NDLI: Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of U.p.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Contempt of Courts Act 1971
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:s.15 - Contempt by advocate - Appellant-advocate abused the Judge/Presiding Officer in most filthy words when the Presiding Officer alleged the involvement of appellant in the impersonification of the person who came to surrender before the Presiding Officer - Conviction of appellant for contempt of court - On appeal, held: The case· of impersonification of a person to be. surrendered is serious- If any issue was raised in this regard by the court, it was the · duty of the appellant to satisfy .the court and establish· the identity of the person concerned - The conduct of the appellant in abusing the Presiding Officer was in complete violation and in contravention of the "standard of professional conduct and etiquette" laid in Section 1 of Chapter 2 (Part- VI) of the Bar Council of India Rules - Courts cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders - Appellant intimidated the presiding officer by hurling filthiest abuses and lowered. the authority of the Court, which tantamounted to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings - The charge stood proved against the appellant - In such a fact-situation the apology tendered by him, being not bona fide, is not acceptable - Bar Council of India Rules, Chapter 2 (Part-VI), s.1.Contempt - Nature of - Held: It is the seriousness of the irresponsible acts of the contemnor and degree of harm caused to the administration of justice, which decisively determine whether the matter should be tried as a criminal contempt or not - The court has to examine whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the public - The act will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court's administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties - Administration of justice.Apology tendered by contemnor - Acceptance of - Held: Can be accepted in case the conduct for which the apology is given is such that it can be "ignored without compromising the dignity of the court", or it is intended to be the evidence of real contrition - Apology for criminal contempt of court must be offered at the earliest since a belated apology hardly I shows the "contrition which is the essence of the purging of a contempt" - However, even if the apology is not belated but finds it to be without real contrition and remorse, and finds that it was merely tendered as a weapon of defence, the Court may refuse to accept it - Apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course and the Court is not bolind to accept the same and can impose the punishment recording reasons for the same - In the instant case, it was not the case of the appellant that he was not given full opportunity to defend himself or lead evidence in support of his case - The so- called apology tendered by the appellant contained ifs and buts - Apology was not tendered at the earliest opportunity, rather tendered belatedly just to escape the punishment for the grossest criminal contempt committed by him - There was no repent or remorse on the part of the appellant at an initial stage - Such attitude has a direct impact on the court's independence, dignity and decorum - lh order to protect the administration of public justice, action has to be taken against the appellant as his conduct and utterances cannot be ignored or pardoned - Thus, the apology tendered by the appellant had neither been sincere nor bona fide and thus, not worth acceptance. •Administration of justice: Where a person is really aggrieved of misbehaviour/conduct or bias of a judicial officer, he definitely has a right to raise his grievance, but it should be before the appropriate forum and by resorting to the procedure prescribed for it - Under no circumstances, such a person can be permitted to become the law unto himself and proceed in a manner he wishes, for the reason that it would render the very existence of the system of administration of justice at stake.Jurisdiction: Contempt jurisdiction - Scope and purpose - Held: Contempt jurisdiction is to uphold majesty and dignity of the law courts - The superior courts have a duty to protect the reputation of judicial officers of subordinate courts, taking note of the growing tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by unscrupulous practising advocates who either fail to secure desired orders or do not succeed in browbeating for achieving ulterior purpose -Such an issue touches upon the independence of not only the judicial officers but brings the question of protecting the reputation of the Institution as a whole - The dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial officers and humiliating them requires to be curbed with heavy hands, otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse - The Bench and the Bar have to avoid unwarranted situations that hamper the cause of Justice and are in the interest of none. Words and phrases: Apology - Meaning of.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 416
Petitioner	Vishram Singh Raghubanshi
Respondent	State Of U.p.
SCR	[2011] 8 S.C.R. 105
Judgement Date	2011-06-15
Case Number	697

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

Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of U.p.

Please Log-in to view this content

L.d. Jaikwal Vs. State of U.p.

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.p.

Bal Kishan Giri Vs. State of U.p.

Daroga Singh and Ors Vs. B.k. Pandey

D.n. Taneja Vs. Bhajan Lal

The Commissioner, Agra and Ors. Vs. Rohtas Singh and Ors.

Arun Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.p. Thru Dist. Judge

T.deen Dayal Vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh

State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and Anr.

Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of U.p.

Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of U.p.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

L.d. Jaikwal Vs. State of U.p.

Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.p.

Bal Kishan Giri Vs. State of U.p.

Daroga Singh and Ors Vs. B.k. Pandey

D.n. Taneja Vs. Bhajan Lal

The Commissioner, Agra and Ors. Vs. Rohtas Singh and Ors.

Arun Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.p. Thru Dist. Judge

T.deen Dayal Vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh

State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and Anr.

Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of U.p.