Agency or officer about the same.
He asserted that he acted promptly on or after 05.01.2007,
briefing the Home Secretary of the State, Superintendent of
Police, Jalpaiguri.
17) In the meantime, it was pointed out that the then Chief
Justice of the High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar
was elevated to the Supreme Court and he took oath on
12.01.2007 and on 15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice -
Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, sitting in a Bench Suo
Motu issued two Rules to the following effect.
"The learned Registrar General of this Court has drawn
attention of this Court to the fact that due to agitation
started by the "Circuit Bench 'O' Sarbik Unnyayan Dabi
Adyay Samannaya Committee, Jalpaiguri," the Judicial
Officers in the District of Jalpaiguri including the learned
District Judge, Jalpaiguri, are unable to enter into the Court
premises from December 15, 2006.
Office of the learned District Judge immediately drew
attention of such fact to the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali
Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar, but no action was taken.
Subsequently, the learned District Judge brought the matter
to the notice of the learned Registrar General of this Court,
who in terms of the order by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice
2
of this Court, instructed the learned District Judge to ask
the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate
action, so that the Judicial Officers can enter into the Court
premises for doing their duties.
Although the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri
conveyed the decision of this Court to the Superintendent of
Police, Jalpaiguri, so that the Judicial Officers can enter into
the Court building and function, the Superintendent of
Police, Jalpaiguri paid deaf ears to the request of the learned
District Judge. Subsequently, the learned District Judge was
directed to approach the District Magistrate of the District,
so that the judiciary in the District can function. In spite of
such communication, no action was taken from the end of
the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.
It appears from the note given by the learned Registrar
General of this Court, that on January 5, 2007, the then
Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court directed the Director
General of Police, West Bengal over phone to ensure proper
functioning of the Jalpaiguri Court by taking effective steps
without further delay and as a follow up action, the learned
Registrar General also talked to the Director General of
Police, West Bengal and enquired as to what effective steps
had been taken for bringing back the normal situation, so
that the learned District Judge's Court could function
properly.
The Director General of Police, however, informed the
learned Registrar General of this Court that he would take
up the matter with the Home Secretary, Government of West
Bengal and in the meantime, the learned District Judge,
Jalpaiguri should be asked to write to the District
Magistrate, Jalpaiguri requesting him to take steps for
ensuring proper functioning of the Courts in Jalpaiguri with
a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri.
As pointed out earlier, in spite of written
communication given by the learned District Judge to the
District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, till today the Judges in the
District Judge's Court at Jalpaiguri are unable to enter into
the Court building.
It appears from the various papers submitted by the
learned District Judge through fax message to the learned
Registrar General of this Court that the "Circuit Bench 'O'
Sarbik Unnayayan Dabi Adyay Samannaya Committee,
2
Jalpaiguri" took a resolution of obstructing the ingress and
egress to the Court building by various resolutions taken
from time to time. From the resolution allegedly taken on
December 23, 2006 which has been sent to the learned
Registrar General of this Court by the learned District Judge
concerned, it appears that in a meeting held at Nababbari
premises the following persons participated and
unanimously took a resolution to continue with the
agitation:
(1) Sri Mukulesh Sanyal, President;
(2) Sri Sri Jiten Das, Ex. M.P. (C.P.M.);
(3) Sri Sri Debaprasad Roy, M.L.A. (Congress);
(4) Smt. Pratima Bagchi (R.S.P.):
(5) Sri Prabal Saha (Forward Block);
(6) Sri Pabitra Bhattacharyya (C.P.I.);
(7) Sri Somenath Pal (T.M.C.);
(8) Sri Amal Roy (C.P.I.M.L.);
(9) Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta, C.P.I.M.L. (Liberation);
(10) Sri Rabindra Lal Chakraborty (B.J.P.);
(11) Sri Chittaq De (Convenor, Co-ordination Committee of
Plantation Works);
(12) Sri Sadhan Bose (Merchant Association);
(13) Sri Sarnarendra Prasad Biswas (North Bengal Chamber
of Commerce);
(14) Sri Biswajit Das (Federation of Chamber of Commerce,
Siliguri);
(15) Sri Sanjoy Chakraborty (Jalpaiguri Welfare
Organisation).
It further appears from the resolution of the meeting
dated December 18, 2006 of the said "Jalpaiguri 'O' Sarbik
Unnyayan Dabi Adyay Samannaya Committee" that one Sri
2
Benoy Kanta Bhowmick, presided over as President,
supported the said illegal act of the Committee.
In our view, the aforesaid act on the part of those
persons abovenamed, acting on behalf of the said
Committee, has resulted in constitutional breakdown in the
District of Jalpaiguri, as a result, the citizens of Jalpaiguri
District are immensely prejudiced and such act interferes
with and obstructs administration of justice in the said
District.
We are also prima facie convinced that inaction on the
part of the Director General of Police, West Bengal, District
Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of Police,
Jalpaiguri and I.C., Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar
amounts to aiding and abetting the members of the said
Committee, as a result of which, the judiciary is unable to
function in that District for the last one month and all those
persons are prima facie guilty of criminal contempt of a
serious nature.
Accordingly, let a Rule of contempt be issued calling
upon all those 15 persons and Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowrnick,
abovenamed, to show cause why they should not be
penalised or otherwise dealt with for committing criminal
contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 by creating impediment in functioning the
judiciary in the District of Jalpaiguri for the last one month
by restraining the Judicial Officers from entering into the
Court building.
Similarly, a Rule be also issued upon the Director
General of Police, West Bengal, District Magistrate,
Jalpaiguri, Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri, Inspector-
in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar to show
cause why they should not be penalised or otherwise dealt
with for aiding and abetting the aforesaid criminal contempt
by remaining as silent spectators in spite of repeated
directions not only given by the learned District Judge of the
District, but also by the learned Registrar General and the
former Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court.
Let these Rules be immediately served upon all the
concerns through the Chief Secretary, Government of West
Bengal by tomorrow.
2
The Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, is
directed to communicate to this Court what action the
District Administration or the State Administration has
taken for removing the impediments creating by those
persons.
Having regard to the serious nature of a criminal
contempt prima facie found by this Court, we direct the
Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal to see that in
course of this day proper step is taken, so that the learned
District Judge and all the Judicial Officers including the staff
of the District Court may enter into the building and
function normally.
The Chief Secretary will further ensure that no
obstruction takes place in the matter of proper functioning of
the Court in any part of the said District.
Office is directed to see that this order is
communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of West
Bengal by 2 p.m. of this day.
Let Rules be also issued by the office in course of this
day.
The Rules are returnable on January 19, 2007 at
10.30 a.m.
On the returnable date, the alleged contemnors above
named are directed to be present in Court at 10.30 a.m."
18) Pursuant to the issuance of the above Rules, the DGP-
Mr. Vohra and other three officials of the State Government
i.e., the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and
Inspector in-Charge, Kotwali P.S. Jalpaiguri also filed separate
affidavits highlighting their stand. Apart from the affidavit
filed by the Inspector in-Charge of Kotwali P.S., copies of the
2
entries made in the GD (which we referred in the earlier paras)
maintained at the said P.S. were annexed to the affidavit.
19) It is further seen that all the officials including the DGP
were examined by the High Court while hearing the contempt
petition and their depositions were recorded. We were also
taken through their depositions and these were mostly in the
nature of cross-examination. Learned senior counsel
appearing for the DGP has highlighted even the copies of fax
messages sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General
of the High Court on various dates which were supplied to him
after cross examination by the court. Even otherwise, as
rightly pointed out that in none of the fax messages, the
Judges/Magistrates had requested the police for help to
neither enter into the court nor do the fax messages record
that they went back to their residences voluntarily on being
requested by the agitators. The impugned order of the High
Court also shows that apart from the official witnesses, the
other parties were also heard on 16.02.2007 by the Bench and
ultimately the impugned order was passed on 02.03.2007
convicting the appellants for criminal contempt of court and
2
sentencing them to simple imprisonment for a term of six
months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.
20) Though the High Court has concluded that the above-
mentioned government officials had "aided and abetted" the
perpetrators to agitation, as rightly pointed out by the learned
senior counsel for the appellants, there is no material/basis
for such conclusion. We have already pointed out that from
the GD entries on various dates, i.e., from 15.12.2006 till
15.01.2007, on all working days, whenever the Judicial
Officers reach the main gate of the District Court, the
organisers made a request with folded hands not to enter into
the court premises and by their persuasion, the Judicial
Officers returned to their homes. We have also noted that on
any day neither the District Judge nor any other Judicial
Officers directed the District Magistrate or the police officers
present in the premises to remove all those persons. On the
other hand, till the agitation was called off on 15.01.2007, the
agitation was entirely peaceful and there was no law and order
problem, sufficient police force was stationed and that the
2
Members of the Committee and their sympathisers kept
requesting the District Judge/Magistrates and the officials and
staff with folded hands not to enter the courts in view of their
demand for establishment of the High Court Circuit Bench
and the District Judge/Judicial Officers and the staff
voluntarily returned home and did not ask the police to help
them get into the court premises. We have already pointed out
the assertion made in the form of an affidavit by the DGP - Mr.
Vohra that when the then Chief Justice (Hon'ble Mr. Justice
V.S. Sirpurkar) talked to him over phone, he did not order or
direct him to remove the agitators by force but only directed
him "to monitor the situation". There is no contra assertion or
statement from the side of the High Court through Registrar
General, who was supposed to be present when the then
Hon'ble Chief Justice discussed with the DGP over phone.
21) We are conscious of the fact that it is the responsibility of
the State Administration to see that courts function on all
working days without any hindrance. The administration of
justice should never be stalled at the instance of anyone
including the members of the bar even for any cause.
2
However, we have already noted that though the said
Committee started Satyagrah in front of the District Court as
early as on 15.12.2006 till 05.01.2007, no request from the
District Judge or from the Registrar General for removal of
rostrum put up in front of the gate and clearing the
agitators/satyagrahis who comprises not only members of the
bar, legislature, NGOs, persons from media and
representatives from different walks of life was made. We have
already observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the
assertion of the DGP Mr. Vohra about the conversation made
by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and it is the definite case of
the DGP that he was asked "to monitor the situation" and
"keep a watch over the development". He asserted that there
was no direction either from the then Chief Justice or from the
Registrar General for taking appropriate action against the
agitators.
22) We are also satisfied that in none of the fax messages
sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General, there was
even a whisper that the Judges at the District Court had
asked for any police help and there was no grievance that
2
police help was not made available to the Judges. In the facts
and materials placed and demonstrated, we are of the view
that the conclusion of the High Court that the appellants,
more particularly, government officials were responsible for
"aiding and abetting the agitators by non-action" cannot be
accepted.
23) We are also satisfied from the materials placed that the
police force was present at the gate of the District Court on all
days except Sundays and holidays to supervise law and order
situation and to assist the Judges and Judicial Officers, the
fact remains that the District Judge and the Judicial Officers
never asked for any police help for their entry into the court
premises on all days starting from 15.12.2006 ending with
15.01.2007 and all of them acceded to the humble request
made by the agitators and returned home. It is true that on
10.01.2007, the District Judge and the Judicial Officers
requested the District Magistrate to take sincere efforts to
resolve the crisis so that they may enter into the court
premises and discharge judicial functions.
2
24) Another aspect with which we are unable to accept the
conclusion of the Division Bench relates to the fact that fax
messages were sent from the office of the District Magistrate.
On this assumption, the Division Bench concluded that the
District Magistrate himself had knowledge about the contents
of the fax messages. It was explained that fax messages were
sent from one of the nine fax machines installed at different
rooms at the premises of the Office of the District Magistrate
and, as rightly pointed out, this does not necessarily mean
that the District Magistrate had knowledge about the matter of
the contents. Merely because the fax machines available at
the office of the District Magistrate were utilised, it cannot be
presumed that the District Magistrate could have noted the
contents. The said assumption cannot be accepted without
any further material.
25) It is true that several litigants might have suffered due to
the non-functioning of the courts, however, it is brought to our
notice that the concerned Magistrates were holding court at
their residences and chambers to deal with all urgent matters
3
and 192 cases were dealt with by different Magistrates during
the period 15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.
26) We are also satisfied that there was no wrongful restraint
on the Judges and Judicial Officers of the District Court as is
evident from the GD entries wherein it was recorded that the
Judges and Judicial Officers had acceded to the request of the
agitators and restrained themselves from entering the court
premises though police force was present at the spot to
facilitate their entry as and when directed.
27) Though the Division Bench recorded a finding in the
impugned judgment that because of the obstruction, the
administration of justice in the District Court, Jalpaiguri was
obstructed for a month in spite of specific request of District
Judge, it was brought to our notice (which we have already
noted in the earlier paras) that the District Judge for the first
time on 10.01.2007 had communicated to the District
Magistrate with a request to make endeavour to resolve the
crisis and even in that communication there was no mention
of using police force to remove the agitators by force. It is also
evident that Judges of the District Court wanted a peaceful
3
solution and without use of force although in the fax messages
sent by the District Magistrate to the Registrar General, it was
complained that the Judges in the District Court were not
allowed to enter into the court premises.
28) We are also satisfied that there is no acceptable material
in holding that the officials committed criminal contempt of
the Judges in the District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately taking
no action against the agitators resulting in interference with
the due administration of justice. If we analyse the entire
materials including their statements, affidavits, GD entries,
fax messages, correspondence between District Judge and
Registrar General and District Magistrate, it cannot be
concluded that the officials deliberately abstained from taking
any action against the agitators.
29) As mentioned above, in the absence of any order either
on the judicial side by the then Chief Justice or any
communication and direction through the Registrar General
and in view of the assertion of DGP in the form of an affidavit
about the conversation made by the then Chief Justice and
himself, the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Division
3
Bench holding that the DGP has disobeyed the order of the
then Chief Justice to take immediate step for restoration of
functioning of the judiciary in the District cannot be accepted.
30) In a matter of this nature, when the agitation started on
15.12.2006 by way of a Committee comprising persons from
different walks of life including members of the bar, media,
business community, NGOs, elected representatives etc, it is
but proper for the High Court to intervene at the earliest point
of time by sending Administrative/Port-folio Judge or the
Registrar General to the spot. Such recourse was admittedly
not resorted to. Till 05.01.2007, no communication or any
effort was made by the Registrar General to the District
administration, particularly, officers concerned and to the
District Magistrate. Even the District Judge did not make any
request or issued directions for removal of the agitators who
were conducting Satyagrah in a peaceful manner. We have
already pointed out that every day on their request, all the
Judicial Officers returned home to avoid any confrontation
with the members of the bar and the Committee comprising
persons from different walks of life.
3
31) In the earlier part of our order, we have highlighted that
the allegations against all the appellants relate to criminal
contempt. Though the High Court has heard certain officials,
it is the grievance of the appellants that proper procedure was
not followed in all their cases. In other words, "fair procedure"
provided for "criminal contempt" had not been adhered to by
the High Court. It is also their grievance that even no formal
charge was framed. Inasmuch as the matter pertains to
criminal contempt, the issue is to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the District Judge did not file
any affidavit highlighting his stand and steps taken, if any,
even after knowing the claim of the appellants, particularly,
with reference to the various GD entries and their specific
stand. We are also satisfied that that charge against the
criminal contempt has not been made out in the manner
known to law.
32) It is also brought to our notice that all the appellants
filed separate affidavits explaining their stand and tendered
unconditional apology at the earliest point of time.
Considering the nature of the demand which, according to
3
them, the High Court itself has passed a resolution acceding
for the formation of the High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
and other relevant materials, the Division Bench ought to have
accepted the affidavits tendering apology. In fact, the
explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act enables
the court to accept the apology if the same is bona fide and
discharge the accused accordingly. Unfortunately, even such
recourse was not followed by the High Court. In appropriate
case, the acceptability of unconditional apology and regret has
been explained by this Court in O.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. High
Court of Punjab & Haryana, 2011 (5) Scale 518 = (2011) 6
SCC 86. Considering the fact that the members of the bar
who misbehaved with the court by raising slogans and
realizing their mistake, dignity of the court and conduct of the
legal profession tendered unconditional apology first before the
Judge before whom the unfortunate incident had occurred,
before the High Court where suo motu contempt was initiated
and before this Court by filing affidavits. Expressing
unconditional apology and regret with an undertaking that
they would maintain good behaviour in future and if the same
3
is at the earliest point of time and bona fide, the Courts have
to accept the same. In view of the language used in "proviso"
and "explanation" appended to Section 12(1) of the Act, this
Court accepted the affidavits filed by all the appellants in O.P.
Sharma (supra) and discharged all of them from the charges
leveled against them.
33) In Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2011) 7 SCC 776, this Court reiterated the
principles laid down in O.P. Sharma (supra) with regard to
tendering unconditional apology and acceptance of the same.
34) Finally, it is worthwhile to refer to a Full Bench decision
of the Bombay High Court in Mohandas Karamchand
Gandhi and Anr., AIR 1920 Bombay 175. It was an appeal
filed against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Mahadev
Haribhai Desai, who were the Editor and Publisher
respectively of a newspaper called `Young India'. They were
charged with contempt of Court for publishing in that
newspaper, on 6th August, 1919, a letter dated 22nd April, 1919
written by the District Judge of Ahmedabad to the Registrar of
the High Court and also with publishing comments on that
3
letter. The gist of the charge was that the letter in question
was a private official letter forming part of certain proceedings
then pending in this Court and that the comments which both
of them made in their newspaper were comments on that
pending case. Ultimately, this Court, after stating that the
same ought not to have been published, reprimanded them.
Though we are not concerned about the factual details and the
ultimate decision, the following observation relating to power
of the Court in contempt proceedings and how the same to be
applied had been reiterated at page 180 which reads as under:
".........We have large powers and, in appropriate cases, can
commit offenders to prison for such period as we think fit
and can impose fines of such amount as we may judge right.
But just as our powers are large, so ought we, I think, to use
them with discretion and with moderation remembering that
the only object we have in view is to enforce the due
administration of justice for the public benefit."
35) It is not in dispute that all the appellants have filed
separate affidavits tendering unconditional apology at the
earliest point of time before the High Court. We are satisfied
that no case has been made out for criminal contempt against
the appellants and there is nothing wrong in accepting their
unconditional apology and request which was made at the
earliest point of time.
3
36) Keeping the above principles and factual details as
mentioned in earlier paras in mind, we pass the following
order:
In view of the above discussion and abundant materials,
we are satisfied that in this suo motu proceeding, the High
Court has not made out a case to punish all the appellants
under "criminal contempt" in terms of Section 2 (c) read with
Section 12 of the Act. We were informed that the appellant-
Mukulesh Sanyal in Criminal Appeal No. 395 0f 2007 and
appellant-Smt. Pratima Bagchi in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of
2007 have been reported dead. Thus these two appeals filed
by them stand abated. The conviction and sentence on the
other appellants are set aside and all of them are discharged
from the charges leveled against them. All the appeals are
allowed.
..........................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
..........................................J.
NEW DELHI; (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011.
3
