T.C. GUPTA & ANR.versusHARI OM PRAKASH & ORS.

                    [2013) 10 S.C.R. 247


                     T.C. GUPTA & ANR.                              A
                               v.
                HARi OM PRAKASH & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No.9095 of 2013)
                     OCTOBER 8, 2013
                                                                    B
     [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

      Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.12(1) rlw Explanation
thereto -'- Contempt proceedings against appellants for not
furnishing requisite information to the High Court - Challenge      C
to - Held: The High Court had required the appellants-State
officials to furnish names of such land owners who had not
filed their objections u/s.5A of the Land Acquisition Act, and
yet their lands were released from acquisition - Though
information furnished in the written statement filed by the         D
appellant was just the reverse (as information was furnished
in respect of landowners who had filed their objections),
circumstances of the case do not lead to the sole conclusion
that there was a deliberate or wilful attempt on the part of the
appellant not to furnish the requisite information or to furnish    E
wrong information to the High Court - Rather,· failure to furnish
requisite information to the Court may have been occasioned
by a momentary error of judgment on the part of appellant -
For the said lapse, he tendered his unqualified apology in
affidavit alongwith which he also furnished the requisite
                                                                    F
information - Situation calls for a broad and magnanimous
 view of the matter and acceptance of the unconditional
apology tendered by the appellant - Order of the High Court
holding appellant guilty of contempt of Court, set aside - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.5A.
                                                                    G
      Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Exercise of contempt
jurisdiction - Scope - Held: The power to punish for contempt
is a rare specie ofjudicial power which by the very nature calls
 for exercise with great care and caution.
                              247                                   H
    248      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A      The respondents 1 & 2 filed writ petition in the High
  Court challenging the acquisition of land belonging to
  them under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
  1894. The High Court made a query in its order dated 17-
  1-2011 requiring the appellants- State officials to·furnish
B the names of such land owners who had not filed their
  objections under Section SA of the Act and yet their lands
  were released from acquisition. However, the information
  furnished by the appellant in the written statement dated
  19-01-2011 was just the reverse i.e. he furnished
c information in respect of landowners who had filed their
  objections. The High Court issued notice to the
  appellants to show cause as to why contempt
  proceedings should not be initiated against them for not
  furnishing the requisite information to the Court.

D      The appellant filed affidavit on 28-01-2011 tendering
  unconditional and unqualified apology, and, in the
  affidavit filed, also furnished the requisite information. The
  appellant further stated that the lapse on his part was
  bona fide and unintentional. The High Court, however,
E placing reliance upon email dated 17-01-2011 alongwith
  attachment sent by the appellant to his subordinate
  officials, came to the conclusion that the appellants had
  wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court ·for which they
  were liable to be punished and accordingly, held the
F appellants guilty of commission of contempt. Aggrieved,
  the appellants filed the present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. A reading of the e-mail dated 17-01-2011
G alongwith attachment sent by the first appellant to his
  subordinate officials, would seem to indicate that on the
  very day of the order i.e. 17.01.2011 the first appellant
  understood the said order to be requiring him to lay
  before the High Court information as to whether the land
H
T.C. GUPTA & ANR. v. HARi OM PRAKASH & ORS.           249


owners in favour of whom land has been released had           A
filed objections under Section SA of the Act or not. This
is how the first appellant understood the order of the
High Court. At that point of time the order of the Court
was not available to the first appellant. On such
understanding of the order dated 17 .01.2011 the first        B
appellant directed the concerned subordinate official to
furnish information in the prescribed format in respect of
the land owners who had filed their objections under
Section SA of the Act so that the same could be placed
before the Court on the date fixed. [Para 12] [2S6-B-D]       c
     1.2. The e-mail dated 17 .01.2011 partially bears out
the stand taken by the first appellant that he understood
the order of the Court as requiring him to furnish
information in respect of land owners who had filed their
objections. Admittedly, a copy of the order of the court      D
dated 17.01.2011 became available to the first appellant
only at 6.00 p.m. on 18.01.2011. In his affidavit the first
appellant had also stated that it would have been better
if, on 19.01.2011, he had sought more time to furnish the
requisite information against query No.1. However, he did     E
not do so as the information in respect of other queries
were available. The circumstances in which the events
have unfolded, does not lead to the sole conclusion that
there was a deliberate or wilful attempt on the part of the
first appellant not to furnish the requisite information or   F
to furnish wrong information to the Court. Rather, it
appears probable that the failure to furnish the requisite
information to the Court may have been occasioned by
a momentary error of judgment on the part of the first
appellant. For the said lapse he had tendered his             G
unqualified apology in the affidavit dated 28.01.2011
along with which he had also furnished the requisite
information i.e. name and particulars of the land owners
who had not filed their objections under Section SA of the
Act. The above situation called for a broad and               H
    250      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A magnanimous view of the matter and the acceptance of
  the unconditional apology tendered. Such a course of
  action would have better served the dignity and majesty
  of the institution. In fact, under Section 12(1) of the
  Contempt of Courts Act read with Explanation thereto an
B apology ought not to be rejected merely on the ground
  that it is accompanied by an explanation for the lapse that
  had occurred. The power to punish for contempt is a rare
  specie of judicial power which by the very nature calls
  for exercise with great care and caution. The power to
c punish for contempt ought to be exercised only where
  "silence is no longer an option." The conclusion reached
  by the High Court in the impugned order is not
  sustainable. The order passed by it is set aside. [Paras
  13, 15, 16] [256-F-H; 257-A-D; 258-C-D, E-G]
D        Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 AIR 1965 SC 745: .
    1965 SCR 413; Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
    The State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 221: 1969 SCR 779
    In Re: S. Mulgaokar (1978) 3 SCC 339: 1978 (3) SCR 162 -
    relied on.
E
                         Case Law Reference:
          1965 SCR 413          relied on            Para 14
          1969 SCR 779          relied on            Para 15
F         1978 (3) SCR 162      relied on            Para 15
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    9095 of 2013.

G        From the Judgment & Order dated 31.01.2011 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 5104
    of 2006.
        K.K. Venugopal, Govind Goel, Ankur Talwar, Sanjay Kr.
    Yadav, Ankit Goel, Mohan Lal Sharma, S.S. Shamshery, Arun
H
T.C. GUPTA & ANR. v. HARi OM PRAKASH & ORS.                 251


Bhardwaj, Bhakti Vardhan, V.M. Vishnu, Bharat Sood, Dr.             A
Kailash Chand for the appearing parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                    B
     2. By an order dated 31.01.2011 the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana has held the appellants guilty of commission of
contempt and had adjourned the matter to a subsequent date
for hearing on the question of sentence. Aggrieved, this appeal
has been filed.                                                     c
    3. The facts, in brief, may be noticed.

     The respondents 1 & 2 had filed a writ petition (C.W.P.
No.5104 of 2006) in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
challenging the acquisition of land belonging to them under the     D
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for
short "the Act"). By the impugned Notification(s) issued under
the Act, over 500 acres of land belonging to different land
owners, including respondents-writ petitioners, was sought to
be acquired. According to the respondents-writ petitioners,         E
nearly 80% of the acquired area was subsequently released
from acquisition. Consequently, the remaining land (which
included the land of the respondents-writ petitioners) had
ceased to be viable for the purpose for which the impugned
acquisition was made, namely, for development of residential        F
and commercial sectors 8-19 at Sonepat. It was the further
case of the respondents-writ petitioners before the High Court
that the release of the land proposed for acquisition was at the
instance of one Omaxe Housing and Developing Company Ltd.
which had arrived at some understandings with the land owners       G
and had executed agreements of sale with such land owners
even after publication of the notification under Section 6 of the
Act.

    4. The writ petition filed by the respondents was resisted
by the State by contending, inter-alia, the same to be not          H
    252       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   maintainable on the ground that the respondents-writ petitioners
    had not filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act. What
    happened thereafter is not very relevant save and except that
    on 17.01.2011 the following order came to be passed by the
    High Court:
B
          "Mr. Sehgal seeks time to file additional affidavit on the
          following points:

          1. In how many cases the land of the landowners who had
          not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Land
c         Acquisition Act, 1894 was released through the
          mechanism of collaboration agreements?

          2. What are the norms to grant licence to construct a
          Plotted Colony/Group Housing Colony?
D         3. What are the rules regarding classification of zones i.e.
          high potential, medium potential and low potential zones,
          and when those norms were amended?

          4. Whether the policy/rules/norms were relaxed to grant
E         licence to any of the 11 collaborations in this case?

          Adjourned to 19.1.2011."

       5. On the date fixed i.e. 19.01.2011, the first appellant filed
  a duly verified written statement wherein, after setting out the
F order of the High Court dated 17.01.2011, the appellant had
  submitted the details of the land owners who had filed their
  objections under Section 5A of the Act and whose land was
  released from acquisition. This was in response to the first
  query made by the High Court in the order dated 17.01.2011.
G In so far as the second, third and fourth queries are concerned,
  information was duly furnished by the first appellant. No issue
  with regard to the ~id part of the order dated 17.01.2011
  having been raised the same may be understood as not
  requiring any further attention.
H
 T.C. GUPTA & ANR. v. HARi OM PRAKASH & ORS.                    253
               [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
      6. On consideration of the written statement filed by the first   A
appellant, the High Court took exception to the information
placed before it in response to the first query. What was
required to be furnished in response to the said query were the
names of such land owners who had not filed their objections
under Section SA of the Act and yet their lands were released           B
from acquisition whereas the information furnished by the first
appellant in the written statement dated 19.01.2011 was the
reverse. Consequently, notice was issued to both the appellants
to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be
initiated against them for not furnishing the requisite information     c
to the Court. The case was adjourned to 24.01.2011 and then
to 28.01.2011.

     7. Separate affidavits were filed by both the appellants on
28.01.2011 wherein they had tendered unconditional and
unqualified apology for not furnishing the necessary information        D
as required in terms of the order of the High Court dated
17.01.2011. In the affidavit of the first appellant, it was also
stated that as many as 483 land owners had not filed their
objections under Section 5A of the Act despite which their lands
were released and only in 30 instances objections had been              E
filed pursuant to which the lands of such land owners were
released from acquisition. All particulars in this regard were
also furnished. The first appellant, in the affidavit filed, also
sought to explain why the requisite information could not be
furnished on the earlier date fixed i.e. 19.01.2011 along with          F
the written statement filed on the said date. In this regard it was
contended that though the first appellant was personally present
in court on 17.01.2011 he had not fully comprehended the order
as pronounced in Court. A copy of the order of the court dated
17.01.2011 was made available to him only at about 6.00 p.m.            G
on 18.01.2011 and the written statement was filed in the next
morning i.e. 19.01.2011. It was further stated by the first
appellant that, through hindsight, it would have been prudent on
his part to seek further time to furnish the information against
the first query contained in the order dated 17 .01.2011.               H
    254      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A However, as the first appellant was in a position to furnish all
  the requisite information in respect of the other queries, the
  written statement dated 19.01.2011 came to be filed. It was
  further stated by the first appellant that the lapse €2,n his part
  was bona fide and unintentional and he did not have the
B remotest intent to withhold any information from the court.

       8. The second appellant who had filed a separate affidavit
  also owned responsibility for placing inaccurate information
  before the court though, according to him, he was entrusted with
C the duty to collect information pertaining to query Nos. 2, 3 and
  4 made by the order dated 17.01.2011 whereas the information
  in respect of query No.1 was to be gathered by another official.

           9. The matter was considered on 31.01.2011. The High
    Court after noticing the terms of the order dated 17.01.2011 ;
D   the written statement filed by the appellant No. 1 on 19.01.2011;
    the order dated 19.01.2011 passed by it and the separate
    affidavits of the appellants filed on 28.01.2011 reiterated that
    the first query raised by it was with regard to the particulars of
    the land owners whose land was released from acquisition
E   though they had not filed their objections under Section 5Aot
    the Act. According to the High Court as the query raised by it
    was "simple and straight" it is incomprehensible that the
    appellants, .who are' senior officers and were personally present
    in co,.urCcould not have understood the question(s) raised.
F   PlaCing reliance on the correspondence dated 17 .01.2011
    enclosed as annexure A2 and A3 to the affidavit dated
    28.01.2011 filed by the first appellant, the High Court came to
    the conclusion that from the said correspondence (letters issued
    to subordinate officers) authored by the first appellant himself
G   it is evident that the first appellant understood the query of the
    court in clear terms. The projections in the affidavit dated
    28.01.2011 were accordingly understood by the High Court to
    be afterthoughts. In view of the above, coupled with the fact that
    the first appellant had conducted himself similarly on earlier
    occasions, the High Court took the view that in the present case
H
 T.C. GUPTA & ANR. v. HARi OM PRAKASH & ORS.                 255
               [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
wrong information was deliberately furnished to the Court which      A
amounted to an "interference with the due process of law and
judicial proceedings." Accordingly, the impugned order came
to be passed holding that the appellants had wilfully disobeyed
the order of the Court for which they are liable to be punished.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid developments and the order                8
 passed, the present appeal has been filed.

      10. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S.S. Shamshery,
I.earned counsel appearing for the respondents.
                                                                     c
      11. The material facts indicating the unfolding of the
relevant events leading to the eventual decision of the High
Court has been narrated in seriatim in the preceding
paragraphs. The information sought for by the High Court; the
response of the appellants and their explanation with regard to      D
the answers provided in the first instance and the reasons which
had oecasioned the errors therein have all been set out in detail.
Notwithstanding the above, the High Court has come to the
conclusion that th.e explanation provided by the appellants is a
~.er.e, -eyewash and wroo,g__ information was deliberately           E
furnished and correct informatiorrwas withheld by the appellants
which make them liable in contempt. The basis for the above
conclusion reached by the High Court is the contents of
annexure A2 and A3 to the affidavit dated 28.01.2011 filed by
the first appellant, namely, the email dated 17 .01.2011             F
alongwith attachment sent by the first appellant to his
subordinate officials. The relevant part of the aforesaid
communication which has been extracted by the High Court in
its order dated 31.01.20~ 1 is as follows:

     "The Hon'ble High Court during the hearing today has            G
     directed to file an affidavit whether the landowners. in
     favour of whom. above land has been released and licence
     has been granted. filed objections under Section 5-A or
     not. You are, therefore, directed to supply this information
                                                                     H
    256      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A         in following format in respect of those who had filed
          objections under Section 5-A. ....... "

       12. A reading of the above extract would seem to indicate
  that on the very day of the order i.e. 17.01.2011 the first
  appellant understood the said order to be requiring him to lay
8
  before the High Court information as to whether the land owners
  in favour of whom land has been released had filed objections
  under Section 5A of the Act or not. This is how the first appellant
  understood the order of the High Court. At that point of time
  the order of the Court was not available to the first appellant.
C On such understanding of the order dated 17 .01.2011 the first
  appellant directed the concerned subordinate official to furnish
  information in the prescribed format in respect of the land
  owners who had filed their objections under Section 5A of the
  Act so that the same could be placed before the Court on the
D date fixed. While it may be correct that the first appellant ought
  to have sought information not only in respect of land owners
  who had filed their objections but also as regards the land
  owners who had not filed their objections, the question that
  arises is whether the said lapse, by itself, will make the first
E appellant liable in contempt?

        13. The e-mail dated 17.01.2011, extracted above, partially
  bears out the stand taken by the first appellant that he
  understood the order of .tne Court as requiring him to furnish
F information in respect of land owners who had filed their
  objections. Admittedly, a copy of the order of the court dated
  17.01.2011 became available to the first appellant only at 6.00
  p.m. on 18.01.2011. In his affidavit the first appellant had also
  stated that it would have been better if, on 19.01.2011, he had
G sought more time to furnish the requisite information against
  query No.1. However, he did not do so as the information in
  respect of other queries were available. The circumstances in
  which the events have unfolded, in our considered view, does
  not lead to the sole conclusion that there was a deliberate or
  wilful attempt on the part of the first appellant not to furnish the
H
     T.C. GUPTA & ANR. v. HARi OM PRAKASH & ORS. 257
                   [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
requisite information or to furnish wrong information to the          A
Court. Rather, it appears probable that the failure to furnish the
requisite information to the Court may have been occasioned
by a momentary error of judgment on the part of the first
appellant. For the said lapse he had tendered his unqualified
apology in the affidavit dated 28.01.2011 along with which he         B
had also furnished the requisite information i.e. name and
particulars of the land owners who had not filed their objections
under Section 5A of the Act. The above situation, in our
considered view, called for a broad and magnanimous view of
the matter and the acceptance of the unconditional apology            c
tendered. Such a course of action, according to us, would have
better served the dignity and majesty of the institution. In fact,
under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with
Explanation thereto an apology ought not to be rejected merely
on the ground that it is accompanied by an explanation for the
                                                                      0
lapse that had occurred.

     14. Before parting, we consider it apt to quote hereunder
certain observations of this Court in its opinion rendered in the
Special Reference No. 1 of 19641 (under Article 143(1) of the
Constitution) made to this Court in the matter arising out of         E
notice of breach of privilege of the State Legislature issued to
two Hon'ble Judges of the Allahabad High Court as, according
to us it is in the aforesaid spirit that the contempt jurisdiction
ought to be viewed and exercised.
                                                                      F
       "142. Before we part with this topic, we would like to refer
       to one aspect of the question relating to the exercise of
       power to punish for contempt. So far as the courts are
       concerned, Judges always keep in mind. the warning
       addressed to them by Lord Atkin in Andre Paul v. Attorney-     G
       General of Trinidad, AIR 1936 PC 141. Said Lord Atkin,
       "Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to
       suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though out-spoken
       comments of ordinary men." We ought never to forget that
1.    AIR 1965 SC 745.                                                H
    258       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A         the power to punish for contempt large as it is, must always
          be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection.
          Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or
          irritation would not help to sustain the dignity or status of
          the court, but may sometimes affect it adversely. Wise
s         Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity
          and status of their office is to deserve respect from the
          public at large by the quality of their judgments, the
          fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach,
          and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they
c         observe in their judicial conduct. .......... "

        15. That the power to punish for contempt is a rare specie
  of judicial power which by the very nature calls for exercise with
  great care and caution had been reiterated by this Court in
  Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of
D Maharashtra 2 whereas in In Re: S. Mulgaokar, Justice V.R.
  Krishna Iyer while noticing the principles of the exercise of
  power of contempt had outlined the first of such principles to
  be "wise economy of the use of the contempt power by the
  court". Reiteration of the aforesaid principle has been made in
E several subsequent pronouncements of this Court, reference to
  which would not be necessary in view of the unanimity of opinion
  on the issue that the power to punish for contempt ought to be
  exercised only where "silence is no longer an option."

F        16. For the aforesaid reasons we are unable to sustain the
    conclusion reached by the High Court in its order dated
    31.01.2011. We therefore deem it appropriate to set aside the
    order dated 31:01.2011 passed by the High Court and allow
    the present appeal.

G B.B.B.                                             Appeal allowed.



    2.   AIR 1971 SC 221.
    3.   (1978) 3 sec 339.