TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that he gives three days' time to the counsel to take corrective steps, failing which the petitioner shall initiate appropriate action against the counsel before the High Court or before the Bar Council of Delhi. On perusal of the aforementioned notice issued by the petitioner, this Court issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of court proceedings for violation of and obstruction of the Courts of Justice. The petitioner was called upon to file his reply within one week and the matter was adjourned to 16th October, 2006. 2. As the court has taken action on its own motion in the present case, the nature of contempt of which the petitioner was prima facie found guilty, was specifically put to him to enable him to make his submissions and file his reply to show cause in the said context. 3. On 16th October, 2006, the petitioner justified his action of issuing notice to Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate and stated that he had filed his reply to the show cause notice and at the same time claimed that he had already apologized to the Advocate. A perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner makes it apparent that the apology, if ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal misconduct of blatantly making false proposition of law and misleading statements and deliberately misleading the courts and consequently the filing the application before Hon'ble High Court should not amount to obstruction of justice as every citizen has a fundamental right to issue a notice and to file case before court. It is in fact making deliberate false proposition of law by Sh. B.L. Wali should amount to obstruction of justice. There is no law or rule that counsels of high court cannot be served with notice for professional misconduct. Counsels are not above law and are liable for legal proceedings for professional misconduct.... As per Advocates Act and bar council rules an advocate has duty toward court and client and the opponent. Shri B.L. Wali has violated the duty to the opponent petitioner by making false proposition of law and deliberate misleading statements. Hence Shri B.L. Wali has violated bar council rules. Bar council rules clearly says that the advocate should not act mouth piece of the client. Shri B.L. Wali has acted as mouth piece of his client by violating the duty to the opponent petitioner by making false proposition of law and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the issue raised in the writ petition was of legal nature, it may not be possible for him to deal with it or render any assistance to the court in the matter. He was, Therefore, advised to seek legal assistance and in case it was beyond his means to engage a counsel, he was given liberty to approach the Delhi Legal Services Authority and seek free legal services of an Advocate. However, on the next date of hearing, the petitioner submitted that he was not interested in engaging a counsel and wanted to argue his case himself. While perusing the records, we find that apart from the notice dated 28th April, 2006 issued by the petitioner to Mr. B.L. Wali, as referred to hereinabove, even earlier, the petitioner had issued a similar notice dated 17th March, 2005 addressed to Sh. B.L. Wali, Advocate for the respondent as also to two others. In the said notice, annexed as Annexure-C/2 to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), wherein the petitioner has sought initiation of criminal contempt proceedings not only against the respondent but also the counsel for the respondents on the allegations that false and misleading affidavit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r necessary for us to lay down an exhaustive catalogue of such cases which would amount to contempt. However, one of the well recognized principles of jurisprudential vintage is interference with or obstruction to or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice. We have no manner of doubt in our mind that it is the right of every litigant to take before the court every legitimate plea available to him in his defense. If the pleas are found to be patently false, contrary to law, an attempt to mislead the court, irrelevant, immaterial, scandalous or extraneous, the courts are not powerless. The courts have sufficient power not only to reject such false pleadings, but also to have such irrelevant, immaterial, scandalous or extraneous pleas struck out from the record either on an application being made to the court or even on its own. However, any attempt made by a party to pressurize the opposite party or its advocate to withdraw a plea taken in the course of proceedings pending in court, amounts to direct interference with the administration of justice. Such an attempt, in our opinion, also takes in its fold, issuance of notices and filing of applications, etc., containing scur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the due course of justice, and it is quite possible to interfere with the due course of justice by making comments upon an advocate in the way of his profession. Unlike a Judge, an advocate is quite entitled to be engaged in politics as much as he likes, and comment upon an advocates political opinions and activities would in no way be contempt of Court; but comment upon an advocate which has reference to the conduct of his cases may amount to contempt of court on exactly the same principle, that while criticism of a Judge and even of a Judges judgment in Court is permissible, criticism is not permissible if it is made at the time and in such circumstances or is of such a character that it tends to interfere with the due course of justice. 12. In Telhara Cotton Ginning Co.Ltd. (supra), while holding the contemnor guilty of contempt for the reason that the contemnor sent a letter containing threats to the applicant's counsel thus making clear invasion on the counsel's right to represent his client's case loyally and properly and further interfered with the due performance of his duty towards his clients, it was observed that the said action was calculated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontempt could be punished. Para 10: In considering the question the following passage from Oswald on Contempt, Committal and Attachment, page 91, may be relevant: An insult to counsel may be punished as a contempt. All publications which offend against the dignity of the Court, or are calculated to prejudice the course of justice, will constitute contempts. Offences of this nature are of three kinds, namely, those which (1) scandalise the Court, or (2) abuse the parties concerned in causes there, or (3) prejudices mankind against persons before the cause is heard. Under the first head fall libels on the integrity of the Court, its Judges, officers or proceedings; under the second and third heads anything which tends to excite prejudice against the parties, or their litigation, while it is pending. For example, attacks on or abuse of a party, not amounting to an interference with the course of justice, does not amount to contempt, the party being left to his remedy by action. Para 11: This decision relied on by Oswald is-`French v. French' (1824) 1 Hog 138, which appears to be a case of an insult to a counsel while he was attending in the Master&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt of Court.... 15. In Arun Kumar Krishnarao Balpande (supra), it was held as under: 20... In the decision in the case of Mrs. Damayanti G. Chandiramani v. S. Vaney reported in AIR1966Bom19 , the division bench of this Court held that disrespect or disregard to an advocate in certain circumstances so as to deter him from discharging his duties would amount to contempt of Court, and that would amount to a direct interference with the administration of justice. But what we hasten to add, in a given case, when a threat is offered to an advocate which would pressurize him from appearing in a Court of law on behalf of his client, under law, would amount to interference of administration of justice. 16. In Bhola Nath Chaudhary (supra), it was held as under: If aspersions were cast upon an advocate of a party it might be that some of them had an effect intending to deter the advocate from continuing his duties for his client and in certain circumstances in embarrassing him in the discharge of those duties. Therefore comment upon an advocate which had reference to the conduct of his cases might amount to contempt of court on exactly the same principle which was appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the context the link between the two is apparent. The subsequent conduct of the contemner in so far as it relates to the carrying out of the threat would, also be relevant.... 18. In Charan Lal Sahu (supra) while hearing a petition stated to be a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner couched in unsavoury language, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner therein had made intentional attempt to indulge in mudslinging against the advocates, the Court itself and also other constitutional institutions which clearly gave the impression that the petitioner intended to denigrate the Supreme Court in the esteem of the people of India and thus the Court directed drawing up of appropriate proceedings for contempt against the petitioner. 19. Thus, it is crystal clear that casting aspersions and extending threats by issuing notices to the Advocate for the opposite side containing disparaging and derogatory remarks has the effect of deterring an Advocate from conducting his duties towards his client and embarrassing him in the discharge of his duties and thus amounts to contempt of court on the very same principles which are applicable with regard to the criticism of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arguments or by filing appropriate proceedings and the Court would have taken appropriate action, if deemed necessary and proper. However, the Court cannot permit the petitioner to don the mantle of a Judge, level accusations against the counsel for the other side, hold him guilty and threaten him with various consequences during the pendency of the case, as done by the petitioner in the present case. 22. In fact, one of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, namely, Pratap Singh (supra) only reiterates what has been stated hereinabove with regard to obstructing the court and perverting the course of justice amounting to contempt. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court while holding that initiation of departmental proceedings in terms of circular issued by the Government to the effect that it is improper for Government servant to take recourse to court of law before exhausting normal official channels of redress, amounts to contempt of Court, observed below: Para 10: ...There are many ways of obstructing the Court and any conduct by which the course justice is perverted, either by a party or a stranger, is a contempt; thus the use of threats, by letter or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the court that if he thought it proper he may tender an unconditional apology and that he could not add any riders or stipulations to his apology. The petitioner thereafter continued to address us on the contempt and sought to justify his acts. Therefore, the question of dropping the proceedings was ruled out. 25. The conduct of the petitioner shows that the apology tendered by him was only paying a lip service and was a mere device adopted to escape the punishment of his conduct. He is not feeling repentant or remorseful for his conduct. In any case, such an apology which has been tendered by the petitioner in one breath while in other breath, it is coupled with fresh allegations against the counsel for the respondents, cannot be accepted or taken note of. It is beyond any cavil that, an apology by a contemner does not entitle him to an order of discharge and it merely mitigates the offence in certain circumstances and indeed, the court has to consider the matter only from the point of view of administration of justice. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of State v. Bhavani Singh reported as AIR1968Delhi208a observed as below: ...In order to be a mitigating fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....court can refuse to accept an apology if it is not believed to be genuine and even if it is accepted, it can commit the offender to prison or otherwise punish him. 30. In a recent judgment delivered by a Division bench of this Court on 19th October, 2006, in the case, Court on its own motion v. Mr. Gulshan Bajwa (Crl. Cont. Case Nos. 16 and 17/2006) in relation to the law of tendering and accepting an apology, it has been observed as below: It is a settled principle of law that an apology besides being expressed in words literally should be bona fide and a real repentance of the offending acts. Normally, offer of an apology should be right at the initial stages besides being bona fide and upon complete realisation of the mistakes done, should also be unequivocal declaration of genuine concern for due course of administration of justice and upholding of the dignity. If any of these ingredients are missing, the apology may not be accepted by the Court as it lacks real intent of bona fide. 31. To the same effect are the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jaikwal v. State of UP reported as 1984CriLJ993 and M.V. Shareef and Ors. v. the Hon'ble Judges of th....