NDLI: Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Through Registrar

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	constitution of India
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 129 and 215-Contempt Jurisdiction-Power of Supreme Court/High Court to punish for Contempt of itself- Whether could be curtailed or abridged by ordinary legislation or Rules-Procedure for contempt proceedings being summary, power to be used sparingly- Procedure to be fair and contemner to be given an opportunity of defending himself. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 2 (b), 17 and 20--Criminal Contempt- Advocate, practising at High Court making libellous allegations against sitting High Court Judge-Whether amounts to interference with administration of justice and affects the image, dignity and high esteem of office of judge of High Court-Sentence of two months simple imprisonment awarded by High Court-Whether justified. The appellant, an Advocate practising in the High Court was earlier working in the Defence Accounts Department, on re-employment, after retiring from the Army. He had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, claiming certain benefits like pension, gratuity, pay and allowances etc., pertaining to the service rendered by him in the Defence Accounts Department and the Army. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. It also dismissed the appellant's review application. This Court also dismissed his Special Leave Petition against the High Court's order. Thereafter, the appellant, moved a Contempt Petition under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 making some serious allegations against the two Judges of the High Court, who dismissed his Writ Petition and also the Review Petition. A Division Bench of the High Court summarily dismissed the contempt petition.Meanwhile, the Registry of the High Court examined the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the appellant under Rule 5 of the Roles regarding contempts framed by the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court, before which the matter was placed on the order of the Chief Justice, took cognizance of the criminal contempt and directed issue of notice to the appellant directing him to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of Court. The appellant filed his reply raising certain preliminary objections, contending that the notice was bad for the reasons that (1) the Section of the Act under which cognizance had been taken was not specifically mentioned; (2) the notice did not show sufficient cause as to why the words and expressions used in the offending portions marked had been construed as contemptuous (3) the procedure followed by the High Court was contrary to the rules framed by it; and (4) no consent of the Advocate General had been obtained,· and prayed for discharge of the rule of contempt. Meanwhile, on the basis of the High Court's Order, the appellant inspected the Court records relating to this matter, and thereafter, he was also informed that the proceedings were under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. After examining the remarks made by the appellant in his contempt petition the High Court rejected the objections of the appellant/contemner and held that the contemner was guilty of criminal contempt of not only scandalising the Court and lowering its anthority but also substantially interfering with the due course of justice. Taking note of the defiant attitude of the contemner who even did not think it necessary to apologise but tried to justify the aspersions; the High Court sentenced the contemner to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. In the appeal before this Court, the contemner who appeared before the Court in person, contended that the order of the High Court should be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularities in that (1) that the offending remarks had not been communicated to him as per Rules 5 and 9 framed by the High Court; (2) that the cognizance of the criminal contempt had not been taken in conformity with Section 15 of the Act; (3) that the procedure, after cognizance as prescribed under Section 17 of the Act had not been followed; and (4) that Article 215 of the Constitution of India did not prescribe any procedure to be followed. He also contended that he had not been given a fair and full hearing and that the Judges had browbeaten and unjustly convicted him ignoring the well settled principle that every person had an inalienable right of making fair criticism, and that the order in question was pre-conceived and pre-judged one. In his written statement also he made certain remarks about the Judges of the High Court, in attempting to justify his action which had led to the initiation of proceedings for contempt of Court before the High Court.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian
Neutral Citation	1992 INSC 54
Petitioner	Pritam Pal
Respondent	High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Through Registrar
SCR	[1992] 1 S.C.R. 864
Judgement Date	1992-02-19
Case Number	258

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Through Registrar

Please Log-in to view this content

Mahinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Through Registrar General &ors

S. L. Goswami Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur

Dadan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Sho, Ps Satna (m.p.)

Registrar of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. B. A. Nigam and Others

Arun Kshetrapal Vs. Registrar, High Court, Jabalpur & Anr.

A.c. Thalwal Vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur

Nawal Kishore Mishra & Ors. Etc. Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad Through Its Registrar General & Ors. Etc.

Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Om Prakash Dubey

Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Through Registrar

Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Through Registrar

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Mahinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Through Registrar General &ors

S. L. Goswami Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur

Dadan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Sho, Ps Satna (m.p.)

Registrar of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. B. A. Nigam and Others

Arun Kshetrapal Vs. Registrar, High Court, Jabalpur & Anr.

A.c. Thalwal Vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur

Nawal Kishore Mishra & Ors. Etc. Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad Through Its Registrar General & Ors. Etc.

Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Om Prakash Dubey

Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Through Registrar