RAKESH KAUL AND ORSversusTHE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

                RAKESH KAUL AND ORS                                           A
                         v.
  THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

                           AUGUST 12, 1994
                                                                              B
  [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJI., R.M. SAHAI ANDS. MOHAN,
                         JJ.]


      Contempt of Coult Act, 1971

     Litigants attempting to assault and manhandle the other party-Coult C
condemning such behaviour and issuing non-bailable waJTallts-Held : Law
must be allowed to take its own course-Circumventing the orders of Coult
can not be tolerated-Direction to appear before the High Coult and tender
unconditional apology without pleading any technicality-High Coult iii take
a.sympathetic view and pass such orders as it may deem fit.                 D

       Being aggrieved by the change of dates in relation to the Degree
Examinations by the University of Kashmir, the petitioners preferred Writ
petitions before the High Court. The Assistant Controller o.f Examination
appeared in person and sought two days' time to obtain necessary Instruc-
tions from the University. The matter stood adjourned to 17.7.1992. How-      E
ever, the matter was recalled on 15.7.1992 itself during the absence of the
petitioners, and the Writ Petition was dismissed.

        After the order was pronounced the petitioners attempted to assault
and manhandle the Assistant Controller of Examinations outside the            F
Court room, The High Court condemned the behavour of the petitioners
and issued rule against them to show cause as to why they should not be
punished for contempt of court. Some of the petitioners appeared before
the High Court and some others did not. Non-bailable warrants were
Issued against them. Against this, the present Special Leave Petition has
be.Jln filed.
                                                                              G·

     On behalf of the petitioners It was contended that they were not
responsible for the alleged manhandling of the Assistant Controller of
Examination; and that even otherwise they cannot be held responsible
concerning a matter which took place outside the Court.                       H
                                    623
    624                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         Disposing of the Special Leave Petition, this Court

        HELD : Contempt is essentially a matter for the court concerned.
  Such a jurisdiction is vested in the court in order that the majesty of.law
  can be upheld. If any interference is made or sought to be made in the
  course of justice, the court must take a serious view of the same. As to
B what exactly happened on 15.7.1992 is a matter which will have to be
  correctly ascertained and law must be allowed to take its course. Circum-
  venting the orders of court cannot be tolerated. Therefore, this Court
  cannot interfere. However, petitioners are directed to appear before the
  High Court and tender their unconditional apology without pleading any
C technicality. In such a case, the court may take a sympathetic view and
  pass such orders as it may deem lit. (626-A to CJ

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Peti-
    tion (Cr!.) No. 135 of 1994.

D        Froio the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.93 of the Jammu &
    Kashmir High Court in C.0.A. No. 76 of 1992.

          S.K. Bhattacharya for the Petitioners.

          The following order of the Court was delivered :
E
          The petitioners herein aggrieved by the change of dates in relation
    to B.A., B. Com, B.Sc. examinations by the University of Kashmir from.
    5.9.1992 to 17,25 and 31.7.1992 preferred writ petitions to the High Court
    of Jammu & Kashmir. On 15.7.1992, Shri Mohd. Yasin Malilc, the Assistant
F   Controller of Examination appeared in person in Court. He sought two
    days' time to obtain necessary instructions from the University of Kashmir.
    The matter stood adjourned to 17.7.1992. However, the matter appears to
    have been recalled on 15.7.1992 itself during the absence of the petitioners.
    An order was passed dismissing the writ petition.
G         After the order .was pronounced, the petitioners attempted to assault
    and man-handle Mr. Mohd. Yasin Malilc, Assistant Controller of Examina-
    tion outside the court room. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned
    Single Judge took a serious view of the conduct of the petitioners. Such a
    conduct 'prima facie appears to coerce authorities into submission and
H   obstruct the administration of justice. He concluded as under :       ·
              RAKESH KAUL v. HIGH COURT OF J. AND K.                       625

            "It is a matter of regret that petitioners, being educated youth      A
        should have taken law into their won hands with a view to strike
        terror in the minds of authorities or to influence the functioning
        of this court. It will be a sad day if the litigating parties are given
        licence to pressurise and brow beat the authorities and the courts
        which have the consequence of impeding the course of justice.
                                                                                  B
        Such actions require to be curbed for the sake of upholding the
        majesty of law."

      On this, a rule was issued against the petitio,ners requiring them to
show cause why they should not be punished for the contempt of court. As
regards petitioner No. 2 Ajay Razdan, a non-bailable warrant was issued           C
which was to be executed by the DIG, Jammu Range. However, the
warrant was not executed and the police pleaded helplessness which con-
duct came for consideration. Some of the petitioners appeared before the
Court while Ramesh Kumar Bhat and Ramesh Trakroo did not appear. So
much so, non-bailable warrants had to be issued against them. In view of          D
the passage of one year from the date of impugned order dated 8.12.1993,
fresh warrants were directed to be issued and executed by SSP concerned
against Ramesh Kumar Bhat and Ramesh Trakroo.

       It is argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
neither of them responsible for the alleged man-handling of the Assistant         E
Controller of Examination, Mohd. Yasin Malik. Even otherwise concerning
a matter which took place outside the court, they cannot be held respon-
sible. There fore the errant students punished in this manner, may not be
warranted in the circumstances of the case.

      The iropugned order dated 8.12.1993 states as follows :                     F
            "Two conternners, namely, Ramesh Kumar Bhat and Ramesh
        Trakroo have been successfully evading the process of this Court
        for the last about one year. The SSP Jammu was directed to
        execute the non- bailable warrants against them by an order dated         G
        3.12.1992. On his failure to do so he was ordered to remain present
        before this Court vide order dated 10.3.1993 for 30.3.1993 .

            ...... Fresh warrants shall be issued against the aforesaid two
        conternners to be executed by the SSP concerned and shall remain
        valid till the same are executed."                                  H
    626                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          Contempt is essentially a matter for the court concerned. Such
    jurisdiction is vested in the court in order that the majesty of Jaw can be
    upheld. If any interference is made of sought to be made in the course of
    justice, the court must take a serious view of the same. As to what exactly
    happened on 15.7.1992 is a matter which will have to be correctly ascer-
    tained and law must be allowed to take its course. For students to circum-
B   vent orders of court cannot be tolerated. Therefore, we cannot interfere.
    However, we would direct the petitioners to appear before the High Court
    and tender their unconditional apology without pleading any technicality.
    In such a case, the court may take a sympathetic view and pass such orders
    as it may deem fit. Subject to these observations, the present S.L.P. is
c    disposed of.
            'I
    G.N.                                                  Petition disposed of.