Court on its Own Motion Vs. Vikas Sanoria - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (24 Aug 2018)

An apology for criminal contempt of Court must be offered at the earliest, since a belated apology hardly shows the "contrition which is essence of purging of contempt"

MANU/HP/1199/2018

Contempt of Court

Present Court after noticing that, the Respondent had made certain scurrilous and indecent attacks against the Judicial Magistrate initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings. The Respondent, who happens to be an Advocate, after putting in appearance in those proceedings thereafter had posted the comments on his face book account. Issue involved in present case is whether Respondent is liable to be convicted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

A lawyer is an officer of the Court and is expected to conduct himself in a manner that behooves his privileged position in the Court. Advocates are required to conduct themselves at all time as gentlemen; this conduct assumes greater significance in a court of law when he/she stands to assist the Court. It is expected that they would stand to augment the process of justice instead of acting in a manner which tends to obstruct the functioning of the Court and the administration of justice.

No doubt, fair comments, even if, outspoken, but made without any malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith, in proper language, do not attract any punishment for contempt of court. However, when from the criticism deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring down the administration of justice into disrepute, the courts must bestir themselves to uphold the dignity and the majesty of law. No system of justice can tolerate such unbridled licence on the part of a person to permit himself the liberty or scandalizing a court by casting unwarranted, uncalled for an unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions as it amounts to an interference with the due course of administration of justice.

An apology for criminal contempt of court must be offered at the earliest since a belated apology hardly shows the "contrition which is the essence of the purging of contempt". Evidently, in present case, the Respondent even after this Court had issued notice, relentlessly continued to post the adverse comments not only against the Judicial Magistrate, District Judge, Shimla but even also this Court or rather contemptuous comments on its facebook account. Being a member of the bar, it was the duty of the Respondent not to demean and disgrace the majesty of justice. There was no occasion for the Respondent to have attributed insinuation and cast bald and unsubstantiated allegations against the judges that too right across the board i.e. Judicial Magistrate, District and Sessions Judge, Shimla and this Court. Such an act especially by member of Bar who is another cog in the wheel of justice is highly reprehensible and deeply regretted.

It is clearly evident that, the Respondent has indulged himself in scandalizing the Court and his act amounts to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, apart from scandalizing and lowering the dignity of this Court. The charges framed against the Respondent stand duly proved. Accordingly, the Respondent is convicted under Section 12 of the Act.

The Respondent is sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. In addition thereto, the Respondent is directed to purge the contempt by deleting his face book account and at the same time, the Registrar General of this Registry is directed to take up the matter with regard to deletion of the face book account of the respondent with the concerned Agency and ensure that the same is deleted by the concerned Agency.

Tags : NOTICE CONTEMPT PENALTY