D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) Eight contemners have been proceeded against by order of this Court dated 4 March 1994 under section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short), and Article 215 of the Constitution for having committed criminal contempt. As to what 'criminal contempt' means, it will be useful to refer to its definition in clause (c) of section 2 of the Act, which is as under :-
'(C).'criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which - (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course to any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; '
Section 14 of the Act prescribes the procedure where contempt is committed in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. This section, in relevant part, is as under:-
'(1)When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible there after, shall- (a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged; (b) afford him an opportunity to make his defense to the charge; p73 (c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and (d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether orally or in writing, to have the charge against him tried by some Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the Court is of opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof. xxx xxx xxx Section 12 of the Act prescribes punishment for contempt of court, and this section, again in relevant part, is as under:- '(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both : Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanationn. - An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court p73 shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. Xxx Xxx Xxx Article 215 of the Constitution is as under :- '215.4 Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.' This Article is similar to Article 129 which pertains to the Supreme Court and is as under :- '129.4 The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish fo contempt of itself. '
(2) As to what is a court of record, we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Re: Under Article 143 of the Constitution : AIR1965SC745 . The court approved the definition of court of record given in Jowitt's Dictionary of English law and said that a court of record was a court whereof the acts and judicial proceedings were enrolled for perpetual memory and testimony, and which, had the power to fine and imprison for contempt of its authority.
(3) It all happened on 4 March 1994 when we passed orders on an application filed by the D.C.M. Ltd. (CM 1597/94) seeking modification of our order made earlier on 1 October 1993 to a very limited extent. This order of 1 October 1993 we passed on an application filed by 12 workers' unions against D.C.M. Ltd. and the General Manager Ltd. seeking certain prayers with reference to certain earlier writ proceedings in this Court which had culminated by order of the Supreme Court. That order dated 1 October 1993 also dealt with an appeal (FAO (OS) 217/90) filed by D.C.M. Ltd. against Gaushala Marg Residents Association (Regd) challenging the order of a learned Single Judge allowing an application of the Gaushala Marg Residents Association filed under Order 1 Rule 8of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit filed by the association against D.C.M. Ltd. The association had prayed for a decree that their members were the tenants with regard to the residential accommodations allotted to them in the residential complex of the D.C.M.Ltd. and then restraining the company from dispossessing them unless otherwise by due process of law. The appeal of the D.C.M. was also allowed by the order dated 1 October 1993 and the application of the association filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code dismissed. C.M. 5695/93 was filed in C.W.P. 2476/88. Another association called the D.C.M. Residents and Shopkeepers (Regd), also a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, filed an application (C.M. 6482/93) seeking to be imp leaded as aparty in the proceedings arising out of C.M. 5695/93. This application was also dismissed by order dated } October 1993. In C.M. 5695/93 the 12 workers' unions whose compendious name was Sangarsh Samiti had prayed as under :
'(A)Direction to the petitioner company to release cheques of additional compensation to the workmen who are not in occupation of the quarters and who have not received the same till date. (b) To restrain the company from recovering from the workmen the additional compensation already paid to them in terms of the settlement dated 1.2.1989 and subsequent awards made in this behalf. (c) To grant further time to the workmen in occupation of the quarters to vacate the same and direct the petitioner company to pay compensation to them on their vacating the same in terms of the settlement dated 1 February 1989. '
This application was filed on account of letter dated 20 July 1993 of the General Manager, D.C.M. Ltd. to the Sangarsh Samiti which letter we may reproduce and is as under:-
'SANGARSH Samiti comprising of Unions signatory to the Settlement dated 1st Feb. 1989 Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110 006. Sir, As you are aware approximately 4300 workmen have received the cheques and encased the same totalling approximately Rs.75 crores. We are however pained to note that approximately 400 workmen arc still in occupation of the quarters despite the clear under standing to this effect in the settlement dt. lst February,1989and the subsequent directions, orders and award of the Ld. Arbitrators. As you are aware, the payment of additional compensation was linked with the redevelopment of the company's land by it and in view of the non-vacation of the quarters by the workmen concerned the company is being put in a serious difficulty, the company having fulfillled all its obligations under the settlement dated 1st Feb. 1989. You will appreciate the company has kept its promise and offered the additional compensation to all the workman covered under the Settlement and it is only the Union and the workman who are in default putting into jeopardy the plans of the company. In view of these circumstances that had developed, the company has decided not to make any further payments of the additional compensation to any workmen who has not received the same so far. Please note that now the company is absolved of its liability to pay any additional compensation and is also entitled to seek refund of the additional compensation, already paid, the interest and other payments made to the workmen pursuant to the settlement and for all this it will be the Union's and the workmen concerned will have to take complete responsibility. We, thereforee, request you to instruct your members not to approach the company's office for receiving any payment and further instruct all those workmen who has received the payment from the company to refund the same at the earliest. Yours faithfully sd/- General MANAGER.
(4) It is unnecessary for us to record here various arguments raised in the proceedings culminating in our judgment dated 1 October 1993 (4) D.L. 161. We, however, gave the following directions :-
'(1)Those who have abided by the settlement shall be given further payment as per settlement forthwith. (2) Without prejudice to the award given by the two advocates, the time for vacation of the quarters is extended till 31 October 1993. (Earlier the workmen were to vacate their respective quarters in October 1992 which time was extended to 15 May 1993 and then to 21 June 1993). (3) In the case of those workmen who have not vacated the quarters and have been given time till 31 October 1993, the amounts due to them as per settlement shall be deposited by the company in this Court and Registrar shall take out short-term deposits. These amounts shall be paid to the workmen if they voluntarily surrender the possession of the quarters under their occupation to the company. (4) A Receiver is appointed to take possession of all the quarters still remaining in the possession of the workmen after 31 October 1993. the possession of these quarters shall be taken by the Receiver with the police aid, if necessary. In this respect a direction is issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area concerned to provide all necessary assistance to the Receiver for the purpose. The Receiver shall prepare an inventory of the articles found lying in these quarters and shall preserve the same in a place to be provided by the company and subject to further directions of the court. The possession of the quarters, thereforee, shall be handed over to the company by the Receiver. No obstruction shall be caused to the Receiver in the discharge of his duties by anyone. Necessary secretarial assistance shall be provided to the Receiver by the company. (5) Mr. S.P. Gupta, Advocate, 143, Lawyers' Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, is appointed as Receiver. He shall be paid tentatively a sum ofRs.l0,000.00 as his fee every month which shall be exclusive of all the expenses. He shall start functioning from 1 November 1993. The fee and expenses shall be payable by the company in the first instance and these again shall be subject to further orders of the Court. Workmen who do not vacate their quarters by 31 October 1993 shall share the expenses incurred on the Receiver in such proportion as may be determined by this Court. After deducting this amount the balance amount deposited in this Court shall be paid to them. '
Against our aforesaid judgment, Gaushala Marg Residents Association filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, and the same was dismissed by order dated 28 October 1993 with certain modifications. The order of the Supreme Court we may profitably reproduce here :-
'SLP(C)NO.16807/93: We have heard Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners at length. Mr. sushil Kumar has primarily argued that his client have acquired tenancy rights in the quarters and as such they arc entitled to the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act. We do not agree with him. The matter has been squarely dealt with by the impugned full bench judgment of the High Court. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. Special leave petition is dismissed. SLP(C)No. 17043/93: We have heard Mr.R.K.Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rajive Sawhney, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. We have been taken through the detailed and well reasoned judgment of the full bench of the High Court. Needless to say that Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa who spoke for the Bench has dealt with all points succinctly and there is no scope for interference. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached in the judgment of the full bench. Mr. R.K. Jain appearing for the petitioners/workers has, however, contended that the workmen could not avail of the options provided under para 16.6.1 of the sentiment dated February 1, 1989 under certain mis-apprehensions. He contends that the Management be directed to give them fresh offers. We are of the view that the workmen having failed to take advantage of the said paragraph as none of them gave option, the offers made in paragraph 16.6.1 became redundant. Mr. Rajive Sawhney states that the Management had obtained approval from the State of Haryana for setting up the residential complex in terms of paragraph 16.6.1 of the settlement but since no option was given by any of the work men the whole project lapsed. He has further, very fairly, stated that the Management shall make all efforts to revive the project and if and when it is done, fresh options will be taken from the workmen. Most the workmen have already vacated the quarters in accordance with the settlement. The petitioners/workers have now been directed to vacate the quarters in terms of the full bench judgment of the High Court. On our suggestion, the Management has agreed to give a compensation of Rs.5,000.00 each to the workmen who have already vacated the quarters on their own and Rs. 3,000.00 each to the workmen who are due to vacate the quarters in terms of the High Court judgment. Mr. Rajive Sawhney states that this amount shall be over and above the amount payable to the workmen under the settlement. Mr. Rajive Sawhney has further stated that the Management shall not charge the rent, water charges and electricity charges which arc due from the petitioners/workers till the date of vacation provided they vacate the quarters by the date which we are hereinafter indicating. Mr. Rajive Sawhney states that the gratuity due to the three workmen at Seriall Nos. 181, 182 and 183 shall be looked into and paid to them within two months from today. The High Court has directed the petitioners/workers to vacate the quarters by October 31, 1993. We have already entered the Diwali season. We are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioners/workers are permitted to continue to stay in the quarters till January 31, 1994. We order accordingly. The directions given by the High Court are modified to the extent indicated by us. All other directions given by the High Court and not modified by us shall be obeyed meticulously. Special leave petition is dismissed in the above terms.
(5) It will appear that even after the order of the Supreme Court some of the workers did not vacate the quarters till January 31, 1994, the extended time by the Supreme Court. However, the Receiver took over and.started his proceedings.
(6) On 17 February 1994, D.C.M. Ltd. filed an application (C.M. 1597/94) with the following, prayers :-
'(A)order that instead of depositing the amount with the Registrar, the cheques for the amount payable to the ex-employees may be kept by the company for making direct payment to the ex-employees at the time of the possession of the quarters being given or taken by the Receiver appointed by this Hon'ble Court. (b) authorise the Receiver to break open the locks, doors and demolish the walls, if necessary to take possession of the quarters.'
We issued notice on this application on 25 February 1994 for 4 March 1994. Ms. Chandan Ramamurthy, Advocate, accepted notice on behalf of Sangarsh Samity. On 4 March 1994 Mr. p73P.Chakraborty, Advocate, appeared for the Gaushala Marg Residents Association and also filed an application (C.M. 1792/ 94). In this application he prayed that Delhi Development Authority be imp leaded as a necessary party. Another application (C.M.1811/94) was filed by Mr. R.D. Sharma, also seeking to be in mpleaded as a party in these proceedings. On the application (C.M. 1597/94) filed by D.C.M. Ltd., on consideration, we granted prayer (a), and as regards prayer (b) we said that two had given direction in para4 of our order dated 1 October 1994, and, if necessary, the petitioner should apply to the Receiver for seeking police assistance to break open the locks for taking possession. With this we disposed of the application.
(7) We may note that with this application the D.C.M. Ltd. had also filed a list of as many as 280 persons. On the top of the list it was stated that it was the list of ex-employees of the D.C.M. Ltd. still living in the compound premises at Bara Hindu Rao Kishan Ganj, Delhi, of the company. We did not take into notice this list. ln the application D.C.M. had prayed that in terms of the directions of this Court it waste deposit the amounts payable to the ex-employees of the company on their vacation of the quarters with the Registrar of this Court. It was submitted that many of the ex-employees who were willing to hand over possession had expressed their apprehension that the payments might be delayed to them in the process of getting the same released from the court, and had requested the company if the said payment could be made to them directly at the time of vacation of the quarters by them. It was also stated that the company had prepared the cheques in the name of the each of the ex-employees as per the list enclosed with the application, and it was prayed that it might be clarified that instead of depositing the amounts with the Registrar the cheques might be kept by the company for making direct payments to ex-employees at the time of their vacating the quarters before the Receiver appointed by this Court. This application, as noted above, was allowed to an extent and without reference to any list of ex-employees filed with the application. Apart from this modification, the company was to abide by our order dated 1 October 1993 as further modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as above mentioned. The other two applications (C.M. 1792/94and 1811/94) for impleadment were rejected as these were held to be not maintainable.
(8) Then as to what happened in the court which led us to initiate these proceedings, we reproduce the proceedings as recorded :- Proceedings Recorded On 4 March 1994:
'C.M.1597/94 On a consideration of the matter, we grant prayer (a) made in Cm 1597/94. As regards prayer (b) we have given direction in para 4 of the of our order of 1st October, 1993 and if necessary, the petitioner should apply to the Receiver for seeking police assistance or break open the locks for taking possession. With this order the Cm is disposed of. C.M. 1792/94 & Cm 1811/94 These applications have been filed by two sets of persons under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code in Cm 1597/94, which we have disposed of just now. For consideration of Cm 1597/94 fresh applications for being imp leaded as parties does not arise. We are of the opinion that the applications are not maintainable and are dismissed. After we had disposed of Cm 1597/94, and other applications Cm 1792/94 and 1811/94, and we were about to rise many people who were occupying various chairs in the court started shouting slogans. They said that justice was not being given to them and that the Judges have been bought ( Bik Gaye Hain). Other slogans were also shouted but in the din of voices we could not properly make out. We retired to our chambers and asked the officers of the Court to close the door of the court room and we also sent for the police force. After the order was restored, we again came to the Court and eight names have been given to us who were present in court and were shouting. These are Hoti Lal,S.P.Sharma,ManbirSingh, Jag Narain,Ram Sarup, Rama Kant Mishra, Ram Parshad and Ravinder Kumar. Out of these only the following four persons are present : Hoti Lal son of Shri Parshadi Lal,DCM LineNo.7 Qr No.51, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, ii) Ram Parshad s/o Shri Guizari Singh Dcm Line A, Qr No. 78, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, iii) Shri S.P.Sharma son of Shri Chattar Singh, r/o G-281 Dcm LINE-9, Kishan Ganj, Delhi and iv) Shri Ravinder Kumar Qr No. 316, line No.9 Dcm Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Other persons slipped away and made their way before the door of the court room could be closed. We are of the opinion that by shouting slogans, these persons have scandalized the court and lowered the authority of this court. This has also obstructed or trended to obstruct the administration of justice and we, thereforee, proceed to take action against the munder Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution. The persons, namely, 1. Hoti Lal, 2.S.P. Sharma,3. Ram Parshad 4. Ravinder Kumar are taken into custody and we proceed to issue the following show cause notice to them; NOTICE: It is brought to your notice that in the course of proceedings of this Court when we had announced orders and were about to rise, you shouted slogans that: Justice was denied to you and Judges have been bought ( Bik Gaye Hain) and such other slogans. This conduct of yours scandalised and tended to scandalise and also lowered the authority of the court and also obstructed and tended to obstruct the administration of justice and thereby committed criminal contempt of this court; Show cause why you should not be punished for having committed the same. ANS. Hoti Lal: I have not shouted any slogan. I only wanted to bring to the notice of the court that I am old resident of the quarter and the said land belonged to one Mohemaddan. I stated this when this court was rising after announcement of the order. S.P.SHAKMA: I have not shouted any slogan but I was sitting in the court and wanted to bring to the notice of the court certain facts before the order was passed. I did not shout any slogan when the court was rising. Ram PARSHAD: I had stated that I was not getting justice and where I will go when I was not getting justice. I did not shout any slogan. Ravinder KUMAR: I did not shout any slogan. We record that the following persons were present in court when slogans were shouted: Shri Vinod Gupta son of Shri S.R.Gupta r/o 71 Model Basti New Delhi, Niranjan Singh, son of Shri Faquir Chand, 9725/14, Katra Nanak Chand, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj,Delhi, Mool Chand son of Shri Bal Mukand 13B, Gaushala Road, Sham Jhason of Shri Shishit Jha 27, Azad Market, Rohtak Road, Delhi, Shri Hira Lal son of Shri Bachi Lal L35G, Locoshed, Kishanganj, Delhi These people say that they identify Hoti Lal, S.P.Sharma, Ram Parshad and Ravinder Kumar present in court and that these four persons had shouted slogans that Judges have been bought (Bik Gaye Hain) and justice had not been done and their children will be on the road. They say that apart from these four persons, other persons who shouted slogans were as follows : 1. Mahabir Singh Malik s/o Khajan Singh Qr No.7 Line No.6 Kishan Ganj, Delhi-6 2. Rama Kant Mishra Qr 319 Line No.9 Dcm Kishan Ganj, Delhi 3. Jag Narain, Line No.5 Qr No.76 Kishan Ganj, Delhi. 4. Ram Sarup, Mansrovar Qr No.2 Dcm Kishan Ganj, Delhi 6. These persons have slipped away while action was being taken to close the door of the court. We have issued show cause notice to 1. Hoti Lal, 2. S.P.Sharma, 3. Ram Parshad 4. Ravinder Kumar. We adjourn the hearing of this matter to 7.3.94. Meanwhile, non bailable warrants be issued to 1. Mahabir Singh Malik s/o Khajan Singh Qr No.7 Line No.6 Kishan Ganj, Delhi-6. 2. Rama kant Mishra , Qr 319 Line No.9 Dcm Kishan Ganj, Delhi 3. Jag Narain, Line No.5 Qr No.76 Kishan Ganj, Delhi. 4. Ram Sarup, Mansrovar Qr No.2 Dcm Kishan Ganj, Delhi 6. and these persons be produced in court on 7,3.94. They will be kept in judicial custody when arrested. Further proceedings will be held at 2.p.m. on 7.3.94. 1. Hoti Lal, 2. S.P.Sharma, 3. Ram Parshad 4. Ravinder Kumar are remanded to judicial custody and shall be produced on 7.3.94 at 2.p.m.'
Proceedings Recorded On 7 March 1994:
'C.W.2476/88 Non bailable warrants were issued against 1. Manbir Singh Malik wrong stated as Mahabir Singh Malik in our last order), 2.Rama Kant Mishra, 3. Jag Narain and 4.Ram Sarup. These have been returned unexecuted. It is reported that these p73 persons were not available. However, these persons have appeared in court today. They be taken into custody. We proceed to issue the following show cause notice to : 1. Manbir Singh Malik (though wrongly recorded as Mahabir Singh in the last order) s/o Khajan Singh Qr No.7 Line No.6 Kishan Ganj, Delhi-6 2. Ramakant Mishra Qr 319 Line No.9 Dcm Kishan Ganj, Delhi 3. Jag Narain, Line No.5 Qr No.76 Kishan Canj, Delhi. 4. Ram Sarup, Mansrovar Qr No.2 Dcm Kishan Ganj, Delhi 6. Notice : It is brought to your notice that in the course of proceedings of this court held on 4.3.94 when we had pronounced the order and were about to rise, you shouted slogans that : Justice was denied to you and Judges have been bought ( Bik Gaye Hain) and such otherslogans. This conduct of your scandalized and tended to scandalise and also lowered the authority of the court and also obstructed and intended to obstruct the administration of justice and thus committed criminal contempt of court. Show cause why you should not be punished for having committed the same. Answer .- Manbir Singh MALICK: I have all the respects for the court. In case the court thinks that I have committed any wrong, I apologies turn the same. I did not say any thing that day. On that day I had come to attend the case as the case is in my name and one quarter is in my possession. I am the President of the Gaushala Marg Residents Association. Ram Kant MISHRA: I have highest regard for the court. On the last hearing I was sitting in the court and after the order was pronounced I left the court without uttering a word but in case the court thinks that I have any committed wrong then I apologies for the same. I am having in my possession a quarter. I am the General Secretary of Gaushala Marg Residents Association. Jag NARAIN: I have highest regard for the court. On the last hearing I was silting in the court and after the order was pronounced I left the court without uttering a word but in case the court thinks that I have committed any wrong then I apologies for the same. I am having in my possession a quarter. I am the Executive Member of Gaushala Marg Residents Association. Ram SARUP: I have highest regard for the court. On the last hearing I was sitting in the court and after the order was pronounced I left the court without uttering a word but in case the court thinks that I have committed any wrong then I apologies for the same. I am having in my possession a quarter. I am Executive Member of Gaushala Marg Residents Association. On the request of Mr Chakravorty we grant him time to file affidavit in further to show cause notice issued to the contemnors. Other contemnors may also file affidavits, if they so choose. Persons whose names are given in the order dated 4.3.94 at page 5 may also file affidavits as to the happening of that day. Mr Rajiv Sawhney Sr Adv states that he would also be filling an affidavit as to the happening of that day. We direct Mr P. Chakravorty to file an affidavit as he also appeared on the last day. Four persons who have been taken into custody today and four persons who were taken into custody on the last date and who are present today, be kept in judicial custody and shall be produced in court on 9.3.94 at 2 p.m.'
Proceedings Recorded On 9 March 1994:
'C.W.2476/88 Contemnor S.P.Sharma is represented by Mr L.P.Gaur advocate. Out of the contemnors Hoti Lal and Ram Parshad are unrepresented. On the asking p73 of the Court Mr P. Chakravorty has agreed to represent them. Mr P.N.Lekhi Sr Adv has been requested to assist the Court. He is assisted by Mr Vijay Chaudhry advocate. Some of the affidavits were filed in the Registry which are on record. Affidavit of Mr Rajiv Sawhney Sr Adv, and affidavits of some of the contemnors have been filed today in court. Counsel for the parties seek time to go through the affidavits and, if necessary, to file additional affidavit or counter affidavits. Hearing of the case is adjourned to 17.3.1994. Additional affidavit/counter affidavit be filed by 15th March, 1994 with copy to the other side. We propose to disposed of the matter on affidavits. The eight contemners who are in judicial custody are released on bail on their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2000.00 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Shri S.B.Vohra, Joint Registrar. All the eight contemners are directed to appear on 17th March, 1994 and to continue to appear on subsequent dates of hearing till the proceedings are concluded.'
(9) As noted above, affidavits and counter-affidavits were filed and we heard the counsel at length.
(10) We heard Mr. Lekhi, Mr. Rajiv Sawhney, Mr. N.K. Handa and partly Mr. Chakraborty on 17 March 1994 and adjourned the hearing to 21 March 1994 for further arguments by Mr.Chakraborty and at his request hearing took place on this date and also on the adjoumed date 24 March 194 and final hearing took place on 25 March 1994. On this date Mr. Chakraborty made an oral request with reference to sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act that the charge may be tried by some Bench. The request was declined as it appeared to us that proceedings had already been taken to a great extent and it was too late in the day for the contemners to make such a request. We have noticed above the we were also exercising jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution and not merely under the Act. The matter was being heard by the Full Bench. Then Mr. Chakraborty submtted that he might also be allowed to cross-examine the deponents who had named the contemners in their affidavits. We wanted to know as to on what points he would like tocross-examine those persons inasmuch as it was not disputed that a grave contempt had been committed and we had adopted the procedure which was reasonable and fair. Even counter-affidavits were got filed. Mr.Chaktraborty said he would not disclose on what points he would like to cross-examine as that would be disclosing his defense which would ultimately prejudice the case of the contemners. During the course of his arguments he did state that he would like to cross-examine the deponents to find out as according to them which of the contemners shouted which of the slogans. Then he checked himself abruptly and said that he had already damaged the case of the contemners regarding their right to cross-examine by telling us this very fact. He said there was no law which compelled him to disclose his defense. We are unable to appreciate this argument. Mr. Chakraborty himself in his affidavit told us the types of slogans shouted in the court when each one of them is contemptuous. Was it then material as to which contemners shouted which particular slogan, we asked.. We, thereforee, again declined his request for cross-examination.
(11) We may at this stage note a decision of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Hon'ble Chief Justice S. Teja Singh and the Hon'ble Judges of the Pepsu High Court at Patiala, Air 1954 S.C. 186. The court said 'the power of a High Court to institute proceedings for contempt and punish where necesssary is a special jurisdiction which is inherent in all Courts of Record. Section 1(2), Criminal P.C. expressly excludes special jurisdictions from its scope. Hence, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply in matters of contempt triable by the High Court. The High Court can deal with it summarily and adopt its own procedure. All that is necessary is that the procedure is fair and that the contemner is made a ware of the charge against him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself.' The court also noted that every High Court in India has jurisdiction to punish for contempt, and that this jurisdiction was inherent in a Court of Record from the very nature of the court itself. This is what Article 215 is. The court also said that the Act far from conferring a new jurisdiction, assumed the existence of a right to punish for contempt in every High Court and further assumed the existence of a special practice and procedure, and that procedure is not governed by the Criminal Procedure Code.
(12) The procedure which we followed is reasonable and fair and the contemners had full opportunity to defend them selves of the charge against them. In his affidavit Mr. Rajive Sawhney, Senior Advocate, stated that slogans were shouted and there were a large number of people packed in the court room and all chairs were occupied and some persons were also standing in the passages between the chairs and the side walls. We may note that there are about 100 chairs in the Court Room No.1 where this incident took place. Mr. Sawhney said that a large number of persons sitting behind first two rows starting shouting slogans immediately after the orders were passed and we were retiring to Chambers, and that slogans shouting increased after we left the court room. He squarely named Mr. S.P. Sharma, one of thecontemners, who had shouted slogans. Mr.S.P. Sharma in his affidavit stated that he had earlier addressed the court and that he was quite satisfied with the observations and he just sat in his chair. He said he had been wrongly named as the person who shouted slogans because of his enmity with Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, General Manager, D.C.M. Ltd., who also filed his affidavit. He nevertheless admitted that after the orders were pronounced there was a big shouting/noise in the court room which he said was contrary to the decorum and dignity of the court. Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, General Manager, D.C.M.Ltd: Mr. Shyam Jha, Mr. Mool Chand, Mr. Hira Lal, and Mr. Niranjan Singh, all of security staff of the D.C.M. Ltd., in their affidavits have clearly identified the contemnors as the persons who had shouted slogans. Their presence in the court room has not been disputed, but the contemners said that they had been falsely implicated by them, and some contemners even said that the staff of the D.C.M. Ltd. in fact indulged in shouting slogans. Manbir Singh Malik,contcmner, in his affidavit stated that he was the President of the Gaushala Marg Residents Association and a former employee of the D.C.M. Ltd. He said he was sitting behind his counsel Mr. P. Chakraborty to instruct him. He admitted that after the orders were made 'there was an uproar in the court room and some people from behind shouted slogans like 'Bike-gaye, Dcm jeet gaye' etc.' He said an old lady who was not a member of the association started cursing the court. Manbir Singh Malik said that as he was in the third row of chairs he could not seethe person who actually shouted slogans. He said that the incident which occurred was highly condemnable. Ram Swaroop, contemner, in his affidavit said that he was an ex- employee of the D.C.M. Ltd. and had attended the court on 4 March 1994. He said he was sitting in the last row of the chairs near the entry door to the court room. He said the court room was almost full and that at about 2.45 P.M. there was a big hue and cry and slogans shouting in the court after orders were passed by the court. He said slogans were shouted mainly from the side where the employees of the D.C.M. Ltd. were sitting and some persons sitting in front of him also shouted slogans. He admitted that there were about 25 to 30 members of the Gaushala Marg Residents Association present in the court. He in his affidavit is silent if any member of his association did shout any slogan. Jag Narain Singh, contemner, said that he was a member of the Executive Committee of the association. He, however, said he did not indulge in any slogan shouting and since he was sitting in the back of the room he could not see who were shouting slogans. R.K. Misra, contemner, in his affidavit said that he was an ex-employee of the D.C.M. Ltd. and said after the orders were passed there was a commotion in the court room and some people from the back shouted slogans saying 'Bik-gaye, Dcm jeet gaye, garib logo barbad ho gaye'. Misra admitted that about 25 to 30 people of the association were also present in the court room and that same number of people had been brought in by the D.C.M. Ltd. In his further affidavit Manbir Singh Malik denied various allegations made by Vinod Kumar Gupta, General Manager, D.C.M. Ltd, in his affidavit. He said he, R.K.Misra, Jag Narain and Ram Swaroop left the court room immediately after the Judges retired to the Chambers. He said that Shyam Jha and Hira Lal in the security staff of the D.C.M. Ltd. failed to identify the contemners on 7 March 1994 during course of hearing before us. Mr. P. Chakraborty in his affidavit, which he says was filed under the directions of the court and which fact would be immaterial, said that apart from the contemners Manbir Singh Malik, President; Mr. R.K. Misra, Secretary; and Mr. Sunder Singh, Cashier, he was not conversant with the members of the association though when they met him in connection with their casee one or two other persons also accompanied them. Mr. Chakraborty said that some members of Gaushala Marg Residents Association shouted slogans against the court particularly from the rear of the court room. He said he could hear the voice of an old lady cursing the court and since he was addressing the Bench and the crowd was behind him and the din and the furore lasted for a short time, he could not identify the persons who actually shouted slogans..According to him the slogan shouted were 'Bick Gaya, Kharid Liya, Ladai Khatam Kar Diaya, Satyanash Ho'. He further said Manbir Singh Malik and Mr. R.K. Misra were asked to sit near him for instructions that he might need and that since he was familiar with their faces he did not hear them shout any slogan.. Mr. Chakraborty said as soon as the court rose he also left with some lawyers and public and told Mr. Malik that what had happened in the court room was shameful and it would only harm their cause. Then he said as soon as he reached the ground floor of the court he was informed by some person who came almost running that Hon'ble the Chief Justice had called him, but when he went back he found the court room locked from inside and there after he left for Vikas Bhawan (INA) where he said he had some work. Mr. Chakraborty said he had highest regard for the court and own moral responsibility for the ugly incident of 4 March 1994 and the contempt of court which was committed without his knowledge and consent. He tendered unqualified apology on behalf of the the contemners to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court and judiciary as a whole of which he was earlier a part.
(13) We have examined the affidavits in depth and heard the counsel at length. Various decisions of the courts and treatise on the law of contempt have been cited before us, but we need not refer to all of them. A contempt of gross nature has been committed and nobody disputes that. There are many who committed this criminal contempt but the eight contemners before us stand identified. It is immaterial what type of slogans they uttered as every slogan is contemptuous. These contemners within our own presence and hearing shouted slogans which scandalised and tended to scandalise and also lowered the authority of this court and also obstructed and tended to obstruct the administration of justice. We had to retire to our Chamber per force as pandemonium was let loose and we returned when the peace was restored. In the meanwhile, Mr. Chakraborty left though Mr. Rajive Sawhney continued to sit in the court. We have been unable to appreciate this conduct of Mr. Chakraborty in leaving the court at this juncture. He has not told us as to what pressing engagement he had that he could not stay on when the court was being sandalised and its dignity lowered. He admits that members of the association whom he represented did shout slegans. As a matter of fact, there was hardly any occasion for such a large number of persons to come to the court on the date of hearing, and perhaps they were brought to overawe and terrorise the court. The applicant had merely asked for modification of our directions dated 1 October 1993 which perhaps favored the workmen as it is a matter of common knowledge that withdrawing money from the court is quite a hassle. The order of this Court dated 1 October 1993 had become final and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court and the workmen were granted further time for vacation of their premises. It would appear to us that even the Supreme Court order had no meaning for the contemners as law abiding citizens we would have expected them to have vacated the quarters within the time granted by the court. Be that as it may, in our view such a large number of persons of the association were brought deliberately to create a chaos in a stage managed fashion. We would have expected of Mr. Chakraborty to have stayed on and prevailed upon the office bearers and members of the association to calm down and to tell us the names of the persons who shouted slogans. As an officer of the court he had a duty towards it which, we regret to point out, he did not perform when the occasion arose. At the same time we appreciate the conduct of Mr. Rajive Sawhney who continued sitting in the court room in spite of chaos and hostile atmosphere created by the contemners and others. It is strange that office bearers of the association also left, as they claim, but it will appear to us that they slipped away when we directed that the doors of the court room be closed.
(14) If again we take a look at the affidavits of Manbir Singh Malik who is President of Gaushala Marg Residents Association, in his affidavit dated 9 March 1994 he has stated that there was an uproar in the court room and some people from behind shouted slogans like 'Bike-gaye, Dcm jeet gaye, etc. He has further stated that the incident was highly condemnable. He has, however, not stated as to who were the members of the Gaushala Marg Residents Association who shouted such slogans. Keeping in view the affidavit of the counsel of Manbir Singh Malik and of the Association, in which Mr. Chakraborty in unequivocal terms in paragraph 8 has stated 'that I state on oath that some members of Gaushala Marg Residents Association shouted slogans against the court particularly from the rear of the court room....', the affidavit filed by Manbir Singh Malik is patently false. He being the President of the Association had a duty to inform the court as to which member of his Association had shouted slogans if the same were not shouted by the contemners.. In spite of the affidavit filed by his counset, Manbir Singh Malik filed yet another affidavit on 15 March 1994.. Even then he deliberately did not give the name of any member of his Association.. Similarly, the affidavits on this score of other office bearers of this Association show complete disregard for the judicial administration of truth.. We reject the affidavits filed by the contemners and hold them guilty of having committed criminal contempt of this Court.
(15) In Hira Lal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Air 1954 S.C. 743, the Supreme Court observed as under :- .
THE summary jurisdiction exercised by superior Courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in the Court and thereby affording protection to public interest in the purity of the administration of justice. This is certainly an extraordinary power which must be sparingly exercised but where the public interest demands it, the Court will not shrink from exercising it and imposing punishment even by way of imprisonment, in cases where a mere fine may not be adequate. '
(16) The Supreme Court also gave a word of caution while exercising power to punish for contempt. In Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India : AIR1965SC745 , the court observed as under :-
'BEFORE we part with this topic, we would like to refer to one aspect of the question relating to the exercise of power to punish for contempt. So far as the courts are concerned, Judges always keep in mind the warning addressed to them by Lord Atkin in Andre Paul v. Attorney General of Trinidad, Air 1936 Pc 141. Said Lord Atkin,'Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though out-spoken comments of ordinary men.' We ought never to forget that the power to punish for contempt large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the dignity or status of the court, but may sometimes affect it adversely. Wise Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearless- ness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct. '
(17) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take. action in the matter and impose punishment on the contemners. Otherwise, it will be a complete negation of rule of law. It is the administration of justice which has grievously suffered by the contempt committed by the contemners before us and others. If no punitive action is taken against these contemners it will bring the whole edifice of judicial administration to ridicule in which justice will be the only casualty. If courts are allowed to be mobbed and pressurised by shouting slogans or scandalised by persons such as contemners the faith of the people in the institution will be shaken. The contemners, it is apparent, have no respect for the court and its procedure. Their affidavits conceal more than these disclose. They have no regard for the truth. They have not shown any remorse in the least for their actions and rather adopted an attitude of defiance. Their Explanationns that some of them were not present when slogans were shouted, or that they did not shout slogans, or that they did not know who shouted the slogans are all false and are rejected.
(18) In the circumstances, Mr. Manbir Singh Malik, Mr. R.K.Misra and Mr.Jag Narain, being the office bearers of the association, are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and Mr. Ram Swaroop, Mr. Hoti Lal, Mr. S.P. Sharma, Mr. Ram Pershad and Mr. Ravinder Kumar are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The contemners are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall surrender at once. They shall not be allowed to claim any set-off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the provisions of that Code are inapplicable.
(19) We record our appreciation of the assistance rendered to us by Mr. R.N. Lekhi, Senior Advocate and President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association.