Supreme Court of India
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRAversusTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTIA
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 692
- Decided
- 16 September 2011
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
The appellants were not guilty of criminal contempt as the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court erred in its procedural approach.
Summary
A local committee staged a satyagraha outside the Jalpaiguri District Court, preventing judges from entering the premises. The Calcutta High Court issued suo motu contempt rules against 16 agitators and several officials, finding them guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentencing them to six months' imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the police were present, the judges voluntarily refrained from entering, and no direction was issued by the Chief Justice to remove the agitators, thereby negating any wrongful restraint. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of criminal contempt beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court erred by not accepting the appellants' unconditional apologies and by not following proper contempt procedure. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants discharged.
Issues considered
- The actions of the officials constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Whether the High Court complied with the procedural requirements for contempt proceedings, including framing of charge and acceptance of unconditional apology.
- Whether the judges' voluntary abstention from entering the court amounts to obstruction of justice.
- Whether the officials' non‑action amounts to aiding and abetting contempt.
- The standard of proof required in criminal contempt proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 19, s. 2(c)
Subjects
contempt of courtcriminal contemptContempt of Courts Actprocedural fairnessunconditional apologysuo motu contemptstandard of proofjudicial obstruction
Judgment
[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 703
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA A
v.
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT CALCUTIA
(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2007)
B
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(c) rlw s. 12 - Criminal
contempt - Committee constiti.Jted by some local persons C
active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri - The
Committee passed resolution for formation of a High Court
Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri - Members of the Committee put
their resolution into action by starting agitation outside the
main gate of the District Court premises - Issuance of Suo D
Motu Rules of Contempt, one, against the 16 persons actively
associated with the aforesaid Committee to show cause as,to
why they were creating impediments in functioning of the
judiciary in the District Court by obstructing Judicial Officers
from entering into the Court premises and the other upon the E
Director General of Police, Government of West Bengal, the
District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of Police,
Jalpaiguri and the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station,
Jalpaiguri to show cause as to why they remained siient
spectators in spite of repeated directions - Appellants! F
contemnors filed affidavits - High Court found the appellants!
contemnors guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced them
to undergo simple imprisonment for six months - Justification
- Held: In the facts and materials placed and demonstrated,
the conclusion of the High Court that the appellants, more G
particularly, government officials were responsible for "aiding
and abetting the agitators by non-action" cannot be accepted
- No acceptable material to hold that the officials committed
criminal contempt of the Judges in the District of Jalpaiguri
' 703 H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL) S.C.R.
A by deliberately taking no action against the agitators resulting
in interference with the due administration of justice - In the
absence of any order either on the judicial side by the Chief
Justice of the High Court or any communication and direction
through the Registrar General and in view of the assertion of
s appellant-DGP in the form of an affidavit about the
conversation made by the then Chief Justice and himself, the
contrary conclusion arrived at by the High Court holding that
the appellant-DGP disobeyed the order of the Chief Justice
to take immediate step for restoration of functioning of the
c judiciary in the District cannot be accepted - There was no
wrongful restraint on the Judges and Judicial Officers of the
District Court as is evident from the GD entries wherein it was
recorded that the Judges and Judicial Officers had acceded
to the request of the agitators and restrained themselves from
entering the court premises though police force was present
0
at the spot to facilitate their entry as and when directed -
lna,.smuch as the matter pertains to criminal contempt, the
issue is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt- In the instant
case, it is clear that charge against the criminal contempt was
not made out in the manner known to law - No case was made
E out to punish the appellants under "criminal contempt" in
terms of s.2(c) r/w s. 12 of the Act- Also, all the appel/ants
had filed separate affidavits explaining their stand and
tendered unconditional apology at the earliest point of time
- The High Court ought to have accepted the affidavits
F tendering apology - Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts
Rules, 1975.
A Committee was constituted by some local persons,
who were active hr'):lublic life, along with lawyers at
G Jalpaiguri. The. Committee passed a resolution for the
formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and
in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah
in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members
of the Committee put their resolution into action on
H 15.12.2006 and started agitation outside the main gate of
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 705
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
the District Court premises and put up a rostrum there A
on which a number of persons started sitting in
Satyagrah.
The Acting Chief Justice of the High Court sitting in
a Bench issued two Suo Motu Rules of Contempt, one,
8
against the 16 persons actively associated with the
aforesaid Committee to show cause as to why they are
creating impediments in functioning of the judiciary in the
District Court by obstructing Judicial Officers from
entering into the Court premises and the other upon the
Director General of Police, Government of West Bengal, C
the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of
Police, Jalpaiguri and the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali
Police Station, Jalpaiguri to show cause as to why they
remained silent spectators in spite of repeated directions.
In response to the Rules, the appellants/contemnors filed D
their affidavits before the High Court.
The High Court found all the appellants guilty of
criminal contempt and sentenced them to undergo
simple imprisonment for a term of six months. Hence the E
present appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1. In the facts and materials placeq and .. F
demonstrated, the conclusion of the High Court that the
appellants, more particularly, government officials were
responsible for "aiding and abetting the agitators by non-
action" cannot be accepted.· [Para 22) [729-E-F]
1.2. It is clear from the materials placed that the G
police force was present at the gate of the District Court
on all days except Sundays and holidays to supervise
law and order situation and to assist the Judges and
Judicial Officers, and that the District Judge and the
Judicial Officers never asked for any police help for their H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A entry into the court premises on all days starting from
15.12.2006 ending with 15.01.2007 and all of them
acceded to the humble request made by the agitators
and returned home. There was no wrongful restraint on
the Judges and Judicial Officers of the District Court as
B is evident from the GD entries wherein it was recorded
that the Judges and Judicial Officers had acceded to the
request of the agitators and restrained themselves from
entering the court premises though police force was
present at the spot to facilitate their entry as and when
c directed. [Paras 23, 26] [729-G-H; 730-A-G-H]
1.3. Though the High Court recorded a finding in the
impugned judgment that because of the obstruction, the
administration of justice in the District Court, Jalpaiguri
was obstructed for a month in spite of specific request
D of District Judge, it was brought to the notice of this Court
that the District Judge for the first time on 10.01.2007 had
communicated to the District Magistrate with a request to
make endeavour to resolve the crisis and even in that
communication there was no mention of using police
E force to remove the agitators by force. It is also evident
that Judges of the District Court wanted a peaceful
solution and without use of force although in the fax
messages sent by the District Magistrate to the Registrar
General, it was complained that the Judges in the District
F Court were not allowed to enter into the court premises.
[Para 27] [731-A-C]
1.4. There is no acceptable material to hold that the
officials committed criminal contempt of the Judges in the
District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately taking no action
G against the agitators resulting in interferenc~ with the
due administration of justice. On analysis of the entire
materials including their statements, affidavits, GD
entries, fax messages, correspondence between District
Judge and Registrar General and District Magistrate, it
H cannot be concluded that the officials deliberately
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 707
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTIA
abstained from taking any action against the agitators. A
[Para 28] [731-D-E]
1.5. In the absence of any order either on the judicial
side by the then Chief Justice or any communication and
direction through the Registrar General and in view of the 8
assertion of appellant-DGP in the form of an affidavit
about the conversation made by the then Chief Justice
and himself, the contrary conclusion arrived at by the
High Court holding that the appellant-DGP has disobeyed
the order of the then Chief Justice to take immediate step C
for restoration of functioning of the judiciary in the District
cannot be accepted. [Para 29] [731-F-G]
1.6. In a matter of this nature, when the agitation
started on 15.12.2006 by way of a Committee comprising
persons from different walks of life including members of D
the bar, media, business community, NGOs, elected
representatives etc, it is but proper for the High Court to
intervene at the earliest point of time by sending
Administrative/Port-folio Judge or the Registrar General
to the spot. Such recourse was admittedly not resorted E
to. Till 05.01.2007, no communication or any effort was
made by the Registrar General to the District
administration, particularly, officers concerned and to the
District Magistrate. Even the District Judge did not make
any request or issued directions for removal of the F
agitators who were conducting Satyagrah in a peaceful
manner. Every day on their request, all the Judicial
Officers returned home to avoid any confrontation with
the members of the bar and the Committee comprising
persons from different walks of life. [Para 30] [731-H; 732- G
A-D]
1.7. Inasmuch as the matter pertains to criminal
contempt, the issue is to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. In the instant case, it is clear that charge against
the criminal contempt was not made out in the manner H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A known to law. No case was made out to punish all the
appellants under "criminal contempt" in terms of Section
2 (c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971. [Paras 31, 36] [732-E-G; 734-H; 735-A]
Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi llamvazhuthi & Anr. (2011) 5
8
sec 496 - relied on.
2. Also, all the appellants had filed separate affidavits
explaining their stand and tendered unconditional
apology at the earliest point of time. Considering the
C nature of the demand which, according to them, the High
Court itself has passed a resolution acceding for the
formation of the High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
and other relevant materials, the High Court ought to have
accepted the affidavits tendering apology. In fact, the
o explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act
enables the court to accept the apology if the same is
bona fide and discharge the accused accordingly. Even
such recourse was not followed by the High Court.
Expressing unconditional apology and regret with an
E undertaking that they would maintain good behaviour in
future and if the same is at the earliest point of time and
bona fide, the Courts have to accept the same. In the
instant case, there was nothing wrong in accepting the
unconditional apology and request of the appellants
F which was made at the earliest point of time. [Paras 32,
35] [732-H; 733-A-D; 734-F]
O.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana
(2011) 6 SCC 86 and Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 776 - relied on.
G
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Anr. AIR 1920
Bombay 175 - referred to.
Case Law Referemce:
H (2011) 5 sec 496 relied on Para 6
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 709
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTIA
(2011) 6 sec 86 relied on Paras 32, 33 A
(2011) 1 sec 776 relied on Para 33
AIR 1920 Bombay 175 referred to Para 33
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal B
No. 339 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.3.2007 of High Court
of Judicature at Calcutta in Crl. C.P. No. 1 of 2007 and CRR
No. 187 of 2007.
c
WITH
Crl. A. Nos. 340, 345, 346, 358, 362, 388, 390, 391, 392,
393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399 and 400 of 2007.
Mukul Rohtagi, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, R. Venkataramani, D
Pradip Kr. Ghosh. Jaideep Gupta, Abijit Sen Gupta, B.P.
Yadav, Abhijit Bhattacharya, P.C. Sen, Aanchal Yadav, Binu
Tamta, Joydeep Mazumdar, Rohit Dutta, Alto K. Joseph, Ranjan
Kumar, Chiraranjan, Addey, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam
Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Raja Chatterjee, Sachin Das, G.S. E
Chatterjee for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. These appeals, under Section 19
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as F
"the Act"), are filed against the common judgment and order
dated 02.03.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Suo Mato Contempt Motion
being Crl.C.P.No.1 of 2007 with C.R.R. No. 187 of 2007
whereby the High Court found all the appellants guilty of criminal G
contempt and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment
for a term of six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and, in
default of payment of fine within a period of one month, to further
undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 2. Brief facts:
(a) A Committee was constituted by some local persons,
who were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri
named "Circuit Bench 'O' Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay
B Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri" (hereinafter referred to as
"the Committee"). The Committee had passed a resolution for
the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and
in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in front
of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members of the
Committee put their resolution into action on 15.12.2006 and
C started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court
premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of
persons started sitting in Satyagrah. They prevented the
Judicial Officers including the District Judge, Jalpaiguri to enter
into the Court premises from that day. In order to overcome the
D said situation, the District Judge drew attention of such fact to
the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali rolice Station, Jalpaiguri for
extending police help, but no action was taken. Subsequently,
the District Judge brought the m.: •ter to the notice of the
Registrar General of the High Cou1 i of Calcutta for taking
E necessary steps.
(b) After taking note of the situation, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
V. S. Sirpurkar, the then Chief Justice of the High Court,
instructed the District Judge through the Registrar General to
F seek necessary help and protection from the Superintendent
of Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate steps so that the Judicial
Officers could enter the Court premises and attend the judicial
work. The District Judge conveyed the said decision of the High
Court to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri but failed to
get any response from him. Subsequently, he approached the
G District Magistrate but no action was taken from his end also.
Failing to get any response either from the Superintendent of
Police or the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the District Judge
sent a note to the then Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court
H who gave direction over phone to the Director General of Police
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 711
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
to take effective steps without any further delay. The Director A
General of Police gave assurance that he would take up !he
matter with the Home Secretary, Government.of West Bengal
and also suggested the Registrar General to inform the District
Judge to write to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri to take steps
for ensuring proper functioning of the Court with a copy to the B
Superintendent of Pol.i9e, Jalpaiguri. On 12.01.2007, the
District Judge again wrote to the District Magistrate. In spite
of that, no effective development had taken place and the
Judicial Officers and the District Judge were unable to enter
the court building. c
(c) In view of the above situation, the District Judge sent a
Fax message to the Registrar General of the High Court
requesting him to take appropriate instructions and directions.
On the basis of the said information, on 15.01.2007, the then
Acting Chief Justice of the High Court sitting in a Bench issued D
two Suo Motu Rules of Contempt, one, against the 16 persons
actively associated with the aforesaid Committee to show cause
as to why they are creating impediments in functioning of ttie
judiciary in the District Court by obstructing Judicial Officers
from entering 'into the Court premises and the other upon the e
Director General of Police, Government of West Bengal, the
District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of Police,
Jalpaiguri and the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station,
Jalpaiguri to show cause as to why they remained silent
spectators in spite of repeated directions. F
(d) On the same day, the Committee withdrew the
Satyagrah and removed the rostrum and cleared the entry gate.
In response to the Rules, the appellants herein filed their
affidavits before the High Court After examining the appellants G
herein, the High Court, by impugned judgment dated
02.03.2007, imposed simple imprisonment for a term of six
months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment
of fine within a period of one month, to further undergo
imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the order of the
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A High Court. the appellants/contemnors have filed these appeals
under Section 19 of the Act.
3. Heard M/s Mukul Rohtagi, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, R.
Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, P.C. Sen, Tara Chandra
B Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pradip Kr.
Ghosh and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the
respondent-High Court.
4. Since we are going to dispose of all the 18 appeals by
this judgment, the following details pertaining to these appeals
C are relevant:
s. Name Age Profession Case
No. Number
(Crl.Appeal)
1. Sri Mukulesh Sanyal 84 Editor of a No. 395/2007
D (Dead) local weekly
2. Sri Chitta Dey 84 Trade Unionist No. 390/2007
3. Sri Benoy Kanta 83 Advocate No. 394/2007
Bhowmic
4. Sri Samarendra 78 Business No. 396/2007
E Prosad Biswas
5. Smt. Pratima Bagchi 74 Teacher (Reid.) No. 399/2007
(Dead)
6. Sri Jiten Das 73 Ex.M.P. (Retd. No. 362/2007
Professor)
7. Sri Sadhan B0se 73 Business No. 398/2007
F 8. Sri Amal Roy 64 Political Worke No. 39212007
9. Sri Debaprasad Roy 63 M.L.A. No. 358/2007
10. Sri Anup Bhushan 63 DGP, W.B. No. 339/2007
Vohra (D.G.) (Retd.)
11. Sri Prasanta Chandra 58 Dy. S.P .. No. 346/2007
G (Inspector-in-Charge) Murshidabad
12. Sri Subha!; Kumar 57 Teacher No. 393/2007
. Dutta
13. Sri Rabindra Narayan 57 Business No. 400/2007
Chowdhury
14. Sri Somnath Pal 46 Business No. 388/2007
H
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 713
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTIA [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
15. Sri Sanjoy 44 Secretary of No. 39712007 A
Chakraborty an NGO
16. Sri Prabal Raha 40 Social worker No. 391/2007
17. Sri Tripurari (S.P.) 39 D.C. Central No. 34512007
18. Sri R. Ranjit 38 D.M., Jalpaiguri, No. 340/2007
W.B. B
5. Since all the appellants were proceeded .for criminal
contempt under the Act, it is useful to refer the relevant
provisions applicable for disposal of these appeals. Section 2
(c) of the Act defines "criminal contempt" which reads as under:
"2.(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether
c
by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends D
to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the
due course of any judicial proceeding; or
E
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or
tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other
manner;"
Section 12 of the Act provides punishment for contempt
of court. The procedure to be followed has been dealt with in F
the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975. It is
settled law that the law of contempt must be strictly interpreted
and complied with before any person can be committed for
contempt.
G
6. In Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi llamvazhuthi & Anr., AIR
2011 SC 1645 = (2011) 5 SCC 496, this Court, while
considering the criminal contempt held that the court should be
satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge
and further held that the punishment cannot be imposed on
H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A mere probabilities and the court can not punish the alleged
contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and
surmises. How the criminal contempt has to be proceeded with
has been explained in para 9, which reads as follows:
"9. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in
B nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as
required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed
as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and
proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the
alleged contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law
C does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt
proceedings on mere probabilities, equally, the court
cannot punish the alleged contemnor without any
foundation merely on conjectures and surmises. As
observed above, the contempt proceeding being quasi-
D criminal in nature require strict adherence to the procedure
prescribed under the rules applicable in such
proceedings."
In para 23, it was further held that any deviation from'the
prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned lightly
E and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings taken to
initiate action for contempt.
7. With this background, et us analyse whether the
appellants have committed criminCll contempt in terms of
Section 2(c) of the Act and whether the High Court is justified
F in imposing simple imprisonment for a term of six months with
a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and, in default, to further undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
8. The impugned order of the Division Bench shows that
G these appellants were punished for criminal contempt not only
on the ground that they prevented the Judicial Officers including
the District Judge and other staff members from entering into
the District Court at Jalpaiguri, but also on the ground of alleged
serious lapses/inaction on their part. It is useful to refer the
findings recorded by the Division Bench regarding the role and
H
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 715
COURT OF.JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
part played by the appellants which are as under:- A
"We, therefore, unhesitantly come to the conclusion
that the Director-General of the Police, the District
Magistrate of the District, the District Superintendent of the
Police and the Inspector-in-charge of the local Police 8
Station have committed not only the Criminal Contempt of
the Judges Court in the District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately
taking no action against the agitators resulting in
interference with due Administration of Justice in the said
District and at the same time the Director-General of Police C
has in addition to that also committed further contempt of
this Court by disobeying the order of the then Chief Justice
to take immediate step for restoration of the function of
Judiciary in the said District.
We disbelieve the statements of the three Officers D
of the District Administration that the learned District
Judge never sought for Pol.ice assistance and on the other
hand, supported the agitators. In his affidavit, the District
Magistrate was constrained to admit that at least on
January 10, 2007 the learned District Judge-in-Charge in E
writing asked for his assistance but in spite of such fact,
he did not find any time to take appropriate step till
January 15, 2007, the day on which we issue'd the Rules
and directed the Chief Secretary to take appropriate step
for restoration of the functions of Judiciary in the District. F
Moreover, the fact that a G.D. was lodged complaining
obstruction to the entry of the employees of the Court was
sufficient for taking action to see the Judiciary could
function in the District in accordance with the Constitution
of India and further request for Police help at the instance G
of the learned District Judge was unnecessary. The
justification sought to be given that the agitation was
peaceful was insignificant in the fact of the present case
in view of the fact that the question of "breach of peace"
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORJS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A arises if there is a resistance at the instance of an
opposition group. The Judges are not expected to wrestle
with those agitators by taking the law in their own hands
of the purpose of entering the Court premises. They
complied with the law of the land by drawing attention of
B the local Police by lodging a G.D. through an employee of
the Court and at the same time, it has been well established
from the materials on record that the local administration
was quite alive to the situation that due to the purported
"Satyagraha" by staging agitation and raising a rostrum at
c the main entrance gate of the Court premises, there was
interference with due Administration of Justice and in such
circumstances, it was the duty of the local administration
to take step of their own once they found commission of a
cognizable offence."
D 9. As stated in the earlier paras, a Committee constituted
of some local persons, who were active in public life, along with
the lawyers at Jalpaiguri, had· passed certain resolutions to
stage Satyagrah for the formation of High Court Circuit Bench
in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. As a follow-up action,
E the Members of the Committee put their resolution into action
on 15.12.2006 outside one of the two gates of the District Court
premises that is the main gate and put up a rostrum there on
which a number of persons started sitting in Satyagrah.
F 10. It is the stand of the police that on being aware of the
said resolution of the Committee, on 15.12.2006, a police
picket consisting of three officers and four constables was
deployed under Sub-inspector Dilip Kumar Sen at the place of
Satyagrah to watch and monitor the law and order situation. It
G was pointed out that the Sub-inspector Dilip Kumar Sen noted
the above details in the General Diary (GD) of Kotwali P.S.,
under GDE No. 899 dated 15.12.2006 recording that the
Judicial Officers and the staff of the District Court had arrived
at the court premises, but they were persuaded by the
members of the Committee not to enter into the Court. The
H officer has also recorded that the Judicial Officers did not ask
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 717
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the police for help to enter into the court. Mr. Rohtagi, learned A
senior counsel appearing for the appellant- Anup Bhushan
Vohra, former Director General of Police in Criminal Appeal
No. 339 of 2007 has brought to our notice a true extract of GD
entry made on 15.12.2006 under GOE No. 899 which reads
as under:- B
"It is important to add here that each of the Judges and
Magistrates (total of 11) of the said District Court are
provided with one armed policemen and two other security
guards as normal security to enable them to fulfill the duties C
of their office: i.e. the Judges and Magistrates of the
District Court always had 27 security guards including 9
armed guards."
The further information relates to GD entry made on 19.12.2006
under GOE No. 1152, in which the S.I. detailed for duty at the D
District Court recorded that with force he was present at the
main gate of the court premises and at 1050 hrs. when some
of the Judicial Officers had arrived at the main gate of the
District Court, they were requested "with folded hands" by the
agitating Members of the Committee not to enter into the court. E
The Judicial Officers, thereafter, returned back. The S.I. and his
force were standing at the spot, but there was no order/request
by the Judicial Officers for help to enter into the court. It is also
pointed out that in all those days, there was no pushing or
cajoling, no threatening gestures made, no law and order F
problem and no circumstance was created for the police to
interfere using force.
11. Apart from the GD entries made in those dates, similar
effect GD entries were made at the local police station by the
concerned police officials who were detailed with force for duty G
at the District Court on 22.12.2006, 26.12.2006, 27.12.2006,
31.12.2006, 02.01.2007 and 05.01.2007 under GOE Nos.
1338, 1620, 1690, 1916, 91 and 275 respectively. All those GD
entries are placed before us in the form of annexures. By
pointing out these details, learned senior counsel appearing for H
.
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the appellants pointed out that there was no intimation by the
High Court tiU 05.01.2007. They also highlighted that at no point
of time, there was any law and order problem and there was
no coercion exercised by any of those conducting Satyagrah.
On every single day from 15.12.2006 to 05.01.2007, whenever
B Judicial Officers of the District Court, Jalpaiguri attempted to
enter into the Court premises, they were requested by the
persons sitting in Satyagrah not to enter the court premises and
thereupon the Judges and the officials and the staff voluntarily
complied with and went back.
c 12. From the materials placed on record, it is seen that
only on 05.01.2007, the Registrar General of the Calcutta High
Court, for the first time, spoke over phone to Shri Anup Bhushan
Vohra, DGP to enquire whether he knew about the problem
which was "deteriorating" as no work was taking place in the
D Court at Jalpaiguri. In the affidavit filed by Mr. Vohra, it is stated
that the Registrar General then handed over the phone to the
then Chief Justice of the High Court - Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S.
Sirpurkar, who directed him to "keep the situation under watch".
The affidavit further shows that the appellant Vohra assured the
E then Hon'ble Chief Justice that he would speak to the
Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and the Home Secretary
of the State. According to him, as assured to the then Chief
Justice, he informed both the officers. He also mentioned that
this was not done in writing, but orally over phone to Mr. Prasad
F Ray, Home Secretary and Mr. Tripurari, Superintendent of
Police, Jalpaiguri. The assertion of the DGP in the form of an
affidavit shows that there was no order by the then Hon'ble
Chief Justice either on the administrative side or on the judicial
side but only over phone he was asked to watch the situation
G and, in turn, he also assured him as well as intimated the same
to the Home Secretary and Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri.
In those circumstances and in view of the the materials placed
by the DGP, the conclusion of the Division Bench that there was
an "order" by the then Chief Justice is factually incorrect.
H
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 719
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTIA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
13. It is brought to our notice that for the first time, that is, A
. on 09.01.2007, the District Judge communicated to the
Registrar General of the High Court regarding cessation of work
by the Members of the Local Bar Association, Jalpaiguri and
the Committee for Circuit Bench of the High Court at Calcutta.
The contents of the said letter are also relevant, which reads B
as under:
"To
The ~gistrar General,
High Court, Appellate Side,
Calcutta. c
Dated : the 9th January, 2007.
Sub: Cease work by the members of the Local Bar
A$sociation, Jalpaiguri and Samannyay Committee for D
Circuit Bench of the Hon'ble Court at Calcutta.
Sir,
With due respect, I am to inform that today i.e., on
9.1.07 I, along with all Judicial Officers, had been to the E
Court but at the entrance gate of the Court premises we
were obstructed to enter into the premises.
I held discussion with the agitating members and
insisted that we should be allowed to enter into the
ptemises for smooth functioning of the judicial F
administration but it was impressed by the agitating
members of the Samannyay Committee, mainly, along with
member of local bar that when the door for discussion is
open we should communicate the Hon'ble Court that the
impasse can only be resolved by discussion from and on G
behalf of the Hon'ble Court. The agitating members did not
agree to my proposal to allow us to enter into the premises
The recent resolution, enclosed herewith, will show
that they have taken up different agitation programs till H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 15.1.07 copy of which is enclosed herewith. When
persuasion failed, we have come to the chamber and office
of the District Judge at his bungalow where all the
members of the office staff have also came.
This is for your information and we are soliciting
B
necessary instruction from your honour's end.
Yours faithfully,
(S. Bhattacharjee)
c Add District Judge, 1st Court and District Judge-in-
Charge, Jalpaiguri.
Memo No. 17/G Dated: 9.1.07.
Copy forwarded to the Superintendent of Police,
D Jalpaiguri, for information and necessary action.
Sd/-(S. Bhattacharjee)
Add District Judge, 1st Court and District Judge-in-
Charge, Jalpaiguri."
E
It was highlighted that no immediate response was
received by the District Judge from the Registrar General,
particularly, as to the contents of his letter.
F 14. However, on 10.01.2007, it was pointed out that for the
first time the Addi. District Judge/District Judge-in-Charge Mr.
S. Bhattacharjee, wrote directly to the District Magistrate Mr.
R. Ranjit (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2007)
requesting him to look into the matter and make endeavour to
G resolve the crisis so that the Judges could enter into the court
premises to discharge their functions. The GC' entry made on
10.01.2007 under No. 614 recorded that rolice force was
present at the main gate of the District Court from 1000 hrs. to
1300 hrs. and the Judicial Officers had come in some vehicles
H and after talking to the Members of the Committee, who with
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 721
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
folded hands requested them not to enter into the court, they A
left the place. It was emphasised that even on this day, there
was no request from the Judicial Officers to the police to help
them enter into the court.
15. The GD entry made on 13.012007 under No. 795 was 8
pressed into service which shows that a strong police
arrangement was made at the District Court where Shri T.K.
Das Addi. Superintendent of Police (HQ), Shri Swapan Kumar
Das, Dy. Superintendent of Police (HQ) and Shri David Ivan
Lepcha had supervised the duty and Shri Ashok Das, Executive C
Magistrate, was also present. It was pointed out that in the
afternoon of 13.01.2007, the District Magistrate, the
Superintendent of Police and other officers convened a meeting
at the Circuit House with the Members of the Committee and
had told them in no uncertain terms that administration will not
wait for any "amicable settlement" any further and would resort D
to applying force on 15.01.2007 to ensure. proper functioning
of the court. This was conveyed over phone to the District Judge
and it was also informed to him that heavy police arrangement
would again be made on 15.01.2007 onwards to ensure that
J'udges and Magistrates may enter into the court without any E
hindrance. This was also stated in the GD Entry No. 961 dated
15.01.2007. When the Addi. District Judge/District Judge-in-
Charge arrived at the court gate at 1030 hrs., he was requested
by the Addi. SP to enter into the court premises, but after seeing
a large gathering of the Members of the Committee and their F
sympathisers, the District Judge decided not to enter the court
and returned back. It was recorded in the said GD entry that
the Members of the Committee and their sympathisers were
successfully persuaded to remove the rostrum from the gate of
the court premises, which they themselves removed. The court G
gate was opened by 1530 hrs., and the District Judge was also
intimated about the same. Apart from the above information, it
was also pointed out that between 15.12.2006, the day from
which the Committee started agitation to15.01.2007 when they
called off the agitation, all bail/custody matters were dealt with H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A by the Judges/Magistrates at their official residences in
Jalpaiguri, arrested accused persons were produced by the
police before them and in total 192 such cases were dealt with
by the Magistrates at their residences during the said period,
namely, 15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.
B
16. Apart from the above details, Mr. Vohra has also
highlighted that he was informed of the importance of the
situation only on 05.01.2007 and no specific information/report
was received before this date from any State or Central
Government Agency or officer about the same. He asserted that
C he acted promptly on or after 05.01.2007, briefing the Home
Secretary of the State, Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri.
17. In the meantime, it was pointed out that the then Chief
Justice of the High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar
D was elevated to the Supreme Court and he took oath on
12.01.2007 and on 15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice
- Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, sitting in a Bench Suo Motu
issued two Rules to the following effect.
"The learned Registrar General of this Court has drawn
E
attention of this Court to the fact that due to agitation
started by the "Circuit Bench 'O' Sarbik Unnyayan Dabi
Adyay Samannaya Committee, Jalpaiguri," the Judicial
Officers in the District of Jalpaiguri including the learned
District Judge, Jalpaiguri, are unable to enter into the Court
F premises from December 15, 2006.
Office of the learned District Judge immediately drew
attention of such fact to the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali
Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar, but no action was taken.
G Subseque.nlly, the learned District Judge brought the
matter to the notice of the learned Registr:ir General of this
Court, who in terms of the order by the then Hon'ble Chief
Justice of this Court, instructed the learned District Judge
to ask the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri to take
H immediate action, so that the Judicial Officers can enter
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 723
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
into the Court premises for doing their duties. A
Although the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri
conveyed the decision of this Court to the Superintendent
of Police, Jalpaiguri, so that the Judicial Officers can enter
into the Court building and function, the Superintendent of B
Police, Jalpaiguri paid deaf ears to the request of the
learned District Judge. Subsequently, the learned District
Judge was directed to approach the District Magistrate of
the District, so that the judiciary in the District can function.
In spite of such communication, no action was taken from C
the end of the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.
It appears from the note given by the learned
Registrar General of this Court, that on January 5, 2007,
the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court directed the
Director General of Police, West Bengal over phone to D
ensure proper functioning of the Jalpaiguri Court by taking
effective steps without further delay and as a follow up
action, the learned Registrar General also talked to the
Director General of Police, West Bengal and enquired as
to what effective steps had been taken for bringing back E
the normal situation, so that the learned District Judge's
Court could function properly.
The Director General of Police, however, informed
the learned Registrar General of this Court that he would F
take up the matter with the Home Secretary, Government
of West Bengal and in the meantime, the learned District
Judge, Jalpaiguri'should be asked to write to the District
Magistrate, Jalpaiguri requesting him to take steps for
ensuring proper functioning of the Courts in Jalpaiguri with
a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. G
As pointed out earlier, in spite of written
communication given by the learned District Judge to the
District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, till today the Judges in the
District Judge's Court at Jalpaiguri are unable to enter.1nto H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the Court building.
It appears from the various papers submitted by the
learned District Judge through fax message to the learned
Registrar General of this Court that the "Circuit Bench 'O'
B Sarbik Unnayayan Dabi Adyay Samannaya Committee,
Jalpaiguri" took a resolution of obstructing the ingress and
l!gress to the Court building by various resolutions taken
from time to time. From the resolution allegedly taken on
December 23, 2006 which has been sent to the learned
Registrar General of this Court by the learned District
c Judge concerned, it appears that in a meeting held at
Nababbari premises the following persons participated
and unanimously took a resolution to continue with the
agitation:
D (1) Sri Mukulesh Sanyal, President;
(2) Sri Sri Jiten Das, Ex. M.P. (C.P.M.);
(3) Sri Sri Debaprasad Roy, M.L.A. (Congress);
E (4) Smt. Pratima Bagchi (R.S.P.):
(5) Sri Prabal Saha (Forward Block);
(6) Sri Pabitra Bhattacharyya (C.P.1.);
F (7) Sri Somenath Pal (T.M.C.);
(8) SriAmal Roy (C.P.l.M.L.);
(9) Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta, C.P.l.M.L. (Liberation);
G (10) Sri Rabindra Lal Chakraborty (B.J.P.);
(11) Sri Chittaq De (Convenor, Co-ordination Committee
of Plantation Works);
(12) Sri Sadhan Bose (Merchant Association);
H
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 725
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(13) Sri Sarnarendra Prasad Biswas (North Bengal A
Chamber of Commerce);
'
(14) Sri Biswajit Das (Federation of Chamber of
Commerce, Siliguri);
(15) Sri Sanjoy Chakraborty (Jalpaiguri Welfare B
Organisation).
It further appears from the resolution of the meeting
dated December 18, 2006 of the said "Jalpaiguri 'O'
Sarbik Unnyayan Dabi Adyay Samannaya Committee" c
that one Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowmick, presided over as
President, supported the said illegal act of the Committee.
In our view, the aforesaid act on the part of those
persons abovenamed, acting on behalf of the said
Committee, has resulted in constitutional breakdown in the D
District of Jalpaiguri, as a result, the citizens of Jalpaiguri
District are immensely prejudiced and such act interferes
· with and obstructs administration of justice in the said
District.
E
We are also prima facie convinced that inaction on
the part of the Director General of Police, West Bengal,
District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of
Police, Jalpaiguri and l.C., Kotwali Police Station,
Jalpaiguri Sadar amounts to aiding and abetting the F
members of the said Committee, as a result of which, the
judiciary is unable to function in that District for the last one
month and all those persons are prima facie guilty of
criminal contempt of a serious nature.
Accordingly, let a Rule of contempt be issued G
calling u'pon all those 15 persons and Sri Benoy Kanta
Bhowrnick, abovenamed, to show cause why they should
not be penalised or otherwise dealt with for committing
criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by creating impediment in H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A functioning the judiciary in the District of Jalpaiguri for the
last one month by restraining the Judicial Officers from
entering into the Court building.
Similarly, a Rule be also issued upon the Director
General of Police, West Bengal, District Magistrate,
B
Jalpaiguri, Superintendent of Police, .Jalpaiguri, Inspector-
in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar to show
cause why they should not be penalised or otherwise dealt
with for aiding and abetting the aforesaid criminal
contempt by remaining as silent spectators in spite of
c repeated directions not only given by the learned District
Judge of the District, but also by the learned Registrar
General and the former Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court.
Let these Rules be immediately served upon all the
D concerns through the Chief Secretary, Government of West
Bengal by tomorrow.
The Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal,
is directed to communicate to this Court what action the
District Administration or the State Administration has
E
taken for removing the impediments creating by those
persons.
Having regard to the serious nature of a criminal
contempt prima facie found by this Court, we direct the
F Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal to see that
in course of this day proper step is taken, so that the
learned District Judge and all the Judicial Officers
including the staff of the District Court may enter into the
building and function normally.
G
The Chief Secretary will further ensure that no
obstruction takes place in the matter of proper functioning
of the Court in any part of the said District.
Office is directed to see that this order is
H
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 727
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of A
West Bengal by 2 p.m. of this day.
Let Rules be also issued by the office in course of
this day.
The Rules are returnable on January 19, 2007 at 8
10.30 a.m.
On the returnable date, the alleged contemnors
above named are directed to be present in Court at 10.30
a.m." c
18. Pursuant to the issuance of the above Rules, the DGP-
Mr. Vohra and other three officials of the State Government
i.e., the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and
Inspector in-Charge, Kotwali P.S. Jalpaiguri also filed D
separate affidavits highlighting their stand. Apart from the
affidavit filed by the Inspector in-Charge of Kotwali P.S ..
copies of the entries made in the GD (which we referred
in the earlier paras) maintained at the said P.S. were
annexed to the affidavit.
E
19. It is further seen that all the officials including the DGP
were examined by the High Court while hearing the contempt
petition and their depositions were recorded. We were also
taken through their depositions and these were mostly in the
nature of cross-examination. Learned senior counsel appearing F
for the DGP has highlighted even the copies of fax messages
sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General of the High
Court on various dates which were supplied to him after cross
examination by the court. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out
that in none of the fax messages, the Judges/Magistrates had G
requested the police for help to neither enter into the court nor
do the fax messages record that they went back to their
residences voluntarily on being requested by the agitators. The
impugned order of the High Court also shows that apart from
the official witnesses, the other parties were also heard on H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 16.02.2007 by the Bench and ultimately the impugned order
was passed on 02.03.2007 convicting the appellants for
criminal contempt of court and sentencing them to simple
imprisonment for a term of six months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/
- each.
B
20. Though the High Court has concluded that the above-
mentioned government officials had "aided and abetted" the
perpetrators to agitation, as rightly pointed out by the learned
senior counsel for the appellants, there is no material/basis for
such conclusion. We have already pointed out that from the GD
C entries on various dates, i.e., from 15.12.2006 till 15.01.2007,
on all working days, whenever the Judicial Officers reach the
main gate of the District Court, the organisers made a request
with folded hands not to enter into the court premises and by
their persuasion, the Judicial Officers returned to their homes.
D We have also noted that on any day neither the District Judge
nor any other Judicial Officers directed the District Magistrate
or the police officers present in the premises to remove all
those persons. On the other hand, till the agitation was called
off on 15.01.2007, the agitation was entirely peaceful and there
E was no law and order problem, sufficient police force was
stationed and that the Members of the Committee and their
sympathisers kept requesting the District Judge/Magistrates
and the officials and staff with folded hands not to enter the
courts in view of their demand for establishment of the High
F Court Circuit Bench and the District Judge/Judicial Officers and
the staff voluntarily returned home and did not ask the police
to help them get into the court premises. We have already
pointed out the assertion made in the form of an affidavit by
the DGP - Mr. Vohra that when the then Chief Justice (Hon'ble
G Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar) talked to him over phone, he did not
order or direct him to remove the agitators by force but only
directed him "to monitor the situation". There is no contra
assertion or statement from the side of the High Court through
Registrar General, who was supposed to be present when the
H then Hon'ble Chief Justice discussed with the DGP over phone.
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 729
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
21. We are conscious of the fact that it is the responsibility A
of the State Administration to see that courts function on all
working days without any hindrance. The administration of
justice should never be stalled at the instance of anyone
including the members of the bar even for any cause. However,
we have already noted that though the said Committee started B
Satyagrah in front of the District Court as early as on
15.12.2006 till 05.01.2007, no request from the District Judge
or from the Registrar General for removal of rostrum put up in
front of the gate and clearing the agitators/satyagrahis who
comprises not only members of the bar, legislature, NGOs, c
persons from media and representatives from different walks
of life was made. We have already observed that there is no
reason to disbelieve the assertion of the DGP Mr. Vohra about
the conversation made by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and
it is the definite case of the DGP that he was asked "to monitor
0
the situation" and "keep a watch over the developmenr. He
asserted that there was no direction either from the then Chief
Justice or from the Registrar General for taking appropriate
action against the agitators.
22. We are also satisfied that in none of the fax messages E
sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General, there was
even a whisper that the Judges at the District Court had asked
for any police help and there was no grievance that police help
was not made available to the Judges. In the facts and
materials placed and demonstrated, we are of the view that the F
conclusion of the High Court that the appellants, more
particularly, government officials were responsible for "aiding
and abetting the agitators by non-action" cannot be accepted.
23. We are also satisfied from the materials placed that G
the police force was present at the gate of the District Court
on all days except Sundays and holidays to supervise law and
order situation and to assist the Judges and_ Judicial Officers,
the fact remains that the District Judge and the Judicial Officers
never asked for any police help for their entry into the court H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A premises on all days starting from 15.12.2006 ending with
15.01.2007 and all of them acceded to the humble request
made by the agitators and returned home. It is true that on
10.01.2007, the District Judge and the Judicial Officers
requested the District Magistrate to take sincere efforts to
B resolve the crisis so that they may enter into the court premises
and discharge judicial functions.
24. Another aspect with which we are unable to accept the
conclusion of the Division Bench relates to the fact that fax
messages were sent from the office of the District Magistrate.
C On this assumption, the Division Bench concluded that the
District Magistrate himself had knowledge about the content
of the fax messages. It was explained that fax messages we
e sent from one of the nine fax machines installed at differen
rooms at the premises of the Office of the District Magistrate
D and, as rightly pointed out, this does not necessarily mean that
the District Magistrate had knowledge about the matter. of the
contents. Merely because the fax machines available at the
office of the District Magistrate were utilised, it cannot be
presumed that the District Magistrate could have noted the
E contents. The said assumption cannot be accepted without any
further material.
25. It is true that several litigants might have suffered due
to the non-functioning of the courts, however, it is brought to our
F notice that the concerned Magistrates were holding court at
their residences and chambers to deal with all urgent matters
and 192 cases were dealt with by different Magistrates during
the period 15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.
26. We are also satisfied that there was no wrongful
G restraint on the Judges and Judicial Officers of the District
Court as is evident from the GD entries wherein it was recorded
that the Judges and Judicial. Officers had acceded to the
request of the agitators and restrained themselves from
entering the court premises though police force was present
f'j at the spot .to facilitate their entry as and when directed.
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 731
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCWTTA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
27. Though the Division Bench recorded a finding in the A
impugned judgment that because of the obstruction, the
administration of justice in the District Court, Jalpaiguri was
obstructed for a month in spite of specific request of District
Judge, it was brought to our notice (which we have already
noted in the earlier paras) that the District Judge for the first B
time on 10.01.2007 had communicated to the District
Magistrate with a request to make endeavour to resolve the
crisis and even in that communication there was no mention of
using police force to remove the agitators by force. It is alsa
evident that Judges of the District Court wanted a peaceful c
solution and without use of force although in the fllx messages
sent by the District Magistrate to the Registrar General, it was
complained that the Judges in the District Court were not
allowed to enter into the court premises.
28. We are also satisfied that there is no acceptable D
material in holding that the officials committed criminal contempt
of the Judges in the District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately taking
no action against the agitators resulting in interference with the
due administration of justice. If we analyse the entire materials
including their statements, affidavits, GD entries, fax messages, E
correspondence between District Judge and Registrar General
and District Magistrate, it cannot be concluded that the officials
deliberately abstained from taking any action against the
agitators.
F
29. As mentioned above, in the absence of any order either
on the judicial side by the then Chief Justice or any
communication and direction through the Registrar General and
in view of the assertion of DGP in the form of an affidavit about
the conversation made by the then Chief Justice and himself, G
the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench holding
that the DGP has disobeyed the order of the then Chief Justice
to take immediate. step for restoration of functioning of the
judiciary in the District cannot be accepted.
30. In a matter of this nature, when the agitation started H
/
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A on 15.12.2006 by way of a Committee comprising persons from
different walks of life including members of the bar, media,
business community, NGOs, elected representatives etc, it is
but proper for the High Court to intervene at the earliest point
of time by sending Administrative/Port-folio Judge or the
B Registrar General to the spot. Such recourse was admittedly
not resorted to. Till 05.01.2007, no communication or any effort
was made by the Registrar General to the District
administration, particularly, officers concerned and to the District
Magistrate. Even the District Judge did not make any request
c or issued directions for removal of the agitators who were
conducting Satyagrah in a peaceful manner. We have already
pointed out that every day on their request, all the Judicial
Officers returned home to avoid any confrontation with the
members of the bar and the Committee comprising persons
D from different walks of life.
31. In the earlier part of our order, we have highlighted that
the allegations against all the appellants relate to criminal
contempt. Though the High Court has heard certain officials, it
is the grievance of the appellants that proper procedure was
E not followed in all their cases. In other words, "fair procedure"
provided for "criminal contempt" had not been adhered to by
the High Court. It is also their grievance that even no formal
charge was framed. Inasmuch as the matter pertains to criminal
contempt, the issue is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
F Admittedly, the District Judge did not file any affidavit
highlighting his stand and steps taken, if any, even after
knowing the claim of the appellants, particularly, with reference
to the various GD entries and their specific stand. We are also
satisfied that that charge against the criminal contempt has not
G been made out in the manner known to law.
32. It is also brought to our notice that all the appellants
filed separate affidavits explaining their stand and tendered
unconditional apology at the earliest point of time. Considering
the nature of the demand which, according to them, the High
H Court itself has passed a resolution acceding for the fonnation
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 733
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA fP. SATHASIVAM, J.]
of the High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and other relevant A
materials, the Division Bench ought to have accepted the
affidavits tendering apology. In fact, the explanation to sub-
section (1) of Section 12 of the Act enables the court to ~cept
the apology if the same is bona fide and discharge the accused
accordingly. Unfortunately, even such recourse was not B
followed by the High Court. In appropriate case, the
acceptability of unconditional apology and regret has been
explained by this Court in O.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. High Court
=
of Punjab & Haryana, 2011 (5) Scale 518 (2011) 6 SCC 86.
Considering the fact that the members of the bar who C
misbehaved with the court by raising slogans and realizing their
mistake, dignity of the court and conduct of the legal profession
tendered unconditional apology first before the Judge before
whom the unfortunate incident had occurred, before the High
Court where suo motu contempt was initiated and before this
Court by filing affidavits. Expressing unconditional apology and D
regret with an undertaking that they would maintain good
behaviour in future and if the same is at the ear1iest point of
time and bona fide, the Courts have to accept the same. In view
of the language used in "proviso" and "explanation" appended
to Section 12(1) of the Act,, this Court accepted the affidavits E
filed by all the appellants in 0.P. Sharma (supra) and
discharged all of them from the charges leveled against them.
33. In Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State of Uftar
Pradesh, (2011) 7 SCC 776, this Court reiterated the principles F
laid down in O.P. Sharma (supra) with regard to tendering
unconditional apology and acceptance of the same.
34. Finally, it is worthwhile to refer to a Full Bench decision
of the Bombay High Court in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
and Anr., AIR 1920 Bombay 175. It was an appeal filed against G
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Mahadev Haribhai Desai,
who were the Editor and Publisher respectively of a newspaper
called 'Young India'. They were charged with contempt of Court
for publishing in that newspaper, on 6th August, 1919, a letter
H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A dated 22nd April, 1919 written by the District Judge of
Ahmedabad to the Registrar of the High Court and also with
publishing comments on that letter. The gist of the charge was
that the letter in question was a private official letter forming part
of certain proceedings then pending in this Court and that the
8 comments which both of them made in their newspaper were
comments on that pending case. Ultimately, this Court, after
stating that the same ought not to have been published,
reprimanded them. Though we are not concerned about the
factual details and the ultimate decision, the following
C observation relating to power of the Court in contempt
proceedings and how the same to be applied had been
reiterated at page 180 which reads as under:
"......... We have large powers and, in appropriate cases,
can commit offenders to prison for such period as we think
D fit and can impose fines of such amount as we may judge
right. But just as our powers are large, so ought we, I think,
to use them with discretion and with moderation
remembering that the only object we have m view is to
enforce the due administration of justice for the public
E benefit."
35. It is not in dispute that all the appellants have filed
separate affidavits tendering unconditional apology at the
earliest point of time before the High Court. We are sa.tisfied
that no case has been made out for criminal contempt against
F the appellants and there is nothing wrong in accepting their
unconditional apology and request which was made at the
earliest point of time.
36. Keeping the above principles and factual details as
G mentioned in earlier paras in mind, we pass the following order:
In view of the above discussion and abundant materials,
we are satisfied that in this suo motu proceeding, the High Court
has not made out a case to punish all the appellants under
H
ANUP BHUSHAN VOHRA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH 735
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTIA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
"criminal contempt" in terms of Section 2 (c) read with Section A
12 of the Act. WP. were informed that the appellant-Mukulesh
Sanyal in Criminal Appeal No. 395 Of 2007 and appellant-Sm!.
Pratima Bagchi in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 2007 have been
reported dead. Thus these two appeals filed by them stand
abated. The conviction and sentence on the other appellants B
are set aside and all of them are discharged from the charges
leveled against them. All the appeals are allowed.
B.B.B. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search