Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Ali Murtza, Advocate, for Advocate General and Sri Manish Goyal, Advocate, for Registrar General of this Court.
2. This is an application filed by Pradyumn Kumar Srivastava under Section 16 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") read with Rule 4 of Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") so as to request this Court to take suo-moto action against opposite party Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Jalaun at Orai and to punish him under Section 12 of Act, 1971 for committing gross criminal contempt of his own Court on 20.11.2014 for obtaining signature of Court Moharrir Abir Singh under threat and for scandalizing Court of the then District Judge in his statement dated 26.11.2014 by levelling allegation of corruption against him.
3. Certain background facts given rise to the present proceedings may be stated as under :
4. The opposite party came to be posted at Jalaun at Orai and joined thereat on 15th March, 2014. He was designated as Special Judge, E.C. Act. On 23.04.2014, General Secretary on behalf of District Jalaun Bar Association, Orai (hereinafter referred to as "Bar Association") sent a letter to District Judge complaining against behaviour of opposite party and stated that members of Bar Association shall abstain from judicial work from 24.04.2014. Another letter dated 25.04.2014 was sent to Administrative Judge of Judgeship requesting that in the month of May and June, Court''s time be made in morning from 6 A.M. to 1 P.M. instead of 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. and it was also said that opposite party was not working properly and advocates are abstaining his Court from 24.04.2014.
5. Subsequently Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava came to be elected as President of Bar Association. A communication dated 18.10.2014 of Secretary, Bar Association was issued to Advocates that Court of opposite party shall be boycotted till he is transferred outside the District and said communication was also endorsed to District Judge. Vide letter dated 21.10.2014, it was forwarded by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, District Judge, Jalaun at Orai to this Court.
6. On 20.11.2014, following massage was received on the mobile of the then Administrative Judge of District Judgeship Jalaun at Orai from opposite party :
"Respected Lordship,
Today at 12.45 p.m. Advocate Pradumn Kumar Srivastava, President of Bar and his colleagues attacked on Court and beaten me and the D.J. is not taking any action.
M.K. Shukla, ADJ 3"
7. Thereupon Administrative Judge referred the matter to Chief Justice and also vide letter dated 20.11.2014 directed District Judge concerned to take appropriate action and inform immediately.
8. On 21.11.2014, Registrar General submitted note before Chief Justice as under :
"1. The under-signed made telephonic inquiries about the incident mentioned in the said letter, it was established that the said incident has taken place.
2. The lawyers of the Bar Association of District Jalaun at Orai were boycotting the court of Sri Shukla for approximately thirty days.
3. On 20.11.2014 Sri Shukla was sitting in the Court and a mob of lawyers had manhandled him though the District Judge telepathically informed the undersigned that two P.A.C. Personnel were posted there, but it appears that none had come to protect the officer.
4. That there appears serious lapses in making security arrangement for the safety of Sri Shukla."
9. Chief Justice thereupon ordered spot inquiry and this was conducted by Sri Virendra Kumar-II, Special Officer (Vigilance), High Court, Allahabad [hereinafter referred to as "S.O. (Vig.)"], who submitted his 94 pages report.
10. With regard to incident took place on 20.11.2014, statements of Court Reader, Orderly and a Class IV employee, were recorded by S.O. (Vig.), perusal whereof shows that at about 12.45 P.M., opposite party was sitting on the dais of Court. Several Advocates entered Court room, shouting slogans, thrown CPU of computer and pen-holder towards opposite party. Table glass and pen holders were broken and files fell down and scattered. Due to ruckus created by advocates, opposite party got down from dais whereupon advocates gripped and dragged him out of Court in Varandah. In this ruckus some advocates also sustained injuries. In the process when advocates gripped opposite party and manhandled him, he also got indulged in scuffle.
11. S.O. (Vig.) for the purpose of inquiry formulated following three points :
"1. Whether Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President Bar Association, Jalaun at Orai along with his colleagues attacked on 20.11.2014 in the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Special Officer (Gangster Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 03, Jalaun at Orai and he was man handled by these advocates?
2. Whether the then District Judge Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav did not provide proper security to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla and provoked learned counsels to beat him up?
3. Whether on 20.11.2014 at about 12:30 Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla himself along with his gunner and ten constable of P.A.C. assaulted on the member advocates of delegations with kicks, fists and gun and constable of P.A.C. Beaten-up the learned advocates with sticks and caused injuries to them while these advocates went to inform about the resolution passed in general meeting on 20.11.2014 at about 11:00 a.m.?"
12. After referring to the evidence collected by him, he has recorded his conclusions and findings as under :
"Conclusion :
On the basis of above discussions and appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, I have arrived at the following conclusions:-
E.W. 12 Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, E.W. 48 Sri Shailendra Kumar Sharma, E.W. 37 � HCP 142 Sri Santosh Kumar Sachan, Pairokar of the police station Rampura, E.W. 31 � Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Senior Prosecuting Officer, E.W.18 � Sri Ram Jiyawan Shukla and E.W. 26 � Sri Neeraj Mishra, Class-IV Employees have proved the incident dated 20.10.2014, stating that some advocates had arrived reached in the Court and thrown a bag towards the dais, which dropped between reader and the presiding officer. E.W. 48 � Reader has clarified this fact the learned advocates and the presiding officer had conversation in high volumes of voice, some senior advocates along with Court Moharir took these advocates and accused person out side the court, when the court was vacated by these persons, someone locked the court outside. After one hour this lock was opened by someone. E.W. 48 � clarified this fact that they were detained in the Court Room during this period. After opening of lock further dates were fixed in presence of accused persons.
The learned advocates have conveyed this fact that on 20.11.2014, a resolution was passed at about 11:00 a.m. in the general meeting of the District Bar Association, which was handed over at about 11:15 a.m. by the delegation of Bar Association to the District Judge, then the delegation informed the various courts about boycott and reached at about 12:30 p.m. At the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. Video recording made by him also shows time of recording on 20.11.2014 time at about 01:04:08. They have refuted this suggestion that delegation of the Bar association went straightway to the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, after visiting the chamber of the District Judge.
The learned advocates have stated that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has passed orders arbitrarily and illegally. He has insulted the litigants and learned advocates in the open court. They have quoted an example of his misbehave that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla told a litigant in presence of Sri Devendra Ved, Senior Advocate, while he was conducting cross examination that why he has engaged learned advocate, he will cause damage to him and he would be convicted. On the same day, Sri Devendra Ved, sustained cardiac attack. The learned advocates have forwarded complaint written as well as oral regarding misbehave of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla to the District Bar Association. The learned advocates have also clarified this fact that most of the learned advocates are not satisfied with the working of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.
Finding on Issue No.01.
The learned advocates entered in the Court room of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla forcefully and attacked on 20.11.2014 at about 12:45 � 01:00 p.m. on him while he was sitting on the dias.
Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has named Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the president of the District Bar Association, Arvind Kumar Singh, Rajawat, Suresh Dixit, Raghunath Dass Bishnoi and Yusuf Ishtiyaq who abused him, shouted slogans and assaulted him by throwing CPU of computer, pen holder and beaten him up.
I have watched video recording produced by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. It revealed that Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, E.W.1 the President and E.W. 02 Sri Arvind Kumar Gautam, Advocate, General secretary of the District Bar Association along with 10-15 advocates entered forcefully and created ruckus and ransacked the dais of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla E.W.1 � Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Sri Gyanendra Singh Rajawat, E.W.-08 � Sri Suresh Dixit, E.W.43 � Sri Karma Kshetra Awasthi, Sri Aftab Ahmad, E.W.-4, Sri Udai Shanker Dwivedi, Sri Pankaj Gupta, Advocates sustained injuries in this incident dated 20-11-2014 is established, which shows they have participated actively in this incident. Therefore, proceeding of the contempt of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla should be drawn against these learned advocates.
E.W.36 � Constable No. 65 � Sri Abir Singh Court Moharir of the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla also sustained injuries, while he was trying to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. He has also clarified this fact that only two P.A.C personnels armed with rifles were present at the point of time of incident dated 20-11-2014.
E.W.36 and E.W.15 � Sri Raj Kumar Segar, E.W. 16 � Sri Member Singh, P.A.C. Personnel, E.W.17 Sri Ramesh Chandra Bhadauria, Reader, E.W. 18 Sri Raj Jiyawan Shukla and E.W. 26 � Sri Neeraj Mishra, Class IV Employees and E.W.31 � Senior Prosecuting Officer has proved this fact that no baton charge was made on the learned advocates and these employees tried to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla during the course of incident dated 20-11-2014.
E.W. 32 � Sri Girja Shanker Dwivedi and Sri E.W.34 � Sri Kamal Kant Kushwaha, have clarified this fact that on 20-11-2014, no baton charge was made on learned advocates only slap and fists were used during thrashing each other. E.W. 34 has stated that police personnels were not having sticks. E.W. 38 � Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate has clarified this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla gripped and thrashed only one advocate E.W.47 � Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gurjar, Assistant Government counsel of the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has also clarified this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla had abused learned advocates only, he did not see anyone to thrash each other. No F.I.R. Has been lodged yet and no injury report of any learned advocate has been produced before me, who sustained injuries in the incident dated 20.11.2014.
Finding on Point No.3
1. It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of appreciation of evidence of the above mentioned witnesses and fact and circumstances narrated by them, it revealed that Sri Manoj Shukla after attack on him got down from the dais and abused learned advocates who entered in the court room. Meanwhile, advocates gripped him and dragged towards Varandah outside his court and manhandled and abused him also. Thus Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has also provoked learned advocates and indulge in scuffle with those advocates.
Work and conduct of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.
On persual of comments dated 17-04-2014, it is clearly established that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla had protested against the then District Judge, because he was not satisfied with the allotment of his residence and shifting of his court room. Likewise, the then District Judge had discharged him from the responsibility as the Officer In-charge of Library and Nodal Officer of Computers. The reasons mentioned by him regarding the irregularities committed for the purchase of oil, toner of ink cartridge for computer printer and judgment paper and other stationery items and non availability of new edition of books at library, may likely be correct, even then it is inferred from the facts mentioned in this comments that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla was not satisfied with the allotment of his official accommodation and shifting of his court.
The incident dated 24.04.2014 occurred at night at the guest house of Irrigation Department has been conjoined by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla with the facts of recall of Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2012 � Smt. Khillan Devi v. State of U.P. which is not acceptable, because Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2012 was related to section 72 Excise Act, which could have only he heard by the District Judge as held by Hon''ble High Court, Allahabad and Uttranchal (Uttrakahnd) High Court.
On perusal of the documentary evidence produced by E.W. -40 � Sri Harnath Singh, Senior Advocate, it revealed that it may be possible that office bearer of the District Bar Association tried to pressurize Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla to obtain favourable orders n their favour and members advocate of their group. There is substance in the statement of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla that he was pressurized by learned advocates, whose name has been mentioned by him in his statement of procure judicial order/judgment in their favour.
Therefore, on the basis of evidence of E.W. 40 Sri Harnath Singh, Senior Advocate, E.W.-45 Sri Raja Ram Chaturvedi and E.W. 46 Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, it revealed that office bearer of the District Bar Association and some other advocates of their groups were not satisfied with the way of working of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla and they could not be successful to pressurize him therefore, they carried on boycott the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla from 18.10.2014.
Learned advocates have conveyed this fact that no complaint was received at the Bar Association that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has decided cases by receiving bribe. He is not a corrupt judicial officer.
I have perused the record of S.T. No. 114 of 2007 � Kuldeep Yadav v. State, on 17.10.2014 defence witness Sri Shailendra Singh, Rajendra Prasad, Rajesh Kumar and Satya Prakash were present before the trial court, but these defence witnesses were discharged by the learned counsel for the accused person, application 129 (kha) was allowed and dated 20.10.2014 was fixed for arguments. Therefore various opportunities for defence evidence was given by the trial court during the period 26.08.2014 up to 17.10.2014 and date 14.10.2014 was not the first date for adducing defence evidence.
On 22.11.2014 the Presiding Officer � Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, heard the accused persons on the point of sentence and passed impugned judgment on 22.11.2014 therefore sufficient time to conduct the argument was given from 20.10.2014 up to 19.11.2014. There is no substance in the statement of E.W. 07 that sufficient time for evidence for adducing the defence evidence or to conduct the arguments on behalf of the accused person was not given. On the other hand, it revealed from perusal the record of S.T. No. 114 of 2007 that accused persons themselves did not cooperate during the course of the trial and did not avail opportunity for adducing evidence and to put forward argument.
E.W. - 5 Sri Govind Singh Gurjar, Advocate and other advocates have mentioned this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has passed illegal orders and committed judicial dishonesty, therefore the learned advocates are agitated against him.
Learned advocates have mentioned this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla told that his relatives are Hon''ble Judges of Hon''ble High Court, hence none can take action against him. It is also conveyed /informed also that junior advocates has no courage to appear in the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.
E.W. 39 has mentioned this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, has performed his judicial work arbitrarily and illegally, he used unparliamentary languages with his subordinates employees and learned advocates against their dignity. He has corroborated this fact as stated by Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra E.W. 38 that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, slept in his chamber during the court hours. He has also clarified this fact that on 20.11.2014, if Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, would have not got down from him dais and would not have directed constable of P.A.C. to detain and assault the learned advocates, then such an incident could not have occurred.
E.W. 39 has mentioned this fact on 20.11.2014, the learned advocates were agitated, because Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, was not transferred from the judgeship and in general meeting of the District Bar Association, Jalaun, it was resolved that judicial work of all the Courts would be boycotted. E.W. 39 has proved that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla himself provoked and participated in the incident dated 20.11.2014.
E.W. 43 has conveyed this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, misbehaved with the junior advocates and insulted them every time. The junior advocates remained under fear that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, may conduct against their dignity any time.
Finding :-
1. Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, had remained lying for seven to eight hours in his chamber. The employees of his Court have no courage to put up any case or application before him. Sri Shukla also misbehaved with his employees. He appears to be a patient of psychiatry, he at random agitated and conducted as such.
E.W. 38 found Sri Shukla talking with himself. Therefore support of medical treatment is required for him. It is in his interest that he should not continue further at the judgeship Jalaun at Orai.
Point in issue no.2.
On perusal of the above-mentioned documents produced by the Senior Administrative Officer, it is established that after incident dated 20.10.2014 up to the incident dated 20.11.2014 no specific security was ever provided by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, ever then advocates were demonstrating and boycotted the judicial work of the court from 18.10.2014. The proper and adequate specific security should have been provided by the then District Judge to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.03, Jalaun.
E.W. - 13 Senior Administrative Officer, has corroborated this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla informed the incident dated 20.10.2014 and 20.11.2014 to then District Judge, and the District Bar Association boycotted the judicial work of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla from 18.10.2014. He has specifically mentioned that the In-Charge District Judge, directed him on 20.10.2014 to open the lock of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla and no order was passed by him to provide security for him. He has mentioned this fact that the then District Judge made correspondence with the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate to provide security to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, after of incident dated 20.11.2014.
Therefore, the then District Judge � Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav did not make this correspondence after the incident dated 20.10.2014 up to 20.11.2014 to provide proper and adequate security to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. Even In-Charge Sessions Division had not taken any action on the report dated 20.10.2014 forwarded by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.
Although, this fact could not be verified that learned advocates after visiting the chamber of Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, straightway went in the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla or on 19.11.2014 at about 04:00 � 05:00 p.m., office bearers of the District Bar Association met with Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav and during the course of this meeting, it was decided in the knowledge of Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav that ruckus would be created by the learned advocates on 20.11.2014 and he would be manhandled.
Findings :
On the basis of these facts and circumstances inference may be drawn safely that Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai has facilitated learned advocates to carry on boycott of judicial work of his court, during the period from 20.10.2014 up to 20.11.2014 and to commit incident on these dates.
It is pertinent to mention here that the Registrar (Confidential) has informed me vide his letter dated 10.12.2014 that Sri Vinod Kumar yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai has sent his letter no.409/XV dated 24.04.2014 and its subsequent letter no. 487/I dated 12.05.2014 against Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Special Judge (E.C.Act), Jalaun at Orai, which has been placed before Hon''ble Administrative Judge Jalaun at Orai through the office note dated 23.05.2014 and the concerned file is still under submission.
It is also informed thereafter Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai has sent his another letter no. 638/XV dated 28.06.2014, furnishing therewith detailed inquiry report containing fifteen enclosures in continuation to his earlier letter no. 409/XV dated 24.04.2014 regarding misbehaviour and working style of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Special Judge, Jalaun at Orai and disruption of work for his action, which has also been submitted before the Hon''ble the Administrative Judge � Jalaun at Orai on 11.07.2014. The concerned files are still under submission before the Hon''ble Administrative Judge, Jalaun at Orai for orders.
Therefore, I could not persuse the inquiry report dated 28.06.2014 and letter no. 409 dated 24.04.2014 submitted by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai, regarding misbehaviour and working style of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. The Senior Administrative Officer of the Judgeship Jalaun at Orai had also not provided to me copies of this inquiry report and letter during the course of inquiry at Judgeship Jalaun. Learned advocates conveyed me about this inquiry that their statements were recorded by the then District Judge, during the course of this inquiry.
The learned advocates had passed resolution on 27.11.2014 and withdrawn strike on resolution to conduct judicial work from 29.11.2014.
Work and Conduct of Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President of the District Bar Association, Jalaun :-
It is relevant to mention here that Hon''ble High Court, Allahabad in T.A. (Civil) no. 501 of 2014 � Applicant Krishna Dass @ Nanu Maheshwari v. Bhawan Dass and Ors. has been pleased to issue notice to Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the Presdent "to file his reply clarifying as to in what circumstances and what capacity, he issued letter dated 20.09.2014 and shall also show cause as to why further action of professional misconduct and causing interference in administration of justice and thereby committing contempt of Court be not initiated against him."
The report is humbly submitted, accordingly.
With deep deference and profound reverence."
13. The applicant is Contemnor 1 in Criminal Contempt No.17 of 2015.
14. When we enquired from learned counsel for the applicant as to how Section 16 of Act, 1971 is attracted in the case in hand, he submitted that in the statement made by opposite party before the fact finding officer i.e. S.O. (Vig.), serious allegations were made against the then District Judge Vinod Kumar Yadav, which are all baseless and this amounts to a "criminal contempt" by opposite party. He further relied on statement of Court Maharrir, Abir Singh, stating that opposite party got signature on a written application and he is not aware what was written therein and submitted that this also amounts to contempt of own Court by opposite party liable for punishment under Section 16 of Act, 1971.
15. The aforesaid statements were not part of any judicial proceedings but on administrative side when Chief Justice directed for a fact finding inquiry, which was conducted by S.O. (Vig.) and statements relied by counsel for applicant were recorded by S.O. (Vig.) in his fact finding inquiry. With regard to allegations against District Judge, we need not go in detail to what has been said by opposite party for the reason that after assessing evidence collected by S.O. (Vig.), he has also recorded a finding that Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, facilitated learned advocates to carry on boycott of judicial work of Court of opposite party and he also failed to provide appropriate security to the opposite party. This is really a serious matter for the reason that District Judge is the highest authority at District level and it is his responsibility to look after safety, security and welfare of judicial officers posted in District i.e. in subordinate judiciary.
16. We required learned counsel for the applicant to tell us how aforesaid statements can be treated to be something done by opposite party while acting judiciously so as to attract Section 16 of Act, 1971. In reply he contended that a "criminal contempt" can be prosecuted against a Judicial Officer when he is not sitting in Court and similarly a statement made by a Judicial Officer even in administrative inquiry can be treated, if he is not acting judicially.
17. The submission is apparently misconceived and baseless. If any person makes scurrilous allegation against a Judicial Officer in public so as to lower down authority of Court or to scandalize conduct of such person, satisfy the definition of "criminal contempt" under Section 2(c) of Act, 1971 but if on administrative side, High Court is making an inquiry and statement has been made by a Judicial Officer giving reasons that he met a foul treatment in the hand of advocates of district and that conduct of advocates had tacit approval or encouragement from the head of District Judiciary i.e. District Judge, it is a in-house proceeding and not an attempt to scandalize the Court. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, can be brought within the ambit of ''criminal contempt'', as defined under Section 2(c) of Act, 1971. The argument is thoroughly misconceived hence rejected.
18. In C. Ravichandran Ayer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, 1995(5) SCC 457, it was held that scandalising the Court would mean any act done or writing published, which is calculated to bring the court or Judges into contempt or to lower its authority or to interfere with due course of justice or legal process of the Court. Scandalising the Court is a convenient way of describing a publication which, although it does not relate to any specific case either past or pending or any specific Judge, is a scurrilous attack on judiciary as a whole, which is calculated to undermine authority of Courts and public confidence in administration of justice. Contempt of Court is to keep blaze of glory around judiciary and to deter people from attempting to render justice contemptible in the eyes of public. A libel upon a Court is a reflection upon sovereign people themselves. Contemnor conveys to the people that administration of justice is weak or in corrupt hands. The fountain of justice is tainted. The judgments that stream out of that foul fountain is impure and contaminated. Scurrilous abuse of a Judge or Court, or attacks on personal character of a Judge, are punishable contempt. The punishment is inflicted, not for the purpose of protecting either the Court as a whole or individual Judges of Court from a repetition of attack, but for protecting public, and especially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion are subject to jurisdiction of the Court, from the mischief they will incur if authority of Court is undermined or impaired. It has also been held simultaneously that criticism of a judge''s conduct or of conduct of a Court, even if strongly worded, is not a contempt provided that criticism is fair, temperate and made in good faith, and is not directed to personal character of a Judge or impartiality of a Judge or Court.
19. This has been followed recently in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2016(1) SCC 1.
20. However, in order to attract mischief of Section 16, it has to be shown that Presiding Officer has done something in his judicial capacity or while acting judiciously. Something, which a ''Criminal Contempt'' under Section 2(c) of Act, 1971 otherwise in the context of Presiding Officer of a Court would not attract Section 16 unless it is further shown that it was done while acting judicially.
21. The statement made by opposite party to S.O. (Vig.) as also findings recorded by S.O. (Vig.) both will not attract Section 16 and, therefore, reference to Section 16 of Act, 1971 in the case in hand is thoroughly misconceived.
22. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant started making serious allegations against opposite party and placed report of Special Officer (Vig.) as also statement of advocates made before him including applicant himself.
23. Having gone through the entire facts we find that conduct of applicant is something, which is out of way so as to somehow or the other implicate opposite party and to malign him in one or other way. Firstly; after being elected as President of District Bar Association, Jalaun at Orai, repeatedly not only, Court of opposite party was boycotted but on 20.11.2014 a serious incident took place in his court caused by group of advocates led by applicant himself. In the present case, applicant is alleging that serious false allegations has been made by opposite party against the then District Judge. For the said purpose, it was open to District Judge to request this Court to take appropriate action against opposite party but applicant cannot hold brief of the then District Judge so as to cause damage to opposite party. In fact, this conduct fortifies inference drawn by S.O. (Vig.) that incident, which took place on 20.11.2014, in which applicant led group of advocates, was facilitated by the then District Judge.
24. Not only this but applicant, in order to achieve his object to implicate opposite party somehow or the other, filed an application before Advocate General under Section 15(1) of Act, 1971, which was rejected by him vide order dated 25.01.2016. Thereafter applicant filed Writ Petition No.5956 of 2006, which was dismissed by Division Bench vide judgment dated 08.3.2016. Then applicant filed Review Application No.96567 of 2016, which was also dismissed by Court vide judgment dated 06.04.2016. In the judgment dated 6.4.2016, certain facts were noticed by Court in paras 10 to 18, which read as under :
10. The report of Shailendra Kumar Sharma, Munsarim, Reader and Santosh, clerk sent to District Judge has also been referred to who informed that in the presence of some advocates and litigants in the Court, slogans were shouted and hindrance was made in the working of Court. The main gate of Court was locked out.
11. Special Officer (Vigilance) with regard to security of JO, has observed :
"On perusal of the above-mentioned documents, it is established that after incident dated 20.10.2014 up to the incident dated 20.11.2014 no specific security was ever provided by the District Judge to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, even then advocates were demonstrating and boycotted the judicial work of this court from 18.10.2014. The proper and adequate specific security should have been provided by the then District Judge to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.03, Jalaun."
12. Two constables E.W. 15 and 16 also deposed before Special Officer (Vigilance) which is noted in report as under :
"E.W. 15 and 16 has mentioned this fact that the presiding officer was sitting on the dais of the court. The learned advocates had thrown the computer box (C.P.U.) and pen holder towards the dais, table glass and pen holder were broken, rear side of the computer kept on the dais was also damaged.
E.W. 15 and 16 has stated that meanwhile Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla got down from the dais and learned advocates dragged him up to the gate/door out side of the Court, in the Varandah they thrashed and beaten up him. The constables tried to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. The learned advocates beaten up them also."
13. Court Reader, Orderly and a Class IV employees have also stated before Special Officer (Vigilance) as under :
"....that at about 12:45 p.m. Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla was sitting on the dais of the Court, 08 to 10 advocates entered in the court, shouting slogans, had thrown the C.P.U. of computer and pen holder towards the presiding officer. Table glass and pen-holder were broken and files fell down and scattered. These employees has also clarified this fact that rear side of computer kept on the dais was also damaged.
E.W-17, 18 and 26 has conveyed this fact that meanwhile Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla got down from dais and learned advocates gripped him and dragged out of the court in the Varandah. They have also stated that two P.A.C. personnels and Court Moharir tried to prevent the learned advocates to enter the Court and to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, the learned advocates and beaten him up also. These employees along with gunner could not prevent the learned advocates from conducting this misdeeds. The learned advocates thrashed and beaten up Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla."
(emphasis added)
14. Special Officer (Vigilance) has further observed in his report as under :
"On perusal of this documentary evidence produced by E.W. -40- Sri Harnath Singh, Senior Advocate, it revealed that it may be possible that office bearer of the District Bar Association tried to pressurize Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla to obtain favourable orders in their favour and members advocate of their group. There is substance in the statement of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla that he was pressurized by learned advocates, whose name has been mentioned by him in his statement to procure judicial order, judgment in their favour.
I have also recorded the statement of E.W.45 � Sri Raja Ram Chaturvedi, Advocate, who has conveyed this fact that he is in legal profession since 1968. He has mentioned this fact that way of working of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District Judge-III could not appease some member advocates of the District Bar Association. In his opinion Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla is an honest officer, he has not discriminated amongst the advocates."
(emphasis added)
15. Special Officer (Vigilance) has drawn his inference as under :
"....office bearer of the District Bar Association and some other advocates of their groups are not satisfied with the way of working of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla and they could not be successful to pressurize him therefore, they carried on boycott the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla from 18.10.2014."
(emphasis added)
16. The video recording details have also been noticed by Special Officer (Vigilance) as under :
"The date and time mentioned in the video recording is 20 Nov., 2014 at 01:04:08 PM IST. It is shown in the video that there are two pairokar of the court, court moharrir, two constables of PAC armed with rifle and gunner armed with stane gun was also present inside the court room. When, Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President District Bar Association, Jalaun along with at about 10-15 advocates forcibly entered into the court room, pairokars, Moharir and constables of PAC tried to prevent them but, failed.
Learned advocates ransacked the dais by throwing the CPU and pen holder towards the presiding officer. They created havoc and ruckus in the court room.
A.D.G.C. and S.P.O. are also sitting in the court room. The glasses of window panes are seen broken in the video."
17. Special Officer (Vigilance) has recorded finding after viewing video recording, as under :
"I have watched video recording produced by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. It revealed that Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, E.W.1 the President and E.W. 02 Sri Arvind Kumar Gautam, Advocate, General Secretary of the District Bar Association along with 10 � 15 advocates entered forcefully and created ruckus and ransacked the dais of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. E.W. 1 � Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Sri Gyanendra Singh Rajawat, E.W. - -8 � Sri Suresh Dixit, E.W. 43 � Sri Karma Kshetra Awasthi, Sri Aftaf Ahmad, E.W. - 4, Sri Udai Shanker Dwivedi, Sri Pankaj Gupta, Advocates sustained injuries in this incident. Hence their presence at the point of time of incident dated 20.11.2014 is established, which shows they have participated actively in this incident. Therefore, proceedings of the contempt of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla should be drawn against these learned advocates."
18. With regard to point no.3 also, Special Officer (Vigilance) has recorded findings as under :
"It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of appreciation of evidence of the above mentioned witnesses and fact and circumstances narrated by them, it revealed that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla after attack on him got down from the dais and abused learned advocates who entered in the court room. Meanshile, advocates gripped him and dragged towards Varandah outside him court and manhandled and abused him also. Thus Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has also provoked learned advocates and indulge in scuffle with those advocates."
"On perusal of the documentary evidence produced by E.W. - 40 � Sri Harnath Singh, Senior Advocate, it revealed that it may be possible that office bearer of the District Bar Association tried to pressurize Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla to obtain favourable orders in their favour and members advocate of their group. There is substance in the statement of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla that he was pressurized by learned advocates, whose name has been mentioned by him in his statement to procure judicial order / judgment in their favour."
"Learned advocates have conveyed this fact that no complaint was received at the Bar Association that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has decided cases by receiving bribe. He is not a corrupt judicial officer."
(emphasis added)
25. Learned counsel for the applicant attempted to place before us extract of report, in which it has been observed by Special Officer (Vig.) that opposite party-Manoj Kumar Shukla used to rest in chamber in Court time, his behaviour with staff is not good and he does not maintain static mental status. We find from report that with regard to integrity, advocates'' witnesses have clearly stated that opposite party is a clean officer. In this background, the entire chain of events and repeated attack on opposite party, particularly by applicant, since he became President of District Bar Association, shows that there is a constant endeavour and attempt on the part of applicant to victimize, demoralize and pressurize opposite party so that he could not dare to stand against applicant.
26. We may take a judicial notice of the fact that Jalaun at Orai is a Judgeship where most of litigation is on criminal side. It is a place in State of Uttar Pradesh where crime of severe nature used to be committed are in large number. At some point of time, it was heavily dacoity affected area. Basic facilities to Judicial Officers in District Judgeship are not good and Judicial Officers are under great stress thereat. We are refraining ourselves from making pointed observations, but S.O. (Vig.) in his report has also said much about conduct of the then District Judge and advocates for creating undue pressure on officers to pass orders in a particular manner.
27. Boycotting of Court of opposite party itself is a contempt for the reason that strike in any manner by advocates is impermissible. Repeatedly, Apex Court as well as this Court have held that a call of strike by advocates except of a rare occasion, is per se illegal. A call, which has the effect of paralysing judicial function ex facie, amounts to a direct interference in the administration of justice and is a ''criminal contempt'' under Section 2(c) of the Act, 1971. The strike by Advocates disturbing Court proceedings has been held illegal in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and Others (1995) 5 SCC 511, Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995) 1 SCC 732, K. John Koshy v. Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad Shaw (1998) 8 SCC 624, Mahavir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Private Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 37 and Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45. The authorities of Apex Court in above these cases, support and lay down the above exposition of law.
28. In the present case, applicant led a group of advocates to create a ruckus in Court room when judicial proceedings were going on. Not only this, even court property i.e. computer CPU, pen-holders, window pans were damaged and even judicial officer was manhandled. The aforesaid conduct of applicant neither can be countenanced nor can be ignored nor can be tolerated for any reason whatsoever else it will give a very wrong massage to entire judiciary.
29. In State of Uttar Pradesh we have 75 district Judgeships and most Judgeships lack appropriate infrastructure and other facilities. In some District Judgeships, working conditions are so pitiable that it is really difficult to appreciate how Judicial Officer under such constraints can keep cool himself, apply mind and discharge judicial functions in an appropriate manner.
30. In fact, we commend and put on record our appreciation to such officers who, without raising any complaint about absence of working proper atmosphere, lack of basic facilities and other difficulties, still continue to devote themselves for service of justice. Population of State has multiplied many fold but number of Judicial Officers has not correspondingly increased. Without complaining about scarcity of Judicial Officer or Courts, what ever officers are available, quietly, calmly and peacefully they are concentrating on their work instead of raising any hue and cry. Had it been any other Executive branch, we would have witnessed frequent agitation etc. but to the credit of Judicial Officers of this State, we may put on record that in the last more than a century, we have never heard of any agitation by Judicial Officers complaining about their working conditions, lack of infrastructure, basic amenities and other facilities.
31. Though, very recently, Government has waken up to provide funds for infrastructure but fact is that even these activities are largely controlled by State Government and their agencies as a result whereof, whatever infrastructure is being raised, quality thereof is extremely poor. There are several districts in State of U.P., where facilities of good education, health etc. are not available, even at District Headquarters level and still our Judicial Officers, wherever posted, keep themselves busy in working diligently to decide cases and no complaint is made by them. Even workload has increased multi-fold and most Courts in State Subordinate Judiciary are loaded to the extent that number of cases, which would justify three or four Courts, are assigned to a single Court, yet these officers are functioning silently so as to give their best.
32. Though, of late, complaints are being raised that cases are taking longer time and this delay is defeating justice, but, on a deeper scrutiny, we find that real lapses are on the part of State Executive and prosecution in criminal cases but ultimate reflection unfortunately is cast on the Courts. New laws are being enacted everyday. People''s awareness of their rights is giving birth to more litigation day-by-day but there is a complete apathy on the part of State Executive to take care of corresponding requirement of the institution of justice.
33. We find that Courts and their needs are the last priority and in fact has no priority in the eyes of Executive. The reason is also quite obvious. Various irregularities, corrupt activities and other deformities in Executive has caused a substantial loss of faith and confidence in them to the general public but still judiciary stands as a strong pillar sustaining faith and confidence of common men. When one loses all hopes elsewhere, he/she comes and knocks the doors of justice with full confidence of getting justice from the institution of administration of justice. Ways and means have been adopted by Executive time and again to shake this confidence of common man but all have failed and proved in vain. The common man still has a concretized confidence in the system of justice.
34. The slogan of ''justice delayed is justice denied'' by referring to large number of pending cases is now another facet of this attempt on the part of a few. Nobody ever tried to scrutinize reasons for delay but by mere mentioning number of cases pending in Courts, everybody cries that cases are not being decided. The fact is that despite the problem of adequate Judges to man the Courts, number of cases, being decided by each Judge, surpass the number of cases decided by the same number of Judges in long past. More than 32 per cent Courts in the districts in State of U.P., against sanctioned strength, are continuously lying vacant for the last several decades. This is besides the fact that number of Courts have not been increased in regular manner looking to the need. Unfortunately, blame is one way traffic since Judges have no platform to defend themselves. They can answer and reply each and everything but their training, modesty and decorum restrain them and Executive and others, it appears are taking advantage of this self restraint, in persisted attack in the name of delayed justice.
35. Of late, some of the advocates, forgetting that they are officers of the Court, are trying to tarnish the image of the institution of justice in one or the other way. Those black sheep have to be identified and eliminated from the system, else, we ourselves shall be responsible for decay and damage to the institution of justice. We are under an obligation to take remedial corrective measures, and if need be, go for even surgery, so as to protect system, else history shall blame us for not reacting in time and probably it would be right in doing so. If we do not awake and act to meet the requirement of time, the next generations shall face disastrous consequences.
36. In this backdrop, we look into what actually has been attempted to be done at the Judgeship at Jalaun at Orai and whatever has been reported by S.O. (Vig.) after a fact finding inquiry, and find that really disturbing. It cannot be comprehended that a District Judge would have failed to take steps for providing proper security to his subordinate Judicial Officers, encouraging members of Bar to go to the extent of physical assault to a Judicial Officer. The applicant, in the present case, has gone to the extent of throwing his entire weight to some how or other, teach a lesson to the opposite party for not surrendering to the wishes of office bearers of Bar Association and showing courage to thwart their attempt of kneeling down him. The applicant has acted as a pivotal and next friend to guard interest of the then District Judge though has no cause of action in such matter. Various steps taken by him smack of clear malice in law and bias and show complete lack of bona fide on his part. Objectivity, impartiality and fairness, all is missing, in steps he has taken, including the application, which he has filed and up for consideration in these proceedings.
37. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that applicant is a person, who has not only acted with mala fide against opposite party by going to any extent but even otherwise is a mischievous person and his attitude, conduct and action constitute a serious apprehension for smooth and impartial functioning of judiciary. He is a person, who has filed this application, which clearly lacks bona fide and, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs for the reason that he has tried to malign not only image of a Judicial Officer, whose integrity was not doubted even by advocates at District Judgeship at Jalaun at Orai, where the incident, as noticed above, took place but this also is likely to create a bad precedent, if not checked at this stage, and nipped at bud.
38. The application, therefore, is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only). The cost shall be deposited by applicant within six months from today in District Treasury, Jalaun failing which District Magistrate concerned shall be entitled to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue from applicant.
