J. VASUDEVANversusT.R. DHANANJAYA

A                               J. VASUDEVAN
                                      v.
                              T.R. DHANANJAYA

                              SEPTEMBER 8, 1995

B               [K.RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

          Constitution of India :

          Article 129-Contempt of Court-Contemnor a State Government Of-
C ficial-Wilful disobedience of order of Court-Sentence of imp1isomnent
    awarded-Application for remission of sentence invoking mercy jurisdic-
    tion-Rejected in interest of administration of justice.

        Judicial ethics-Violation of-An officer of State Government sen-
  tenced for committing contempt of Court-His co/legue approaching one of
D the Judges comprising the Bench-His conduct held most reprehensible and
  disapproved-Directions given to make entries in his CCR about gross im-
  propriety committed by him.

           The appellant-Contemnor was, on 24.8.95, awarded the sentence of
    simple imprisonment for one month by this Court for wilful disobedience
E
    of its orders. The applicant filed the instant applications with a prayer for
    remission of the sentence in.voking mercy jurisdiction of the Court.
    Meanwhile a collegue and friend of the appellant approached one of the
    Hon'ble Judges comprising the Bench which passed the sentence. The
    Court issued notice to him. He filed an affidavit stating that he did not
F   meet the Hon'ble Judge at the instances of the contemnor. or an.ybody else.
    He sought apology for the violation he made on the judicial ethics.

          Rejecting the applications, this Court

          HELD : 1.1. While awarding sentence on a contemnor, the Court
G does so to uphold the majesty of law, and not with any idea vindicating the
    prestige of the Court or to uphold its dignity. It is really to see that
    unflinching faith of the people in the courts remain intact. But, if the order
    of even the highest court of the land is allowed to be wilfully disobeyed and
    a· person found guilty of contempt is let off by remitting sentence on plea
H   of mercy, that would sent wrong signals to everybody in the country. It has
                                         438
                  J. VASUDEVAN v. T.R. DHANANJAYA                       439

been a sad experience that due regard is not always shown even to the order    A
of the highest court of the country. Now, if such orders are disobeyed, the
effect would be that people would lose faith in the system of administration
of justice and would desist from approaching the Court, spending time,
money and energy to fight their legal battle. (443-B-C)

      1.2. A public officer, being a part of Government, owes higher obliga-   B
tion than an ordinary citizen to advance the cause of public interest, which
requires maintenance of rule of law, for the protection of which contem-
nors are punished. [443-F)

      2. The act of meeting of the Hon'ble Judge of the Court was most
reprehensible and has to be disapproved in the strongest terms. As,
                                                                               c
however, the officer has realised the gross mistake committed by him, the
matter is closed by ordering that an entry would be made in his CCR about
the gross impropriety committed by him in meeting the Hon'ble Judge.
                                                                    (441-D)
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 4 & 5 of 1995.
                                                                               D

                                     IN

      CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 234 OF 1994

                                     IN                                        E

      Civil Appeal No. 797 of 1993

    From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.1991 of the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal in Bangalore in A. No. 1443 of 1991.
                                                                               F
      F.S. Nariman, KR. Nagaraja, for the Petitioner/Appellant.

     M. Veerappa, P. Mahale, M. T. George and Gopal Singh, (N.P.) for
the Respondent.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :                         G
      Shri S. Swatantra Rao has appeared in person and has filed an
affidavit. He is examined. On his attention being drawn to what finds place
             of
in the order this Court passed on 1.9.1995, he states that what has been
mentioned therein as regards his meeting one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) is
correct. On being further asked as to whether he had met on his own or         H
    440                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   at the instance of anybody, his reply is that he had done so on his own and
    then brings to our notice the statements made by him in the affidavit.

          2. We have perused the affidavit which was verified at Bangalore on
    7.9.1995. It has mentioned the "sequence of events" leading to his meeting
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy. It states that having read in the
                                                                                    -
B newspaper, while on tour to West Bengal, about the judgment of the Court
    imposing sentence on Shri J, Vasudevan, on his return to Bangalore he
    tried to contact Shri Vasudevan to console him. He was informed that shri
    Vasudevan was not available in Bangalore and that he was still in Delhi.

C         3. On 29.8.1995 it was told to the deponent that Shri Vasudevan was
    in a shock and despair and that the sentence imposed would be imple-
    mented within a day or two. This led the deponent to feel that Shri
    Vasudevan might not bear the punishment and something untoward could
    happen during his imprisonment. Being a colleague and friend of Shri
D   Vasudevan, he could not curb his concern and started wondering whether
    something could be done to help him.                                          __ . -

            4. The affidavit then mentions about the long and cherished desire
    of the deponent to meet Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy to seek his
    good wishes and blessings whom he had met about last four decades ago.
E   It is the concern for Shri Vasudevan and long and cherished desire to meet
    Hon'ble Ramaswamy, J. which prompted him to come to Delhi and he left
    Bangalore by East West Airlines on 30.8.1995 which was schedule to depart
    at 8 P.M. As the flight was delayed, he reached Delhi around mid-night
    and being of the view that if he were to go to Karnataka Bhavan, he might
F   have to wait for long as its employees would be asleep, he proceeded to
    Kanishka, an ITDC Hotel, and checked in. Next day morning he rang up
    Shri Vasudevan at Karnataka Bhavan But he was told that Shri Vasudevan
    Had left the room around 7 AM. As such there was no chance for him to
    get in touch with him.

G       5, The deponent states that thereafter he met Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.
  Ramaswamy at his residence and the object of this visit was to seek his
  Lordship's blessings and goods wishes and also "to beg some mercy for Shri
  J. Vasudevan". No sooner did .he realise that Hon'ble Mr. Justice K,
  Ramaswamy resented the prayer for mercy, than he sincerely apologised
H and left the place and left for Bangalore in the afternoon.
                 J. VASUDEVAN v. T.R. OHANANJAYA                         441

      6. It is reiterated that neither Shri Vasudevan nor anybody else had      A
suggested him to approach Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and it was
his "un-subdued concern as a colleague" which, inter alia, had prompted
him to meet Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy.

       7. The further averments made in the affidavit are that the deponent
had no intention of influencing the judiciary and he sought apology for the     B
embarrassment caused to Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and for the
violations made on the judicial ethics. The affidavit ends by saying that the
deponent would be careful in future and has prayed "to pardon him for the
improprieties" committed under the above circumstances.

      8. The affidavit thus is clear on one aspect and the same is that the
                                                                                c
deponent had not met one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J) at the instance of Shri
Vasudevan. There cannot however, two opinions that the act of meeting K.
Ramaswamy, J. was most reprehensible and has to be disapproved in the
strongest terms. As, However, the deponent has realised the gross mistake
committed by him, we are of the view that we may not proceed further with D
the matter and close the same py ordering that an entry would be made in
his CCR about the gross impropriety committed by him in meeting K
Ramaswamy, J.

       9. We have heard Shri Nariman, learned senior counsel for the
                                                                                E
petitioner, to at least remit the sentence, for which purpose our mercy
jurisdiction has been invoked, and invoked very forcibly and fervently. We
are aware that even under the proviso to Section 12 of the contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology
being made to the satisfaction of the Court. He mentioned about this legal
provision despite the fact that we had invoked our constitutional power in      F
the matter at hand. We would agree with Shri Nariman that in an ap-
propriate case the prayer for remission of sentence imposed on a ·contem-
nor may be considered when the Court is satisfied, on the facts of that case,
that it requires to be done.

      10. The entire emphasis of Shri Nariman is that the petitioner had G
acted the way he had done on legal advice; more so, in the background of
the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka passed in W.P. No.
15458/1991 and batch rendered on 31.3.1994. Shri Nariman has taken us
through the relevant part of that judgment in which the High Court
accepted that the claim of one M. Venkatesh was fully protected, despite H
    442                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   the order which been passed by this Court on 26.7.1993 in I.A. No.3. In the
    order which we had passed on 24.8.1995 this fact had been noted, to which
    our attention was drawn by Shri Santosh Hegde, who had then appeared
    for the petitioner. In the order we stated that after Venkatesh had been
    promoted nothing could have reasonably stood in the way of T.R. Dhanan-
    jaya to get appointed to the supernumerary post which had been created
B   by the Bangalore Corporation pursuant to the order passed by this Court.
    That was, however, not done. Shri Nariman's submission is that this was
    not done by the petitioner, not because he did not desire to comply with
    this Court's order, but because he had been advised by his counsel to act
    the way he subsequently did and which ultimately resulted in the proceed-
c   ing dated July 10, 1995, the purport of which has been noted by us in the
    order in question.

           11. Shri Nariman strenuously urges that the petitioner's sentence for
    imprisonment be remitted because he acted under wrong legal advice, and
D   not mala fide. It may be pointed out that in our order we had not attributed
    mala fide to the petitioner but had concluded that he was guilty of wilful
    disobedience. As to the advice by the counsel, which is said to be available
    in the file, may we mention, as noted in our earlier order, that a submission
    had been made before this Court itself on May 10, 1995 by Shri Hegde to
    grant time till after vacation for implementation of the order. We had
E   allowed this prayer. According to us, therefore, nothin1 was left except to
    implement the order which had not been done. The fact that the order has
    been implemented subsequently has no relevance.

           12. Shri Nariman urges that in the aforesaid background his submis-
F   sion is only to remit the sentence in exercise of our mercy jurisdiction. It
    is mentioned that the petitioner has only few years to retire and imprison-
    ment would affect him adversely. According to us, this cannot be a ground
    to show mercy because in every case of government servant this ple'a would
    be advanced and in no case a government servant who is found to have
    wilfully disobeyed the orders of the court would be sentenced to imprison-
G   ment.

           13. It may be stated that while awarding the sentence of imprison-
    ment we had considered the submission of Shri Hegde to show leniency so
    far as the question of sentence is concerned and it was stated in the order
H   passed on August 25, 1995 there were no "extenuating circumstances", as
                 J. VASUDEVAN v. T.R. DHANANJAYA                        443

after promoting Venkatesh nothing at all could have reasonably stood in A
the way of T.R. Dhananjaya to get appointed to the supernumerary post
of Addl. Chief Engineer created by the Corporation.

       14. Coming to the mercy jurisdiction, let it be first stated that while
awarding sentence on a contemnor, the court does so to uphold the majesty
of law, and not with any idea of vindicating the prestige of the Court or to
                                                                                B
uphold its dignity. It is really to see that unflinching faith of the people in
the courts remain intact. But, if the order of even the highest court of the
land is allowed to be wilfully disobeyed and a person found guilty of
contempt is let off by remitting sentence on plea of mercy, that would send
wrong signals to everybody in the country. It has been a sad experience       c
that due regard is not always shown even to the order of the highest court
of the country. Now, if such orders are disobeyed, the effect would be tha,t
people would lose faith in the system of administration of justice and would
desist from approaching the court, by spending time, money and energy to
fight their legal battle. If in such a situation mercy is shown, the effect D
would be that people would not knock the door of the courts to seek
justice, but would settle score on the streets, where muscle power and
money power would win, and the weak and the meek would suffer. That
would be a death knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive
a fatal blow. this Court cannot be a party to it and, harsh though it may
look, it is duty bound to award proper punishment to uphold the rule of E
law, how so high a person may be. It may be stated, though it is trite, that
nobody is above the law. The fact that the petitioner is an LAS. officer is
of no consequence, so far as the sentence is concerned. We would indeed
think that if a high officer indulges in an act of contempt, he deserves to
be punished more rigorously, so that nobody would take to his head to
                                                                                F
violate court's order. May we also say that a public officer, being a part of
Government, owes higher obligation than an ordinary citizen to advance
the cause of public interest, which requires maintenance of rule of law, to
protect which contemnors are punished.

      15. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are constrained to reject the G
prayer tervently advanced by Shri Nariman in his usual vehemence and
dismiss the petitions.

R.P.                                                      Appeals rejected.
                                                                              H