Contempt apology rejected where repeated attacks on Judges showed no real remorse and punishment followed.

Repeated public allegations imputing corruption to Judges and continued hostile publications were treated as serious contempt because they interfered with the administration of justice and undermined public confidence in the judicial process. The apology was rejected as insincere and merely a device to avoid punishment, since the contemner persisted in the offending conduct and defied the earlier undertaking to the Court. The governing principle stated is that an apology in contempt proceedings is acceptable only when it is sincere, bona fide, and shows real remorse; where that standard is not met, punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act may follow.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contemner was guilty of contempt of court for publishing scandalous and defamatory allegations against Judges, and whether the apology tendered was genuine and acceptable.

Analysis: The contemner made repeated public allegations imputing corruption to Judges and continued the campaign even after tendering an apology. The apology was found to be insincere and merely a device to escape punishment, particularly in view of the subsequent publications reiterating the hostile conduct and defying the undertaking earlier given to the Court. Such conduct was held to amount to serious interference with the administration of justice and to undermine public confidence in the judicial process.

Conclusion: The contemner was held guilty of contempt and the apology was rejected; punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: In contempt proceedings, an apology is acceptable only if it is sincere, bona fide, and evidences real remorse; where the contemner persists in the offending conduct, the apology may be rejected and punishment imposed.

---