State of Sikkim vs Tashi Gyaltsen ............

Fir€JTE'rfua¥,apAgs§i;tttff-VG°oC+aL:ikGeenpte.iadL{*:te..Mr.~, -|J--` .."-JJ, .' t€ I;-i ..---.- if }k.t}¥l -1,I t In Civil Msc. Application No. 254 of 200\O in R.F.A. No. 3 5 of 2000, the copt_e_inn.or`Tasfty Gyalsten, as GeneralIAtt,orney of the applicant, CfroJfyLaL ngvy.aptf trangchuk Namgyal, 'iife_r falia, stated:- "6. jurisdiction............." I)Jr( .f` 1 `,jJp =rft ! 1- scandat::=afa];i:%;:ie8ri::£easE¥tdo:;::`::th:C:.:tdh:oh::;'`;:rt::sn:i:I:t whichamouhtsro-6riinnal--6oritrem;twi:hin3h`er'mearingofs:`c`iion 2(C)OfthecontemptofcourtsAct,1:971. f ``1 Z : 5L-:" r* -* Issue notice to the contemnor, Tashi Gyalsten in Form I of theRulesframedur!E.€i:33:ctj,o¥23:.jof`,thecontempt{;`f.Coultg:Ac}, 1971 to regulate contempt.p'roc-eedings for 2|.o2.-2ook 3`' -~£-I JJ'_ . TheTleamed Advocate General shall conduct prosecution as (Rjxpusu;d;nDayalb Serial No. of Order

2.21 2-2001 Order ,with Signature r-.- \\ tL Ogcct:o:o,:;:i#- taken on Order -~ j14- 1{ •£

3. .3+aJ? j,i Judge 21-2-2001, * . c3AVwl (R. Dayal) Chief Justice 21-2-2001. Mr. S.P. Wangdi. Ad`/ocate General With Hr. Kanl`a Thin|ay. Asstt. Goo Advocate for the Stateo Mr. Tashi Cyaltsen. Contemnor With in. T.B. Thapa, Advocate for the Contemnor. i IL _i I rudgrreht delivered. Simple a &.I.fl.7Lp`,ealftyrfutry gfbfedear#f#&Lh+ • f i hlul1]Bdr{dy 81k @ftydr%,:',. a IN THE HIGH COURT 0F SIKKIM Contempt Case (Crl.) No.11 of 2000 Date Of Decision : rt March, 2001. State of Sikkim ..... Petitioner Versus Tashi Gyaltsen ............ Contermor Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ripusudan Dayal, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anup Deb, Judge. Present : M. S.P. Wangdi, Advocate General with M. Karma Thinlay, Assistant Govt. Advocate for the State. M. T.B. Thapa, Advocate for the contemnor along with the contemnor, Shri Tashi Gyaltsen. ORDER Daval, C.I. Notice was issued to the contemnor, Shri Tashi Gyaltsen, by this cout on its own motion for having made the following statement in Civil Misc. Application No. 254/2000 in RFA No. 35 of 2000 as General Attorney of the applicant, Chogyal Miwang Wangchuk Namgyal : "6. The applicant submits that whilst having regard to the facts, circumstances and sub- missions contained in the Revision Petition the Revision ought to have been entertained and disposed of by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its overall Revisional/ Appellate/ inherent / Constitutional jurisdiction ...... " y^ . cLAVwl i \ :2: since the court was, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid extract scandalizes, or tends to scandalize, and lowers or tends to lower the authority of this cout which amounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In compliance ,with the notice, the contemnor has appeared and has tendered unconditional apology. Shri T.B. Thapa who has appeared for him has pressed for the acceptance of the apology. We enquired of him as to the circumstances in which the averment extracted above came to be made. The learned counsel pleaded that it was he who had drafted the application. Thereupon, we asked hin why no such averment was made in the application tendering unconditional apology or anywhere else on the record and if he is responsible for the averlnent, an application should be filed making such averment. But no such application has been filed. These are the relevant circumstances which require consideration.

2. Judicial process must run its even course in the interest of the administration of justice which is the foundation of civilized society. Litigants as also the counsel must pay deferential respect to the court and scrupulously observe the decorum of the courtroom. The Supreme Court in Ranon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor and others (2001) 1 SCC 118, extracted the following from Warvelle's Legal Ethics, at p. 182 in paragraph 28 :, "A lawyer is under obligation. to do nothing that shall detract from the dignity of the court, of which he is himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should at all times pay deferential respect to the Judge, and scrupulously observe the decoruni of the courtroom." If a litigant tells the court that the same very court oucht to have dealt with the matter at an earlier stage in a manner otherwise than it has been dealt with, decorum of the court is bound to be spoilt with the attendant consequence of obstruction to the ys. c2,vvnyv( :3: administration of justice. It is well known to every legal practitioner and every experienced litigant that they are required to plead the grounds both of fact and law which would be relevant to the grant of relief soucht by them. It is not open to them to comment upon the manner in which the same very court had dealt with.the matter at an earlier stage. The comment that the Revision Petition filed by the contemnor oufgiv to have been entertained and disposed of by this court in exercise of its overall Revisional/Appellate/Inherendconstitutional jurisdiction was wholly irrelevant to the relief of condonation of delay in filing the appeal and amounted to scandalizing the court, as it meant that the order of the court was not sustainable in law. To say so, even when the party knows that such a comment was wholly uncalled for, not being relevant to the relief clained and tended to obstruct the administration of justice by vitiating the court atmosphere, amounts to contempt of court. The motive for making such a statement cannot be innocent. It may be to manifest his capacity to be a nuisance to the court to get relief according to his wishes. Neither the conteimor nor his counsel has put the record strai8bt by giving in writing the circumstances in which the aforesaid statement came to be made on the record. At the same time, we do not see any reason for not believing the statement of Shri T.B. Thapa that he had drafted the application. Shri Thapa ought to have been careful in drafting the application and ought not to have made any averment which tends to scandalize or lower the authority of the court. The contemnor who appears as General Attorney is also conversant with the court procedure as it is not unoften that he appears in the court cases as General Attorney. Making allegations amounting to contempt simply because he could not get an order according to his wishes, cannot be left lightly.

3. In the result, we hold that the aforesaid extract tends to scandalize and lower the authority of the court and also to obstruct the administration ofjustice A . 6- 43rf, :4: and amounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2 ( c ) of the Contempt of Courts Ac, 1971 and sentence the contermor Shri Tashi Gyaltsen to simple imprisonment for seven days. However, we suspend the sentence awarded to him for three years subject to his furnishing an undertaking within ten days, on affidavit, that he will not indulge in similar act or any other act amounting to contempt, civil or criminal, within that period, filing which he shall be arrested to serve out the sentence awarded to him. In case he furnishes the undertaking and commits breach thereof within the aforesaid period, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded to him apart from any other action for which he may be liable. In case he does not commit any breach of the undertaking within the period of three years, the sentence awarded to him shall stand remitted. / h;pffiy# Chief Justice .Eii EEI-Ia a a I I