Cont.Cas (Crl)/11/2000 of State of Sikkim Vs Tashi Gyaltsen on 1 March 2001

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 havingregard to the facts, circumstances and sub-missions contained in the Revision Petitionthe Revision ought to have been entertainedand disposed of by this Hon'ble Court inexercise of its overall Revisional/ Appellate/inherent / Constitutional jurisdiction ...... "

y^ . cLAVwl

since the court was, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid extract scandalizes, ortends to scandalize, and lowers or tends to lower the authority of this cout whichamounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971. In compliance ,with the notice, the contemnor has appeared andhas tendered unconditional apology. Shri T.B. Thapa who has appeared for him haspressed for the acceptance of the apology. We enquired of him as to thecircumstances in which the averment extracted above came to be made. The learnedcounsel pleaded that it was he who had drafted the application. Thereupon, we askedhin why no such averment was made in the application tendering unconditionalapology or anywhere else on the record and if he is responsible for the averlnent, anapplication should be filed making such averment. But no such application has beenfiled. These are the relevant circumstances which require consideration.

2. Judicial process must run its even course in the interest of theadministration of justice which is the foundation of civilized society. Litigants asalso the counsel must pay deferential respect to the court and scrupulously observethe decorum of the courtroom. The Supreme Court in Ranon Services Pvt. Ltd. v.Subhash Kapoor and others (2001) 1 SCC 118, extracted the following fromWarvelle's Legal Ethics, at p. 182 in paragraph 28 :, "A lawyer is under obligation. to do nothing that shalldetract from the dignity of the court, of which he is himself asworn officer and assistant. He should at all times pay deferentialrespect to the Judge, and scrupulously observe the decoruni of thecourtroom."

If a litigant tells the court that the same very court oucht to have dealt with the matterat an earlier stage in a manner otherwise than it has been dealt with, decorum of thecourt is bound to be spoilt with the attendant consequence of obstruction to the

administration of justice. It is well known to every legal practitioner and everyexperienced litigant that they are required to plead the grounds both of fact and lawwhich would be relevant to the grant of relief soucht by them. It is not open to themto comment upon the manner in which the same very court had dealt with.the matterat an earlier stage. The comment that the Revision Petition filed by the contemnoroufgiv to have been entertained and disposed of by this court in exercise of its overallRevisional/Appellate/Inherendconstitutional jurisdiction was wholly irrelevant tothe relief of condonation of delay in filing the appeal and amounted to scandalizingthe court, as it meant that the order of the court was not sustainable in law. To sayso, even when the party knows that such a comment was wholly uncalled for, notbeing relevant to the relief clained and tended to obstruct the administration ofjustice by vitiating the court atmosphere, amounts to contempt of court. The motivefor making such a statement cannot be innocent. It may be to manifest his capacityto be a nuisance to the court to get relief according to his wishes. Neither theconteimor nor his counsel has put the record strai8bt by giving in writing thecircumstances in which the aforesaid statement came to be made on the record. Atthe 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 indrafting the application and ought not to have made any averment which tends toscandalize or lower the authority of the court. The contemnor who appears asGeneral Attorney is also conversant with the court procedure as it is not unoften thathe appears in the court cases as General Attorney. Making allegations amounting tocontempt simply because he could not get an order according to his wishes, cannotbe left lightly.

3. In the result, we hold that the aforesaid extract tends to scandalizeand lower the authority of the court and also to obstruct the administration ofjustice A . 6- 43rf, a a I

I

:4:

and amounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2 ( c ) of theContempt of Courts Ac, 1971 and sentence the contermor Shri Tashi Gyaltsen tosimple imprisonment for seven days. However, we suspend the sentence awarded tohim for three years subject to his furnishing an undertaking within ten days, onaffidavit, that he will not indulge in similar act or any other act amounting tocontempt, civil or criminal, within that period, filing which he shall be arrested toserve out the sentence awarded to him. In case he furnishes the undertaking andcommits breach thereof within the aforesaid period, he shall be taken into custody toserve out the sentence awarded to him apart from any other action for which he maybe liable. In case he does not commit any breach of the undertaking within theperiod of three years, the sentence awarded to him shall stand remitted./

h;pffiy#Chief Justice