RAM PARTAP SHARMA & Ors. v. DAYA NAND · & Ors.

Five members of the Bar Association at Charkhi Dadri sent a letter addressed to the President with copies to the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Chief Minister of Haryana, the Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister. In that letter they said that Justice D. S. Tewatia visited the Bar and inspected the court at Charkhi Dadri on 17 February, 1975. Thereafter they stated 'a/I' follows : "While talking with the members' of the Bar, he pointed out that the library of this Bar seems to be very poor. Then Shri Virender Kumar Single, a member of the Bar requesed the honouralile Judge to help the Bar either by supplying books or by allocating the grant by the High Court so that the needy Bar may be able to purchase neces sary books for the library. Then the Honourable Judge turned down the request and replied that it is never possible in the present system of Government of India. If you want this kind of help then you should prepare yourself for the communist Government in India by creating such atmosphere in the country. At another stage also during the course of his discussion with the members of the Bar over the matter of Rajasthan Law students demands in which they demanded a grant E. G A B c D E F G H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977) 1 S.C.R. of Rs. 5000/- from the Government for the library of each fresh law graduate an~ Rs. 200/- P.er month for a period of two years the initial stage of. their legal practice he strongly emphasised the need for the commumst system of Society and Government in India to fulfil these deman.ds. The learned Judge also met Smt. Chandrawati separately and discussed with her the political affairs of the State. He also expressed his de~ire to see Comrade Dharam Singh a member of the Marxist Communist Party at his residence before Smt. Chandra wati. During his stay in the rest house he also discussed the teachers agitation and individual position of various political leaders in the State. He also enquired all about Shri Sohan Lal a leader of the teacher's movement in the State". The letter concluded by saying that the Hon'ble Judg~ du~ing his entire stay in his tour deliberately s~owed the .bent of his mmd towards communism while exchanging view on vanous matters. The appellants took a copy of their letter to the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana. The appellants could not see the Chief Justice and left the lett,er with the Registrar in a closed cover. The Registrar told them that the closed cover could reach the Hon'ble Chief Justice, A notice was issued by the High Court on 12 March 1975 as follows : "Letter dated 20th February, 1975 a copy of an application dated 20 February, 1975 signed by 15 members of the District Bar Association, Bhiwani, has been placed for the consideration of this Bench. On a perusal of the contents thereof, a prima-facie case of criminal contempt is made out. We therefore direct that the contempt of Court (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1974 be issued to each of the signatories of the above said application, returnable for the 1st ot April, 1975". The High Court did not take any action against two persons on the letter written by five members of the Bar Association of Charkhi Dadri. Each of the appellants affirmed an affidavit in this pattern. "It is an article of faith with the deponent that dignity and respect of all Courts and of all Judges and particularly of the High Court must be maintained for, amongst other reasons, on that depends the orderly tunctioning of the society as also prestige of the profession to which the deponent has the honour to belong. The deponent has been taught to believe that a Judge ought always to steer clear of all avoidable con troversial matters. The deponent most respectfully submits that the contents of the letter which he and others addressed to the President of India cannot be construed as scandalising the Hon'ble Judge or the Court in any manner to weaken people's faith in the administration of justice. The letter in question was addressed by the deponent to the President of India with copies to others with the sole object of conveying the opinion that the public expression by the Hon'ble Judge of his- personal views on controversial political matters concerning the merits and demerits of the present system of the Government was not in keeping with the well accepted role of proverbial aloofness of a Judge. The letter was addressed .bona fide, in good faith and without \ I ~\ RAM PAR TAP SHARMA V. DAYANAND (Ray, C.J.) 24 5 It was intended to be a A any ill-will and no publicity was given to it. privileged communication made solely with a view to uphold the In order to prevent unwanted disclosure of its dignity of the Court. contents, the communication in question was brought personally by two members of the Bar Association, Bhiwani to Chandigarh in a closed cover addressed to the Chief Justice_ for being handed over to him for his personal attention. The deponent submits that the con tents of the letter have no relevance or relation to the functioning of R the learned Judge of the High Court. The letter does not interfere much less substantially with due course of justice or proper adminis tration of law by the courts. The deponent submits that there was no intention whatsoever on his part to scandalise the Hon'ble Judge or this Hon'ble Court or to lower the authority or undern1ine the prestige of the learned Judge or of the Hon'ble Court or to weaken in any way the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. The C deponent respectfully suomits that the communication does not bear In any case, out iiny foundation for an action for criminal contempt. if in view of this Hon'ble Court, the action of the deponent in address- ing the letter in question constituted for any reason contempt of court, one would be more sorry than the deponent himself. Therefore, the deponent tenders his apology to this Hon'ble Court, for the same, and prays for its acceptance." D The Full Bench of the High Court consisting of Justice Surjit Singh Sandhawalia, Justice Prem Chand Jain and Justice Bhupinder Singh Dhillon extracted portions from the affidavit of the appellants to which references has been made. The Full Bench thereafter referred to paragraph 9 of the affidavit where the deponents said that "if in view of this Hon'ble Court the action of the deponent in addressing the letter in CiJUestion constituted for any reason contempt of court, no one would be more sorry than the deponent himself. Therefore, the deponent tender his apology to tliis Hon'ble Court for the same and prays for its acceptance". After the recital of paragraph 9 the judgement of the "In view of the averments made in the Full Bench said as follows: affidavit filed in rely · and in particular in paragraph 9 thereof we accept the apology tendered on behalf of the respondents and dis charge the rule issued against them". E. F In our view the judgment is utterly unsound and unsustainable. The elementary basis of acceptance of apology is that there is to be a finding of committal of contempt. The deponents stated that if the Court is of the view that the letter of the deponents constitute for any G reason contempt of court, the deponents tender apology. It is a con ditional apology. The condition is that if there is contempt the depo nents tender apology. In the absence of any finding by the High Court that the appellants committed any contempt of court there was never any occasion for acceptance of apology. It appears before us that the allegations in the letter were not dis~ H puted and challenged. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the letters written by the appellants were correct. It is indeed curious 24G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i 977J 1 S.C.R. < that the High Court in the notice referred to the Jetter of the appellant and said "on a perusal of the contents thereof a prima facie case for contempt is made out". The High Court did not mention which particular portion of the letter constituted contempt of court. It is necessary to state here that if any Judge addresses on political problems or controversies the Judge exposes himself to discussion by public. The reason is that the Judge travels from his judicial work and descends into the arena of politics and parties. The Judge cannot in such a case take shelt!1t behind his office if the public discusses and criticises the views expressed by him. The reason is obvious. It is no part of the duty of a Judge nor is it a duty in discharge of office of a Judge to go and address a meeting on political matters to redress grievances of the people. However, if the speech of any Judge is criticised and if it becomes a disputed question of fact as to whether any Judge did speak or not as is alleged by the writer the matter would have to be ascertained by the court on facts whether the Judge concerned did speak on the matters ascrib@ to him before the court would take any action against the persons who would criticise the Judge's speech. .B JO We wish to make it clear that if ort facts it appears that the Judge did say things or matters about politics such utterances or views or observations will be the personal opinions expressed by the Judge, and, therefore, the protective umbrella of the court cannot be used by way of· bringing the critics on the charge of contempt of court. ... It also appears in the letter that there is an allegation that the Judge accepted hospitality of some organisation. To say that will not by itself be a contempt. All we need say is that it will not be correct and proper for any Judge to accept the invitation and hospitality of any business or commercial organisation or of any political party or of any club or organisation run on sectarian, communal or parochial lines. Invitations by the Bar Association or social invita tions naturally stand on a different footing and no one will find an exception to any Judge attending a social function. Judges are by reason of their office and nature of work expected not to get involved in controversial matters, or to concern themselves with political issues or policies under taken by political parties as a part of their political programme. We are of opinion that the Full Bench fell into the error of accept ing the apology without finding that the appellants committed any con tempt. In the absence of such a finding no question arises for accqit ance of apology. In view of the fact that the High Court proceeded on the basis that the allegations in the letter were unchallenged we are of opinion that the matters did not constitute any contempt. The High Court should have dropped the proceedings and not pursued the matter. \ RAM PARTAP SHARMA V. DAYANAND (Ray, C.J.) .247 The judgment is set aside. The contempt proceeding~ are dropped. We should state here that the Advocate General of Haryana quite fairly stated that the letter did not constitute any contempt. A M.R. I Appeals allowed.