Full Text
CONT.CAS(C)386/2009
Date of Pronouncement 12th April, 2013 JAYABRATA BHATTACHARJEE ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Through: Ms.Sangeeta Chandra, Adv.
JUDGMENT
1. A contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was filed by the petitioner, for initiating contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for not complying with the order passed by this Court in CWP 1808/1994 dated 23.7.1999, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of India on 13.12.2007. The said contempt petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 13.7.2012. Detailed facts have been noticed in the judgment. The concluding portion of the judgment reads as under:
3. Petitioner, who appears in person, has strenuously urged before this Court that the respondents should be punished for wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. It has further been submitted by Mr.Bhattacharjee that the first order was passed in the Writ Petition No.1808/1994 as far back as in the year 1999. This order was upheld by the Supreme Court on 13.12.2007. Thereafter he made repeated requests, issued various reminders and personally met the concerned officials of the DDA, requesting them to comply with the directions of the Court, all of which fell on deaf ears.
4. Mr.Bhattacharjee contends that the contempt petition was filed in the year 2009 and in spite of filing of the contempt petition the respondents did not comply with the order with the sole aim and objective to harass the petitioner, who was fighting to seek justice and not fighting for recovery of money. In these circumstances, petitioner prays that the respondents be punished. Petitioner also prays that the respondents be punished for willful disobedience by rejecting the apology as the same was not tendered at the first opportunity available nor the apology is bona fide and in actual repentance. In support of his arguments, petitioner has relied upon Kalayneshwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2011 (6) SCALE 220 and more particularly paragraph 3, which reads as under: “There is no doubt that at the very initial stage, the respondents have tendered apology and prayed for dropping of the contempt proceedings. We are not quite certain as to the bona fide and intent of the respondents in tendering such an apology. For a Court to accept the apology in a contempt action, it is required that such apology should be bona fide and in actual repentance of the conduct which invited initiation of contempt proceedings. Furthermore, the conduct should be such which can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the Court. `Contempt' is disorderly conduct of a contemner causing serious damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified into two categories: one which has a transient effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither away by the passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and administration of justice. The latter conduct would normally be unforgivable.”
5. Reliance is also placed by the petitioner on Pravin C. Shah Vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 650, in support of his submission that the apology is to be offered at the earliest. It is also submitted by Mr.Bhattacharjee that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence and secondly apology must be offered at the first opportunity available and not at a time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose punishment.
6. Mr.Bhattacharjee has also relied upon Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported at (1995) 5 SCC 429, wherein the Apex Court had held the respondent guilty of contempt on account of delay in compliance of the order so passed. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment read as under:
7. Ms. Sangita Chandra, counsel for the DDA, who had argued the matter before this Court has contended that paragraph 40 of the judgment had made it abundantly clear that respondents must purge the contempt within six weeks and in the eventuality the order was not complied with, it is only then that the respondents were directed to remain present for addressing arguments on punishment. It is thus contended that since the respondents have purged the contempt by complying with the order, the apology should be accepted and no punishment should be awarded to the respondents. It is further submitted that initially the respondents were of the view that no further amounts were payable by the respondents and since another view was possible in the matter, in the facts of the present case the matter should be put at rest.
8. I have heard the petitioner, who appears in person and counsel for the respondent and considered their rival submissions. In the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 569, the Apex Court has held that even negligence or carelessness in implementing the order of the Court would amount to contempt and especially when it has been brought to the notice of the concerned person the order so passed. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:
9. The facts of this case unfold a very sorry state of affairs and the manner in which the DDA has treated an ordinary citizen all of which have been dealt in detail in the judgment so passed by this Court. It is only when the Court had finally held the respondent guilty the payment was made to the petitioner.
10. The Black‟s Law Dictionary (8th Edn., 1999) defines „Contempt‟ as “Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a Court or legislature.” It also adds that “Because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice, it is punishable.”
11. Lord Diplock in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1973) 3 All England Reporter 54 (HL) has said that there is also “an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, since administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any Court of law could be disregarded with impunity.”
12. In the Case of Kalayneshwari (Supra), the Court took notice of the fact that the rule of law has to be maintained at all costs. Paragraph 7 of the judgments read as under:
13. In the case of Pravin C. Shah Vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 650, one of the questions which came up for consideration was as to how a contemnor can purge himself for the contempt, although the Apex Court in the said case was dealing with a criminal contempt. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
23. Now we have to consider the crucial question - How can a contemnor purge himself of the contempt? According to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, purging oneself of contempt can be done by apologising to the court. The said opinion of the Bar Council of India can be seen from the following portion of the impugned order: “Purging oneself of contempt can be only by regretting or apologising in the case of a completed action of criminal contempt. If it is a case of civil contempt, by subsequent compliance with the orders or directions the contempt can be purged off. There is no procedural provision in law to get purged of contempt by an order of an appropriate court.”
24. Purging is a process by which an undesirable element is expelled either from ones own self or from a society. It is a cleansing process. Purge is a word which acquired implications first in theological connotations. In the case of a sin, purging of such sin is made through the expression of sincere remorse coupled with doing the penance required. In the case of a guilt, purging means to get himself cleared of the guilt. The concept of purgatory was evolved from the word purge, which is a state of suffering after this life in which those souls, who depart this life with their deadly sins, are purified and render fit to enter into heaven where nothing defiled enters. (vide Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn., Vol.35A, page 307). In Black‟s Law Dictionary the word purge is given the following meaning: To cleanse; to clear or exonerate from some charge or imputation of guilt, or from a contempt. It is preposterous to suggest that if the convicted person undergoes punishment or if he tenders the fine amount imposed on him the purge would be completed.
25. We are told that a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has expressed a view that purging process would be completed when the contemnor undergoes the penalty (vide Dr. Madan Gopal Gupta vs. The Agra University and ors., AIR 1974 Allahabad 39). This is what the learned single Judge said about it: “In my opinion a party in contempt purged its contempt by obeying the orders of the court or by undergoing the penalty imposed by the court.”
26. Obeying the orders of the court would be a mode by which one can make the purging process in a substantial manner when it is a civil contempt. Even for such a civil contempt the purging process would not be treated as completed merely by the contemnor undergoing the penalty imposed on him unless he has obeyed the order of the court or he has undone the wrong. If that is the position in regard to civil contempt the position regarding criminal contempt must be stronger. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act categorises contempt of court into two categories. The first category is civil contempt which is the willful disobedience of the order of the court including breach of an undertaking given to the court. But criminal contempt includes doing any act whatsoever which tends to scandalise or lowers the authority of any court, or tends to interfere with the due course of a judicial proceeding or interferes with, or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.
27. We cannot therefore approve the view that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor is sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the contempt, particularly in a case where the contemnor is convicted of criminal contempt. The danger in giving accord to the said view of the learned single Judge in the afore-cited decision is that if a contemnor is sentenced to a fine he can immediately pay it and continue to commit contempt in the same court, and then again pay the fine and persist with his contemptuous conduct. There must be something more to be done to get oneself purged of the contempt when it is a case of criminal contempt.”
14. It is settled law that in contempt proceedings an apology must be offered at the first opportunity available and not under the fear at the stage when the punishment is going to be imposed. It is also no longer res integra that apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilt for the offence, which has been committed.
15. It may be noticed that in this case an unconditional apology was not tendered by the DDA at the first opportunity available. In fact, it has been the stand of the DDA that as per their understanding of the order, no further amount was payable by the DDA to the petitioner with regard to inter-category charges. Being conscious of the fact that the power of contempt is to be used sparingly and exercised with great care and caution this Court had called upon the DDA to place various affidavits on records and only upon being satisfied the order dated 13.7.2012 was passed.
16. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that the power of punishment for contempt is a special power [See Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another Versus Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others, reported at 2002 Crl.L.J. 2935].
17. In the case of Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Anr. Vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 561, the Supreme Court had observed that punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt.
18. It has also been repeatedly held that Court should be slow in exercising the power of punishing a person for guilty of contempt, unless the act is deliberate and intentional. Since the respondents herein have purged their contempt and also tendered an unqualified apology, in the peculiar facts of this case the same is accepted, but having regard to the fact that number of years spent by the petitioner in Court and taking into consideration the harassment which the petitioner had to undergo, the present petition is disposed of with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. G.S. SISTANI, J. APRIL 12, 2013 ssn