The Criminal Appeal No 577/2007 arises out of the common judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi (“ High Court ”) dated 19.10.2006 in Criminal Contempt Case Nos. At this stage, after the request for filing the applications was allowed, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while going back passed a comment on the lady Advocate opposing him in the case and appearing for the respondents. ” On 18.08.2006, when the matter was called out, the appellant failed to appear.
Therefore, by its order dated 21.08.2006, a Division Bench of the High Court issued a notice to the appellant asking him to show cause as to why proceedings under the Act should not be initiated against him (Suo Motu Contempt Case Around the same time, another Division Bench of the Court had also initiated suo motu contempt action against the appellant after noticing that he had filed an application in a writ petition, where he had made certain improper allegations against the Judges. Upon his appearance in Court, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi was directed to ensure the presence of the appellant in Court. While dismissing a review petition filed by him, this Court noted the allegations and insinuations made by the appellant against the conduct of the judges of this Court. However, considering his background as is apparent from the record of the case and the apparent frustration caused to the petitioner as a result of his losing his appeal before this Court, we do not propose to initiate any action under the said Act, since the respondent has preferred the review petition in-person. The transfer petitions filed by the appellant in this matter, along with the various other matters, were firstly placed before the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, and pursuant to his order dated 24.08.2006, the matter was listed before the same 8 Bench which issued notice in Suo Motu Contempt Case No. No 245 of 1986 before the High Court, the appellant had filed a written submission, where he had made the following statement (we have deliberately redacted the names of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court and that of the High Court to maintain the decorum of these proceedings. Justice… as a result of the written curse (‘shrap’) made by the humble petitioner; Hon’ble Mr. But the learned Judge overlooks the fact that he is not the Lord Almighty and there are Members of the Bar who are close to the real Lord Almighty—for example, I wrote to the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and therein cursed that the way justice had been delayed, there will be delay in medical aid and one son of Mr. Moreover, ACM… (the individual, who had tried to harass the humble Applicant) was not only himself paralysed, but his daughter also committed suicide and his son died in an air-crash. Hence a copy of this Application is being sent to the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.” (vii)
Lastly, the High Court noted that in a matter where the appellant was appearing before a Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant sought an adjournment in the matter and requested listing the matter a day after the next day owing to an out-station matter.
12 (b) Wild allegations are made in the transfer petitions filed by the said person without getting them signed from the petitioner concerned and in fact even without bringing it to the notice of the client as to what application was filed, obviously with an intention to hamper the administration of justice and making allegations in other cases, wherein he was not a petitioner, to browbeat the Courts and filing applications even without the knowledge and contents of the application being known to the petitioners in those cases. Deepak Bhattacharya (Refer to order dated 17th August, 2006).”
The High Court categorically noted that the appellant has prima facie committed criminal contempt of court and the magnanimity shown to him has resulted in doing acts and omissions of graver nature, thus, treating the tolerance as weakness of administration of justice. The appellant made the following submissions: (i) notice in one of the connected matters was issued by a Judge who is still a member of this Court. We have also heard the learned counsel for the Respondent. Further, the High Court also reiterated the finding of this Court, wherein it was highlighted that a contemnor ought to be punished with imprisonment for making libellous and motivated allegations against the Court and its Judges which interfere with the administration of justice.
Even here, the appellant is trying to resort to forum shopping by asking us to refer the matter to a judge who had issued notice in a connected matter.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/doctrine-of-necessity-in-a-societys-election-meeting/
The appellant’s conduct before the High Court and for that matter, even before this Court, amounts to undermining the system of the law and interfering with the course of justice administration. We are of the opinion that the High Court correctly rejected the apology.
In view of the above, Criminal Appeal
No 577/2007 arising out of SLP (Crl.)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/delay-and-laches-in-land-allotment-case/
No 1756 of 2007 against Final Common Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Contempt Cases Nos.
Case Title: GULSHAN BAJWA Vs. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OR DELHI (2024 INSC 74)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000577-000577 / 2007
