Holding

A sincere, unconditional apology after a contempt conviction warrants setting aside the punishment, while the advocate's contempt stands with a reduced sentence.

Summary

Radha Mohan Lal and his counsel Sualal Yadav filed an application in a revision petition alleging bias against Judge R.S. Kejriwal, seeking the case be listed before a different bench. The High Court held both in contempt of court, sentencing each to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine. After conviction, Lal tendered an unconditional apology in affidavit and in open court, which the Supreme Court accepted as sincere. The Court upheld the finding of contempt but set aside Lal's punishment on account of the apology, while confirming Yadav's contempt and reducing his imprisonment to the time already served, maintaining the fine. The judgment emphasized that freedom of expression does not permit unfounded allegations against the judiciary and that advocates owe a duty to the court beyond client instructions.

Issues considered

Whether an unconditional apology tendered after a finding of contempt can lead to remission of the punishment.
Whether an advocate who makes unfounded allegations against a judge is guilty of contempt of court.
The extent to which freedom of expression can be invoked to justify allegations against the judiciary.
Appropriate quantum of sentence for contempt, especially concerning a senior citizen appellant.

Subjects

contempt of courtapologyfreedom of expressionadvocate's dutyjudicial independencesentencingsenior citizenrevision petition

Judgment

RADHA MOHAN LAL A
V.
...,. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)

FEBRUARY IL 2003

[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA: JJ.] B

~ Contempt ofCourt-Application by contemnor making allegations against
presiding Judge-Con1e111nor tendering unconditional apology-Conviction and
sentence by High Court-On appeal held-In the facts of the case, contemnor
committed contempt of Court-But in view of apology punishment set aside.
c
Conten1pt a/Court-Advocate representing conten1nor "1aking allegations

+ against presiding Judge-Advocate held guilty ofcontempt-:-On appeal, Held:
liberty offree expression cannot be equated with a licence to make unfounded
and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary-Advocate not merely an D
agent or servant of his client-He also owes a duty towards the Court-
Punishment reduced to the sentence already undergone-Sentence of fine
1naintained.

In the course of hearing of a Revision Petition before High Court,
averments made in the application filed by appellant-contemnor making E
allegations against the presiding Judge, led to initiation of proceedings for
contempt of Court.

The appellant-contemnor and his advocate-appellant both were
found guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced to 3 months' simple

-- .,.._
imprisonment and fine. Thereafter the appellant tendered unconditional
apology for the allegations made against the Judge by filing affidavit and
in open Court before the Judge.
F

In appeal to this Court appellant contended that apology sllould have
been accepted as the same is evidence of real contrite as also of his
consciousness of wrong done by him .. Advocate-contemnor contended that G

-
he had not committed contempt of court as it was his obligation to submit
before the Court as per the instruction of his client.
r Disposing of the appeal, the Court

IOI I
H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20031 I S.C.R.

A HELD : I. Having regard to the facts of the case, it appears that
although the apology has been tendered after the appellant had been found
guilt); of contempt of court and after the High Court had inflicted the
imprisonment on him but still the apology seems to be sincere and not to
·ward of the punishment. The apology here is e\'idence of real contrite as
also of his consciousness of wrong done by him. While the impugned
B judgment is upheld holding that the appellant committed contempt of court
but accepting the apology, the punishment imposed on him is set aside.
[1015-D-EJ

M. Y Shareef and Anr. v. The Hon 'b/e Judges of High Court of Nagpur
C and Ors., [195511 SCR 757, relied on.

2.1. Counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter
scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the
prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor, with a view to prevent t
or delay the court of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of Court,.
D and that it is no duty of a counsel to his client to take any interest in such
applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for
refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.
(1016-C, DJ

M. Y Shareef and Anr. v. The Hon 'ble Judges of High Court of Nagpur
E and Ors., 119551 1 SCR 757, relied on.

2.2. The liberty of free expn~ssion cannot be equated or confused with
a licence to make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the
judiciary. The imputation that was made was clearly contemptuous. The
effect is lowering of the dignity and authority of the Court and an affront
F to the majesty of justice. [1016-E, FJ

Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab & HaJyana, (199617 SCC
99, relied on.

3. Object of punishment will be served by reducing three months'
G simple imprisonment to one already undergone by the appellant while
maintaining the fine and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
(1018-Cj

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
H 445 of 1993.
RADHA MOHAN LAL v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT fSABHARWAL. J.J 1013

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3 .1993 of the High Court of A
. >- Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Cr!. Contempt Petition No. 3184
of 1991.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 1993.
B
Jagdeep Dhankar, Sushi! Balwada and Aruneshwar Gupta for the
- ~ Appel:ants.

Petitioner-in-person in Cr!. Appeal No. 449/1993.

Vijay Bahuguna, Ranji Thomas, Mrs. Bharati Upadhyaya, D.K. Thakur, c
V.N. Raghupathy and G. Prakash for the Respondent.

+ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. By the impugned judgment and order dated
31st March, 1993, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant D
Radha Mohan Lal (Criminal Appeal No.445/93) and his advocate, appellant
Sualal Yadav (Criminal Appeal No.449/93) have committed the contempt of
court. Both have been sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment each
besides fine of Rs. 1,000 each and in default of payment of fine, to further
suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
E
The basis for initiation and punishnlent for contempt of court is the
averment made in para 4 of the application dated 18th September, 1991 that
had been filed before a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a civil
revision petition which was listed before the learned Judge. The said para 4
reads as under :
. Cl- F
"That apart from it, the undersigned has been informed by his client-
Shri Radha Mohan Lal Vakil Ex. Chairman of the Municipal Council,
Jaipur, that he along with other non-petitioners have moved a complaint
in writing against Hon'ble Shri R.S. Kejriwal to the Hon'ble Chief
Justice requesting him to list the above revision before a Bench of G
which Hon'ble Shri R.S. Kejriwal is not a member as they have
reasonable grounds to believe that no impartial justice would be
. ! imparted from this Bench.

In the light of the above exceptional and extraordinary facts and
circumstances of the matter, the above revision may kindly be allowed H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003l I S.C.R.

A to be listed before a Bench not constituted of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Kejriwal as the non-petitioners are known to have lost faith in this -{-
Bench for reason obvious. In case the above revision is not allowed
to be listed before another Bench the applicant may be allowed
sufficient time to approach the Supreme Court for transfer of this
case."
B
The revision petition arose out of an interim order passed in a civil suit
that had been filed by appellant Radha Mohan Lal and four others in
representative capacity allegedly to ensure that access to the temple which
was the subject matter of the suit is not obstructed as a consequence of
C encroachments by the Rajasthan Sports Council. The interim order granted i,r
their favour had been assailed in the revision petition. It is claimed that some
observations made by the learned Judge on 13th September, 199! in course
of hearing of arguments led to about 50 senior citizens representing to the +
Chief Justice that the petition be heard by some other Judge. On 18th
September, 1991, when the matter came up for hearing before the learned
D Single Judge, the fact of representation having been made to the Chief Justice
was given out and this led to the filing of the application dated 18th September,
1991. Ultimately, the avennents made in the application led to initiation of
proceedings for contempt of court and the finding of contempt and punishment
on the appellants as aforestated. Appellant Sualal Yadav was the advocate for
Radha Mohan Lal both in the revision petition as also in the contempt petition.
E
When Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 1993 came up for hearing for the
first time before this Court on 3rd June, 1993, appellant Radha Mohan Lal,
who was present in Court, gave an undertaking to this Court through his
counsel that he shall file in this court on affidavit within one week an
F unconditional apology for the allegations made by him against Hon'ble Mr.
Justice R.S. Kejriwal of the High Court of Rajasthan and shall appear in
person in open court before the Hon'ble Judge and shall tender such apology
to him. Accepting that undertaking, this Court directed stay of the impugned
order. In terms of the order dated 3rd June, 1993, the appellant on 9th June,
1993 filed his affidavit tendering unconditional and without any qualification
G his apology for any statement made or pleaded before Hon'ble Mr. Justice
R.S. Kejriwal in the pending revision petition. It further appears that the
appellant, in accord with his undertaking, also tendered apology before Hon 'ble
Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal.

H Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, has very
RA DH A MOHAN LAL r. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT [SABHARWAL. J] I 015

candidly not made any attempt to justify the actions of Radha Mohan Lal A
before the High Court in filing the application as aforenoticed. Learned counsel
has only argued for acceptance of the apology. Learned counsel sub1nits that
the appellant has in1pressive and unimpeachable credentials of being a freedon1
fighter and a vakil (an advocate) and Chairman of Jaipur Municipal Council.
It has been further submitted that he is an old man of 82 years of age B
suffering fro1n serious heart ailment and for quite son1e ti1ne his inability is
lin1ited to his roo111 under n1edical prescription. The appellant is a senior
. --.,..: citizen who had no malice towards the Hon'ble Judge. It is contended that
during his long distinguished career, the present episode \Vas the result of a
single 1non1entary deraih11ent that was neither due to deliberation nor due to
any motivation and once the matter was before this Court, the appellant, on C
his own, even before hearing, tendered unqualified apology and also
volunteered to tender an unqualified and unconditional apology before the
Hon 'ble Judge of the High Court in open Court which \Vas done immediately
after the reopening of the High Court after summer vacation in the year l 993.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts, it appears that although the apology D
has been tendered after the appellant had been found guilty of contempt of
court and after the High Court had inflicted the imprisonment on him but still
the apology seems to be sincere and not to ward of the punish1nent. We
accept the contention of Mr. Dhankar that the apology here is evidence of
real contrite as also of his consciousness of wrong done by him. In the case E
of M. Y. Shareef and Anr. v. The Hon 'hie Judges of High Court of Nagpur
and Ors.. [ 1955) I SCR 757, a Constitutivn Bench of this Court accepted the
apology that was tendered before this Court for the first time.

In view of the aforesaid, while we uphold the impugned judgment
holding that the appellant Radha Mohan Lal committed contempt of court but F
accepting the apology, we set aside the punishment of simple imprisonment
as also the fine imposed on him.

The case of appellant Sualal Yadav is, however, different. He has
persisted with the same approach before this Court as he had before the High G
Court. Unfortunately, he labours under an erroneous impression that it is not
only his duty but a constitutional obligation to say and submit before the
Court whatever he is instructed by his client. He submits that everyone has
liberty to have faith or not on a particular judge. A grievance was also sought
to be made by him that only Radha Mohan Lal was picked up and not others ·
si1nilarly placed and likewise contempt proceedings were initiated against H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003] I S.C.R.

A him and not other advocates. The submissions are wholly untenable. We
have already noticed that Radha Mohan Lal. realizing his mistake, tendered
unconditional and unqualified apology even before the matter was heard
before this Court. He has also tendered apology in open court before the
learned judge of the High Court. The application was only signed by Radha
Mohan Lal and this appellant and, therefore, there is no substance in the
B grievance why proceedings were not initiated against others. Even otherwise.
such a contention is entirely misplaced. It is unfortunate that despite having
.Y
spent so many years in legal profession, the appellant persists with his
erroneous iinpressions about the duties of the members of the Bar to say
whatever they are asked by their clients to say without any liability despite
C the settled position to the contrary.

In Shareef's case (supra), the Constitution Bench held that the
misconception in a section of the Bar has to be rooted out by a clear and +
emphatic pronouncement and it should be widely made known that counsel
who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalizing the Court
D without reasonably satisfying the_mselves about the prima facie existence of
adequate grounds therefor, with a view to prevent or delay the course of
justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of Court, and _that it is no duty of
a counsel to his client to take any interest in such applications; on the other
hand, his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations
of this ilature in such applications. Hope expressed in Shareefs case that this
E
kind of conduct will not be repeated by counsel in any High Court in this
country, and no more test cases of this kind would have to be fought out has
been belied despite passage of nearly 50 years.

The liberty of free expression as was sought to be contended by Mr.
p Sualal Yadav cannot be equated or confused with a licence to make unfounded
and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary. The imputation that was
made was clearly contemptuous. The effect is lowering of the dignity and
authority of the Court and an affront to the majesty of justice.

In Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, [1996]
G 7 sec 99, this Court held that an advocate cannot escape his responsibility
for drafting a scandalous notice to a Magistrate on the ground that he did so
in his professional capacity.

An. advocate is not merely an agent or servant of his client. He is an
officer of the Cowt. He owes a duty towards the Court. There can be nothing "·
H more serious than an act of an advocate if it tends to impede, obstruct or
RADHA MOHAN LAI. v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT [SABHARWAL. J.[ ] 017

prevent the administration of law or it destroys the confidence of the people A
in such administration. In M. 8. Sanghi, Adrncate v. High Court of Punjab &
Haryana and Ors., (1991] 3 SCC 600 while deciding a criminal appeal filed
by an advocate against an order of the High Cou11. this Court said :

"The tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by
disgruntled elements v.. ho fail to secure the desired order is ever on
1 B
the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a
member of the profession resorts to such cheap gim1nicks with a view
to browbeating the judge into submission, it is all the more painful.
When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which would shake
the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage C
caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned judge but also
to the fair name of the judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour,
use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks
like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to
taming a judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases
raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the concerned D
judge but the entire institution. The foundation of our system which
is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it
will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against
the presiding judicial officers with impunity. It is high time that we
realise that the much cherished judicial independence has to be E
protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from
those who are an integral part of the system. An independent judiciary
is of vital importance to any free society. Judicial independence was
not achieved overnight. Since we have inherited this concept from
the British, it would not be out of place to mention the struggle
strong-willed judges like Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the F
Common Pleas, and many others had to put up with the Crown as
well as the Parliament at considerable personal risk. And when a
member of the profession like the appellant who should know better
so lightly trifles with the much endeared concept of judicial
independence to secure small gains it only betrays a lack of respect G
for the martyrs of judicial independence and for the institution itself.
Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair
name of the judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence."

In view of clear and well settled legal position in respect of the rights
and duties of advocates, we unhesitarnly confirm the finding of the High H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A Court that the appellant, Sualal Yadav, committed contempt of court.

The question now to be considered is that of sentence. The appellant
has been sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.
1.000 and in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment
for 15 da:ys. It is painful to punish anyone and more particularly a member
B of legal profession for contempt of court but in order to secure the ends of
justice. in extreme cases, it becomes the duty of the Court to do so. Ordinarily,
on the facts of the case as abovenoticed,, we would have been very reluctant
to interfere with the sentence imposed by the High Court but for the age of
. the appellant. He is a senior citizen. His age is 81 years. We are told that he
C is hardly in active practice anymore. He is stated to have already undergone
one day imprisonment. Despite the fact that he has been reckless and persistent,
yet we think tli<.1t object of punishment will be served by reducing three
months' simple imprisonment to one already undergone by the appellant
while maintaining the fine and the imprisonment in default of payment of
fine.
D
'Criminal Appeal Nos.445 and 449 of 1993 are, thus, disposed of in the
above terms.

K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.