(Overruled by Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409)

Facts in Brief

Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra, the then President of the Bar Council of India, was accused of abusing a judge of the Allahabad High Court. The incident occurred while the Court was in session, and the applicant Judge was in the process of hearing a case in which the contemnor was appearing on behalf of one of the parties. According to the applicant Judge (Justice S.K. Keshote), the contemnor had started shouting in reply to a question and had threatened that he would get the Judge transferred and even impeached. The Judge further complained that the contemnor had insulted him in open Court. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court of India for decision.

Arguments

Before the Supreme Court, the following was argued by the Contemnor:

• That the applicant Judge had treated him unfairly and had proceeded to set aside an order of the lower court without even hearing the arguments.
• That he was being “roughed up” by the Judge for taking a fearless stand to protect the freedom of the Bar.
• That an investigation must be ordered into the incident to find out whether contempt had been committed, punishable under Article 215 of the Constitution or under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
• That his conduct did not amount to contempt, as normally altercations take place between a Judge and the arguing advocate, which may technically be contempt on either side; but there being no intention, the provisions of contempt were not attracted.
• That the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to punish for an act of contempt committed in respect of another Court of Record, which was invested with identical and independent power for punishing contempt of itself.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, rejecting the contention of the contemnor that the Court could not take cognizance of contempt committed in respect of another Court, held that being a Court of Record, the Court had the power to punish for contempt of High Courts also.

The Apex Court also did not accept the subsequent unconditional apology of the contemnor, for the reasons that: (a) it was not a free and frank admission of the misdemeanour; and (b) the Court did not find any sincere regret for his act of disrespect shown to the applicant. Instead, the apology was concealed in such garbed language that it justified his conduct. Thus, the Supreme Court, exercising its power to do complete justice under Article 142 read with Article 129, found the contemnor guilty of criminal contempt of court.

For the Common Man

The important aspects of the judgment can be summarised as follows:

• The Supreme Court held that under Articles 129, 215 and 142 of the Constitution, the Court had the power to take suo motu cognizance of contempt proceedings.
• It also held that Article 129 vested the Supreme Court not only with the power to punish for contempt of itself, but also of lower courts and tribunals, in its capacity as the highest court of the land.