Not Even Bothered To Tender Unconditional Apology Before Court: Madhya Pradesh HC While Imposing ₹4 Lakh Fine On Advocate For Contempt Of Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench has imposed a fine of Rs. 4,00,000/- on an Advocate in Contempt of Court case. It said that he has not even bothered to tender his unconditional apology before the Court.
In this case, suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against the respondent who was an Advocate as per the order by the then Chief Justice in the year 2013.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra said, “The respondent party-in-person has submitted that whatever is pleaded by him in his reply/applications, the same may be considered. As he has already been held guilty of “criminal contempt” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the language which is used by respondent in his applications/complaints and the allegations levelled against the Hon’ble Judges repeatedly despite various warnings having been given to him coupled with the fact that he has not even bothered to tender his unconditional apology before this Court even at this stage, therefore, this Court while exercising powers under Article 215 of the Constitution deems it appropriate to impose punishment upon him.”
The Bench noted that as per the definition provided under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is apparently clear that even an attempt to scandalize or lower the authority of a Court would fall under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’.
Advocate Pushpendra Yadav appeared as Amicus Curiae while the respondent i.e., Advocate Manoj Kumar Shrivastava appeared in person.
Facts of the Case -
The respondent was a petitioner in a case seeking a direction to the Vikram University to quash the appointment of a person to the post of Lecturer in Language (Lab) and to appoint the petitioner on that post. He was consistently making allegations in writing against Judges at Indore Bench submitting repeated applications/ communications which were prima facie baseless and mischievous. Pursuant thereto, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice along with copy of 14 complaints, however, the said writ petition was dismissed and the same was then challenged via an appeal. The same was allowed and the matter was remanded back for fresh hearing. In pursuance thereto, the same was placed before the Single Bench of the High Court and vide an order, the concerning Judge directed the matter to be placed before another Bench.
Thereafter, vide an order, it was again directed to be placed before another Bench. In pursuance to the order of the Acting Chief Justice, the matter was placed before Justice N.K. Mody. In one of the complaints filed, it was stated by the respondent that the Court had not decided the appeal after properly examining the record. But the same being a judicial order could not have been examined on administrative side. With respect to another complaint, it simply alleged what proceedings took place in the court and the respondent also raised an apprehension regarding his life and property to be in danger. Another complaint was nothing but a copy of subsequent complaint. Then another complaint again contained baseless aspersions against the Judge
The Court in the above context held, “… we hold that the respondent has committed contempt of court by filing false complaints/letters containing contemptuous averments and reckless allegations against the Hon’ble Judges. Therefore, he is held guilty of “criminal contempt” as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with regard to the complaints dated 25.07.2011, 21.08.2012, 24.08.2012 and 25.09.2012 in Concr. No.1 of 2013, Concr. No.5 of 2013, Concr. No.6 of 2013 and Concr. No.7 of 2013 respectively. However, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent qua complaints dated 01.12.2011, 10.12.2011 and 03.07.2012 in Concr. No.2 of 2013, Concr. No.3 of 2013 and Concr. No.4 of 2013 respectively are dropped.”
The Court observed that imposing fine on the respondent/contemnor instead of sending him to jail would be just and appropriate punishment for him. The Court, therefore, held the respondent guilty of having committed a criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with respect to four complaints.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the respondent to deposit fine of Rs. 4 lakhs i.e., Rs. 1 lakh each on four complaints within a period of one month and disposed of the contempt petitions.
Cause Title- In Reference v. Manoj Kumar Shrivastava
