Similar Documents
in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the Alleged Contemner) Vs. in Re : Vinay Chandra Mishra (the Alleged Contemner)
| Content Provider | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| e-ISSN | 30484839 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | NDLI |
| Subject Keyword | Constitution of India-Articles 129 |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Law Judgement |
| Jurisdiction | India |
| Case Type | Contempt Petition |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Disposal Nature | Petition Disposed Off |
| Headnote | Constitution of India-Articles 129-Scope of-Whether Supreme Court can take cognizance of contempt of High Court-Held, power to punish for contempt of all lower courts and Tribunals inherent in supervisory and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-Supreme Court can punish for contempt of High Court notwithstanding Article 215.Constitution of India-Article 129-Jurisdiction under-Sui generis- Contempt of Courts Act 1971 or Advocates Act 1961 cannot restrict jurisdiction of Supreme Court under--Contempt of Courts Act 1971-Advocates Act 1961.Constitution of India-Article 142-Scope of-Cannot be diluted by statutory provisions.Constitution of India-Articles 129 and 142-Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-Whether the Supreme Court can suspend the licence of an advocate-Held, yes-such exercise of power not against the provisions of Advocates Act-Advocates Act, 1961-Section 38.Constitution of India-Article 129 and 142-Jurisdiction and Power of the Supreme Court under Article 142-Supplemental in nature-Independent of jurisdiction and power under Article 129.Constitution of India-Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 19(2), 19(6), 129 and 215- There is no conflict between Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) read with 19(2) and 19(6) on the one hand and Articles 129 and 215 on the other hand.Judiciary-Dignity and authority of-Importance of-Need for protection-Role in a democracy.Contempt of court-Criminal contempt-In sui generis offence-Procedure to be adopted-Summary procedure can be adopted-Safeguards- Charge-Not necessary to frame charge in a specific allegation-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 14.Contempt of court-Criminal contempt-Procedure-The Judge before whom contempt is committed writes letter to the Chief Justice of his High Court-Chief Justice of High Court forwards the letter to Chief Justice of lndia-Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court-Held, procedure is valid though it causes some delay.Natural justice-Nemo judex in sua causa-Not violated in cases of criminal contempt when Judge deals with the contempt himself-Contempt of court-Criminal contempt Natural Justice-Examination of Judge in a Criminal contempt proceeding-Not necessary-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 14.Practice and procedure-Junior member of a Bench may not be barred from putting question to the counsel-Counsel or third party cannot object.Professional Ethics-Duty of a lawyer towards client and court- Desirable conduct of a lawyer.Words and phrases-"Contempt of Court''--Definition under common law.The contemner was a senior advocate of the Allahabad High Court. He was also the Chairman of the Bar Council of India and the President of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.A civil suit was filed by client of the contemner against the U.P. Financial Corporation. By an interim order the trial court restrained the U.P. Financial Corporation from seizing the factory of the client of the contemner and directed the client of the contemner to pay the instalment of the loan which it had taken from the corporation and also to furnish security for the disputed amount. An appeal was filed by the client of the contemner against the order of the trial court contending that the court did not have jurisdiction to pass the order for payment of instalment and that no security could have been ordered.A letter was written by justice S.K. Keshote of Allahabad High Court to the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court stating therein that while arguing the appeal before a division bench of Justice Anshuman Singh and Justice Keshote, the contemner had insulted the Judge. According to Justice Keshote when he asked the contemner to explain under what provision the interim order was passed by the Trial Court, the contemner started shouting and told him that no question could have been put to him at the admission stage. It was further started that the contemner threatened to get the judge transferred and to bring impeachment motion against him. The contemner, as per the letter of the Judge, created a scene in the court and insulted the Judge.The Acting Chief justice forwarded the aforesaid letter of Justice Keshote to the Chief Justice of India and this Court, initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the contemner. In his reply affidavit, the contemner contended that Justice Keshote, even though he was the junior Judge, took charge of the proceedings and asked him as to under what as the impugned order was passed. The contemner's case is that he pointed out that the order was passed under Order 39, CPC, on which the Judge allegedly said that he was going to set aside the entire order as the Lower court was not competent to pass such an order under Order 39, CPC. The contemner further stated that he had approached the Hon'ble High Court only against that part of the order of the Lower Court which directed his client to pay instalments of loan and to furnish security. The contemner alleged that, the Judge lost his temper and directed the stenographer to take down the order setting aside the whole order of the Lower Court. The contemner admitted that the exchange between him and the Judge was a bit heated and that he had told the Judge that "a Judge got himself transferred earlier on account of his inability to command the goodwill of the Bar due to lack of mutual reverence". He, however, alleged that Justice Keshote showed his displeasure at being transferred to the Allahabad High Court against his will. He further alleged that Justice Keshote threatened to take to goondaism. The contemner denied the contents of the letter written of Justice Keshote to the Acting Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court. The contention of the contemner was that he was being punished for the fearless and non-servile stand taken by him as an advocate. Throughout his reply affidavit, the contemner referred to the Judge as the "applicant".Alongwith the reply affidavit, the contemner filed petitions for discharge of the contempt Notice as well as for inquiry into the incidence and initiation of contempt proceedings against the Judge on the ground that the Judge had committed contempt of his own court punishable under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.The contemner also filed a supplementary/additional affidavit challenging the maintanin ability of the contempt proceedings initiated by this court on the ground that the High Court is a court of record having identical and independent power for punishment for contempt of itself and therefore, contempt jurisdiction of this court should be limited to contempt committed in respect of itself. The contemner also requested for the presence of the Judge for cross-examination.This court gave an opportunity to the contemner to file any material in reply or in defence including the affidavits of his witnesses. No affidavits of any defence witness was filed by the contemner. The affidavits of the contemner were forwarded to justice Keshote and bis comments were obtained thereon.Thereafter, the contemner filed an "unconditional written apology" and sought to withdraw his application for initiation of contempt proceedings against Justice Keshote as well as the counter affidavits filed by him.This court during the course of hearing had also indicated that it may suspend the license of the petitioner to practice as a lawyer in case it convicted him for contempt. It was contended on behalf of the contemner and the UP Bar Council that the court could not suspend the licence of the contemner as the said power was vested in the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. |
| Judge | Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant |
| Neutral Citation | 1995 INSC 179 |
| Petitioner | In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the Alleged Contemner) |
| Respondent | In Re : Vinay Chandra Mishra (the Alleged Contemner) |
| SCR | [1995] 2 S.C.R. 638 |
| Judgement Date | 1995-03-10 |
| Case Number | 3 |
