Court's Reluctance To Invoke Contempt Power Resulting In Litigants Turning Aggressive: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that reluctance on part of Courts to invoke contempt power has resulted in litigants turning aggressive in contemporary times.

The Court was considering an Application seeking transfer of a Revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

The bench of Justice JJ Munir observed, "......It is unfortunate that in contemporary times, litigants have turned aggressive because for one reason or the other, the Courts are eschewing invocation of their power of criminal contempt. The restraint or the hesitation comes from honoring the citizen's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and a fortiorari their right to ventilate their grievances. This does not mean that any kind of scandalous allegations without basis can be hurled at the Court and got away with....."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Umesh Chandra Tiwari.

Facts of the Case

It was the case of the Petitioner that the Presiding Officer, instead of deciding the Application, set down the revision for hearing, which is illegal and discloses bias. It was further alleged that the long dates are being given and the matter is never taken up for hearing.

The stinging allegation was that the opposite party to the revision is a man with high political connections and many political leaders and ministers are in close contact with him. It was submitted that he was often heard to say aloud that he will not permit the case to be decided as long as he wishes. There was then a more scandalous allegation that these facts would show that there is some kind of a connivance between Respondent No. 4 and the Presiding Officer of the Court. The Petitioner averred further that in these circumstances, he has no faith that an impartial and evenhanded verdict will be given.

Reasoning By Court

The Court accepted the submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner that the order of the Board is indeed cryptic and laconic. It also found the allegations to be utterly scandalous.

"Even if we were to quash the order passed by the Board on ground that it does not carry reasons, no different conclusions would result for the reasons that we presently indicate. The allegations in the transfer application are absolutely unsupported, either by tangible material or circumstances that may compel the Court to conclude that the Presiding Officer is not fair towards the parties or biased. The fact that an application which the petitioner desires to be heard first before final hearing, has not been taken up separately, is a matter which may be an illegal course on the Presiding Officer's part to adopt or it may not be so, but it is no ground to interfere bias," the Court observed.

The Court stated that a wrong order or procedure does not lead to an inference of bias, and mere delay on the part of the Presiding Officer in hearing the revision is no ground to infer bias.

"It is quite another matter that there should not be delay in hearing the matter by any Court as far as possible, but if there is delay or laxity, that by itself would not show bias against a party. The more definitive grounds about connection with high political functionaries, ministers etc. is absolutely without any basis. The names of politically powerful persons or those in political power, have not been mentioned to test the veracity of the allegations, let alone any material annexed to show the connections claimed for the 4th respondent," it further stated.

The Court stressed that the case about there being a connivance between the Presiding Officer and Respondent No. 4, borders on criminal contempt.

"If an allegation of connivance by any party is made against a Presiding Officer, it has to be one with the highest sense of responsibility and material of sterling quality. It is another matter that the Court hearing the transfer matter or whatever forum the complaint is laid may accept it or not. But, to make such an application without any material or circumstances to point out, shows not a sense of freedom to express amongst citizens who are litigants but virtually extreme indiscipline and lack of sense of propriety, to say the least. The sense of propriety and proportion is essential for the entire citizenry in order to sustain a civil society. Allegations such as these that figure in the transfer application show a mindset which is not at all compatible with an orderly society," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed with a cost of ₹5000/-

Cause Title: Jai Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Click here to read/ download Order