Delhi judicial service
association VS. State of Gujarat 1991.
Introduction
This is a criminal, the disgraceful and
repugnant example of Police notoriety happened before September 25th, 1989.
It’s unbelievable today, but Gujarat Police had cruelly trodden and handcuffed
an incumbent Magistrate, for creating consistent complaints against the
ill-conduct of the police officials. This issue had then caused an enormous
national uproar forcing the Supreme Court to intervene during this matter.
Several Bar Associations had passed Resolutions and went on strike.
The Delhi Judicial Service Association,
the All India Judges Association, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Judicial
Service of Gujarat, and lots of others had approached the Supreme Court using
telegrams also as petitions under Indian Constitution’s Article 32 to save lots
of the dignity and honor of the judiciary. Finally, the Supreme Court had taken
cognizance of this matter on the 29th of September, 1989, just four days after
the incident. It issued a notice to the Gujarat state as well as the concerned
police officials.
Facts
Inspector S.R Sharma was posted at the
Nadiad (Kheda), Gujarat police headquarters.
In October 1988, N.L Patel was posted
because the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nadiad and he realized that the local
police had not been cooperating with him in producing service of summons,
warrants, and notices on accused persons. This non-cooperation was leading to
adjournment within the trial of cases.
He complained against the local police’s
conduct to the superior cops, including D.G.P, but nothing substantial
happened. In April 1989 CJM Patel filed two complaints with the police against
Sharma and other cops from Nadiad for adjourning specific court-related
processes.
On 25 July 1989 Patel directed the
police to register a criminal case against 14 persons who had choked judicial
proceedings. Subsequently, the CJM directed the Police Inspector to go away the
cases against those persons.
Sharma reacted strongly to CJM Patel’s
direction and moved towards the District Superintendent of Police and filed a
complaint against the CJM to the Administrator of the Supreme Court. He moved
towards the District Superintendent of Police and filed a complaint against the
CJM to the Administrator of the Supreme Court.
On the 25th of September 1989, Inspector
Sharma met the CJM Patel in his chamber to debate the case involving Jitu Sport
as Police had not submitted a charge-sheet within the 90 days. Inspector Sharma
invited the CJM to go to the police headquarters to ascertain the papers and
said that his visit would calm the emotions of the police officials.
At 8.35 PM Sharma sent a police Jeep at
Patel’s residence and Patel visited the police headquarters. As the CJM arrived
in Sharma’s chamber within the police headquarters, he was forced to consume
liquor which he tried to resist.
On the resistance, the CJM Patel was
assaulted, handcuffed, and tied with a rope by Inspector Sharma and other
police personnel.
To establish the facts, the Supreme
Court appointed Justice R. He submitted a 140-page detailed report back to the
Court that was again contended by these police officials, but the Supreme Court
didn’t find any merit in their objections.
Finally, this report and its findings
were accepted by the Supreme Court as authentic, and therefore the case against
these police officials proceeded.
The Supreme Court also found that the
District Superintendent of Police had been hand in glove with Inspector Sharma
by giving him a blank check and not taking any action against him on the
complaints of CJM.
The Supreme Court convicted Inspector S.
R Sharma and sent him to simple imprisonment for 6 months alongside the DSP. In
the end, the Supreme Court noted that it doesn’t approve the CJM’s conduct in
visiting the police headquarters on the invitation of Inspector Sharma.
The Supreme Court during this case also
issued strict guidelines to be followed by the Police for detaining and
arresting a judicial officer
Issues
Why the judicial officers, judges, and
magistrates everywhere in the country were insecure?
Several Bar Associations passed
resolutions and went on strike. The Delhi Judicial Service Association, the All
India Judges Association, Bar Council of UP, Judicial Service of Gujarat, etc.
approached the Supreme Court through telegrams and petitions under Article 32
of the constitution of India for saving the dignity and honor of the
judiciary.
Judgement
The Court had issued notices for
contempt to Police Inspector Sharma and other contemnors. Mere issue of notice
or pendency of contempt proceedings doesn’t attract Art. Contempt of court is
punishable by the superior courts by fine or imprisonment, but it has many
characteristics different from ordinary
offenses.
Under English Law, a criminal offense is
tried by criminal courts with the help of a Jury but contempt of court is tried
by courts summarily without the help and assistance of Jury. A summary sort of
trial is held within the case of contempt of court and also within the case of
contempt of court where the act is committed within the actual view of the
court or by a politician of justice. The summary procedure is applicable by old
usage when contempt of court was committed out of court by an outsider.
This Court’s Jurisdiction under Article
129 is confined to the contempt of itself only and it’s no jurisdiction to
indict an individual for contempt of a lower court subordinate to the Supreme
Court. The Parliament in the exercise of its legislative influence under Entry
77 of List 1 read with Entry 14 of List III has endorsed the Contempt of Courts
Act 1971 which don’t confer any jurisdiction on this Court for compelling
action for contempt of subordinate courts. Instead, the first jurisdiction of
High Courts in respect of contempt of subordinate courts is specifically
preserved by Sections 11 and 15 of the Act.
Related Cases
E.M. SankaranNamboodiripad v. T. Narayanan
Nambiar,
AIR 1970 SC 2015:- It was held as the court observed contempt of court has
various kinds – an insult to Judges; attacks upon them; discuss pending
proceedings with a fixed to prejudice fair trial; obstruction to officers of
Courts, witnesses or the parties; scandalizing the Judges or the courts;
conduct of an individual which tends to bring the power and administration of
the law into contempt or disregard. Disgraceful acts bring the court into
disgrace or disrespect to offend its dignity, affront its majesty or test its
authority.
During this case, such conduct is
committed in respect of the entire of the judiciary or judicial system; The
court rejected the argument that especially circumstances conduct of the
alleged contempt could also be protected by Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution i.e. the right to freedom of speech and expression, observing that
the words of the second clause, of an equivalent provision, bring any existing
law into operation, thus provisions of the Act 1971 would inherit play and
every case is to be examined on its facts and therefore the decision must be
reached within the context of what was done or said.
he Aligarh Municipal Board
&Ors. v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union &Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1767:–
It is settled principles of law that it’s the seriousness of the irresponsible
acts of the contempt and degree of harm caused to the administration of
justice, which might decisively determine whether the matter should be tried as
a contempt of court or not.
Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of UP:- J Dr. B.S. Chauhan and J
Swatanter Kumar of the Supreme Court of India, have discussed the law
concerning the contempt of court vis-a-vis misbehavior / violent behavior
against judicial officers. The judgment also discusses the circumstances during
which an apology is often accepted by the court for such offenses/misdemeanors.
Conclusion
The power to punish for contempt vested
during a Court of Record under Article 215 doesn’t, however, reach punishing
for contempt of a court. Such impact has never been acknowledged as an aspect
of a Court of record nor has the same been specifically conferred upon High
Courts under Article 215. Availability of power under Article 129 and its
plenitude is yet one more reason why Article 215 could never is intended to
empower High Courts to punish for contempt of the Supreme Court. The logic is
straight forward. If Supreme Court doesn’t, despite the availability of power
vested in it, invoke an equivalent to punish for its contempt, there’s no doubt
of a Court subordinate to Supreme Court doing so. The order given by the
Supreme Court was without jurisdiction, hence, set aside.
The power to punish for contempt is
vested within the judges not for his or her personal protection only, except
for the protection of public justice, whose interest requires that courtesy and
dignity is preserved in courts of justice. Those who need to discharge duty
throughout a Court of Justice are protected by the law and safeguarded within
the discharge of their duties. Any deliberate interference with the discharge
of such duties either in court or outside the court by attacking the presiding
officers of the court would amount to contempt of court and therefore the
courts must take serious cognizance of such conduct.
0 Comments