Arun H.

Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court
Arun H. Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996
Author: S Soni
Bench: S Soni, R Jain
JUDGMENT
S.M. Soni, J.
1. Respondent No. 4 had filed one public interest litigation petition, being Spl. Civil application No. 2044/96
alleging corruption, illegalities and irregularities carried out by the office of the Labour Court, Labour
Commissioner, Chief Factory Inspector and Industrial Courts, in collusion with the owners of the factories. As
alleged, he had made representations before the dignatories present in one Labour Laws Conference held at
Rajkot. In the petition, it was prayed for direction to take necessary action against those officeRs. Said public
interest litigation petition came to be dismissed summarily. Respondent No. 4 instead of pursuing legal
remedy issued the press note which came to be published in the issue of 25.4.96 of Gujarati daily 'Bindu'. Said
issue was distributed in the Bar room of the Gujarat High Court Advocates' Assocation, Ahmedabad.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. A.H. Mehta, having read said issue of daily Bindu brought to the notice of this
court the news item published in Gujarati Daily 'Bindu', owned by respondent No. 1, published by respondent
No. 3 and edited by respondent No. 2, wherein a Press note issued by respondent No. 4 by way of this petition
filed on April 30, 1996, alleging that news item amounts to contempt of court.
3. The petition came up for admission hearing on 1.5.96 and was adjourned to 2.5.96. On 2.5.96, this court
(Coram: J.M. Panchal and H.R. Shelat JJ.) issued suo motu rule against the respondents in view of the facts
stated in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the petition. Rule was made returnable on 20.6.96. Along with the notice of rule,
charges framed against the respective respondents were also served. On 20.6.96, it appears that one of the
respondents Mr. R.K. Thapa was not served and, therefore, a fresh notice was ordered to issue to be served
through the Police making it returnable on 5.7.96. Thereafter, on 5.7.96 said respondent appeared and the
matter was adjourned to 22.7.96, which was again adjourned to 2.8.96. It appears that the matter was not
notified on that day but appeared on Board on 3.8.96. On 3.8.96, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 submitted their
reply. By the said reply, they pleaded guilty, expressed regret and prayed for mercy. They have tried to
explain the circumstances under which the said Press Note given by respondent No. 4 came to be published.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also annexed the xerox copy of the press note received by them from and duly
signed by respondent No. 4. On 3.8.96, the matter was adjourned to 5.8.96 and again it was adjourned to
12.8.96 at the request of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On 12.8.96, as respondent No. 4, though duly served, did not
remain present, this court ordered to issue non-bailable warrant against him and made the same returnable on
26.8.96. We may make it clear that the previous Bench had ordered to issue bailable warrant on 22.7.96 which
was served on respondent No. 4 on 29.7.96 and still respondent No. 4 had not remained present before the
court. This court, therefore, had issued non-bailable warrant on 12.8.96 and the matter was fixed on 26.8.96.
However, on that very day, after this court passed the order to issue non-bailable warrant, respondent No. 4
appeared before the court, made a request to cancel the warrant and grant time to file affidavit-in-reply. A
request was also made by learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to grant them time, as they would also
like to file additional affidavit, to tender their apology in rather more clear words. The matter was, therefore,
adjourned to 6.9.96. On 6.9.96, respondent No. 4 filed his written defence with as many as 25 annexures and
the matter was adjourned to 10.9.96 for further hearing in the matter. On 6.9.96, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have
also filed their additional affidavit tendering unconditional apology.
4. On reading the written defence of respondent No. 4, it clearly transpires that he admits to have issued a
press note annexed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with their earlier affidavit. When the said press note was
shown to respondent No. 4, he admits it to be the xerox copy of his press note and bears his signature. From
the written defence, it is clear that he owns what he has stated in the press note. He neither regrets nor feels
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405223/

Arun H. Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996

sorry nor shows any repetence for what he has stated in the press note. On the contrary, he emphasises the
same. In view of this fact, we called upon him to state whether he would like to lead any defence to explain
the imputations made in the press note and the answer was in the negative.
5. We may make it clear at this stage that as far as practicable and possible, we have conducted these
proceedings so far as respondent No. 4 is concerned in vernacular language i.e. Gujarati at the request of
respondent No. 4. We had requested the learned Advocates who appeared in the matter, namely, Mr. A.H.
Mehta, Mr. M.R. Barot and AGP Mr. Y.F. Mehta, to address the court in Gujarati and till completion of the
hearing, there was no grievance by respondent No. 4 that he has not understood what had transpired in the
court in the course of hearing.
6. This court again explained to respondents the charges levelled against them. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are
represented by Senior Counsel Mr. M.R. Barot and they have accepted all the charges. Respondent No. 4 after
the charges being explained to him has specifically stated before us that he admits and adheres to whatever
stated in the press note, a xerox copy of which is annexed with the affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He
also admits publication thereof in the daily newspaper 'Bindu'. Respondent No. 4 for all the time contended
before us that if opportunity is given to him by calling the Judge to interrogate and/or cross-examine, he is
prepared to prove the truthfulness of imputations made in the Press note and published in the newspaper. He
has stated before us that he has no axe to grind against the Judge in making these imputations. He contended
that all this is done to safeguard interest of labour. He has tried to justify his say by referring to certain
annexures to his written defence. He has annexed with his written defence news items published in Gujarati
daily 'Sandesh' of 13.12.95, a monthly 'India Today' of 21.4.95 as well as of 20.3.95 and certain other
newspapeRs. We have referred some names only to illustrate, however they are not exhaustive. Respondent
No. 4 has produced clippings of nine news items and xerox copy of certain photographs taken at some
function. He has disclosed before us that he does not want to lead any oral evidence for defence. He has also
disclosed before us that he does not regret for what he has got published. Relying on annexures, he has
contended before us that if no action is taken against authors, publishers and printers of imputations made
against Judges and judiciary of those news papers annexed, why action is initiated against him. This action is,
therefore, mala fide. In view of this state of affair, we shall have to now consider whether the charges levelled
against the respondents are proved and if yes, whether they amount to criminal contempt, as defined in clause
(c) of Sec. 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('Contempt Act' for short).
7. Based on news item of 25.4.96, following charges are levelled against respondents:"(a).that the Acting Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, His Lordship RA Mehta, is involved in scam
involving corruption and irregularities and a demand for his resignation is made (headlines);
(b) a statement is made by the fourth respondent herein that the Judges of the Labour and Industrial Courts
have also now joined the scam of corruption;
(c) Officers of the Gujarat Labour Commissioner in collusion with Judges of the Labour and Industrial Courts,
etc., have joined hands with the owners and by adopting an attitude against the working labourers and by
signing falsely for workers, are indulging in corruption and misappropriation of large amounts;
(d)a complaint stating what is stated hereinabove was given in writing with evidence to the Gujarat High
Court by the fourth respondent by filing public interest litigation and directions to stop such corruption was
prayed for;
(e) however, the Gujarat High Court inspite of there being evidence, on account of favouritism shown to
relatives and caste persons, dismissed such writ petition exparte and thereby established a totalitarian hold
over the judiciary;
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405223/

Arun H. Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996

(f) this unprecedented event has taken place in the 36 year history of Gujarat High Court for the first time by
which for the negligible self interest, rights of lakhs of poor hard working unemployed workers' legal rights
have been encroached upon;
(g) the fourth respondent has stated praising the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, that it has without fear or
favour taken strict action against all the persons involved in Hawala scam and who are VVIPs;
(h) the High court also should without fear or favour and without being unduly influenced and without being
under pressure of any person should have proceeded with the petition,but on the contrary it has adopted a
contrary approach which is regrettable;
(i) the fourth respondent states that the Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat pass orders looking to
senior Advocates who appear before them and talks to that effect is being discussed amongst Advocates in the
High Court canteen in leisure then. In view of this,trade unions, workers and citizens who have sense of
justice are alarmed.
(j) representations in this behalf were made earlier on 6.1.96 at Labour laws Conference held at Rajkot;
(k) representations were made in this behalf at the said conference before Hon'ble Justice S.B. Majmudar,
Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; Hon'ble Judge N.J.Pandya of Gujarat High Court, and Hon'ble
Chief Minister and others by presenting a memorandum of representation and the said corruption was sought
to be proved by presenting evidence, and yet the entire chapter was wound up;
(l) Constitution of India has treated social justice as a fundamental right so far as working labourers, backward
and exploited and illiterate citizens are concerned. It is stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court times without
number that the law should be interpreted keeping in mind the aforesaid principles in favour of the aforesaid
classes of citizens;
(m) Labour is an economically backward class ignorant about laws and so law should be interpreted so that it
benefits laboureRs. However, in view of corruption going on in the courts and with a view to shield such
corruption, the application was dismissed by doing great injustice to the workers;
(n) On the contrary, after joining hands with the owners, a contempt petition was got filed against the fourth
respondent who had filed the said public interest litigation and an attempt was made to suppress him which is
a serious matter;
(o) in the circumstances, a demand is made that such officers should immediately resign".
8. So far as the charges against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their first
affidavit have annexed the xerox copy of the original press note received by them. Respondent No. 4 has
admitted to have issued the said press note. From that press note,it is clear that respondent No. 4 is a General
Secretary of one Insaf Labour Association, bearing registration No. G-4425 dated 9.8.88. Along with
respondent No. 4, names of two other office-bearers are shown i.e. B.S.Mishra, Advocate, High Court as
President and one Mr. B.D.Thakkar, Advocate as Vice-President. Respondent No. 4 has also admitted his
signature below the said press note and also admits that he has given the said press note to the Editor of Bindu
daily for publication. It will be relevant to state that said press note bears a title (HIGH JUDICIARY) Uchha
Nyaya Tantra. Then there is a further title (true translation) "resignation demanded of Chief Justice Shri
Mehta of Gujarat High Court, President, Chief Justice of Supreme Court for involvement of Acting Chief
Justice of Gujarat High Court in nepotism, corruption, irregularity, illegality and scams". The said press note
is issued in the name of respondent No. 4 as the General Secretary of Association and a candidate for
Parliament election representing Bahujan Samaj party. Based on this press note, 'Bindu' daily has published
on 25.4.96 the news with a title "Demand of resignation of Chief Justice Shri Mehta, involved in corruption,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405223/

Arun H. Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996

illegality and scams". The news item is verbatim reproduction of press note. Thus, based on this press note
and the news item, the above-referred charges are framed.
9. All the respondents admit and do not dispute the publication of the said press note in the issue of 25.4.96.
The same, therefore, stands proved firstly by admission by respondents and secondly by not denying the same.
Hence, no further proof of authorship, printing and publication is required. We may remind ourselves that we
are exercising contempt jurisdiction and not holding criminal trial. Therefore, admission of respondent Nos. 1
to 4, in our opinion, is sufficient to establish and prove the publication in daily 'Bindu' by respondent Nos. 1 to
3 as Printer, Publisher and Editor, and respondent No. 4 is author of the same. When the facts on which the
charges are framed are admitted, same shall be deemed to be proved. We are now required to consider which
are the charges stand proved against each of the respondents.
10. We may make it clear that we are not dealing with charges, though framed, which pertain to contempt of
either Labour Court or Industrial Court or office of the Labour Commissioner or the Government. We propose
to deal with only those of the charges which, in our opinion, involves the High Court and in particular Acting
Chief Justice of the High Court. Therefore, we do not deal with charges framed and levelled at Sr.Nos. (b),
(c), (d), (g), (j), (k), (l) and (n).
11. Charge (1) is the headlines of the news item. From the contents of the news, it is clear that charges (e), (f),
(h), (i) and (m) also stand proved. If charge (o) is read with the title or headlines of the news, it also stands
proved.
12. Now, the question is whether the charges proved against the respondents amount to criminal contempt as
defined in clause (c) of Sec. 2 of Contempt Act. Clause (c) reads as under:2 (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) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or
(iii) interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any
other manner;
13. Supreme Court in the case of Dr.D.C.Saxena vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India (1996 (6) Judgment Today
SC 529), in para 40, has observed as under:"40. Scandalising the court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary. Any
person attack upon a Judge in connection with office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slender. Yet
defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into contempt, a serious
impediment to justice and an inroad on majesty of justice. Any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the
dignity of the court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of
justice or majesty of justice.It would, therefore, be scandalising the judge as a judge, in other words,imputing
partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a Judge is scandalisation of the court and would be contempt
of the court. Even imputation of lack of impartiality or fairness to a judge in the discharge of his official duties
amounts to contempt. The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to
majesty of justice. When the contemnor challenges the authority of the court, he interferes with the
performance of duties of Judge's office or judicial process or administration of justice or generation or
production of tendency bringing the judge or judiciary into contempt. Section 2(c) of the Act,
therefore,defines criminal contempt in wider articulation that any 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
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405223/

Arun H. Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996

whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or
tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the a criminal contempt. Therefore, a tendency to
scandalise the court or tendency to lower the authority of the court or tendency to interfere with or tendency to
obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or tendency to challenge the authority or majesty of
justice, would be a criminal contempt. The offending act apart, any tendency if it may lead to or tends to
lower the authority of the court is a criminal contempt. Any conduct of the contemner which has the tendency
or produces a tendency to bring the judge or court into contempt or tends to lower the authority of the court
would also be contempt of the court".
14. If we look at the charges once again, publishing of a news item after dismissal of the writ petition and
imputing or ascribing reason for the dismissal as corruption, irregularity and nepotism instead of pursuing
legal remedy affored under law, makes it obvious that respondent No. 4 has in his mind to weaken the
administration of justice. Respondent No. 4 deliberately ignored the presence of second Judge of the Bench
which dismissed the petition. Order of rejection of petition was of the Division Bench and not of the Acting
Chief Justice alone. Any decision taken by a Bench is a decision of the Judges of the Bench and not of any
one of the Judge sitting in the Bench. Alleging involvement of the Acting Chief Justice in scams, nepotism,
corruption and irregularities is out of vilification owing to the dismissal of his petition. This is with a view to
weaken the administration of justice to get desired results. Any of such reckless allegations if not taken
seriously and dealt with, they may send a message to other Judges in particular of lower judiciary to the effect
that if they do not pass the orders as desired by respondent No. 4 or if they do not submit to the demands of
respondent No. 4, they would be maligned and/or scandarlised to demoralise them. This, in our opinion,
amounts to tending to interfere with the administration of justice. The allegations also, in our opinion, amount
to lowering or tending to lower down the authority of the court. If a citizen reads this news item containing
animadversion against the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court showing involvement in scams, corruption
and irregularities, what would he think of judiciary ? He will esteem the Judge and the system very low in his
mind, feeling to what extent the system or the Judges have gone down. As soon as he feels so, resultant effect
is that he may lose confidence from system or feel insecured or doubt to get justice at the hands of the Judges
heading or manning the institution. The allegations are not only scandalous, but are reckless and made
wilfully, as is clear from his admission in his own defence statement.
15. Ours is a country where rule of law prevails. People have absolute faith in the constitution and in the
judicial system. Any act of an individual to shake such a faith in the system is likely to disturb the rule of law
in the country. If the faith of the people is shaken from the system, it may sap the foundation of the
Constitution and result is the rule of jungle. Making inroad on the majesty of justice, calculated to undermine
its authority and public confidence in the administration of justice, is nothing but to lower down the whole
system in the eye of the public. By imputing judges with improper motives, bias, corruption and partiality, the
people will lose faith in this system. Judges require a degree of detachment and objectivity, which cannot be
obtained if judges constantly are required to look over their shoulders for fear of harassment and abuse and
irresponsible demands for prosecution or resignation. The whole administration of justice would suffer due to
its rippling effect. It is for this reason that scandalising the judges was considered by the Parliament to be
contempt of a court punishable with imprisonment or fine ( observed by Supreme Court in Dr.Saxena's case).
Thus, from the charges proved, it is clear that respondents have committed criminal contempt, as defined in
clause (c) of Sec. 2 of the Contempt Act.
16. Respondent No. 4, while arguing in person has been stating that he has not said anything against the
petitioner. On the contrary, he has praised Mr. Mehta not only for his ability, but for his integrity also. He,
therefore, contended that the petition is not maintainable. We had brought to the notice of respondent No. 4
that Mr. Mehta has filed the petition, not alleging his contempt, but has alleged contempt of this court, and he
need address the court for contempt of this court and not of Mr. Mehta. This court has then initiated action suo
motu. He had then addressed the court on the charges levelled against him.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405223/

Arun H. Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996

17. This brings us to the question of punishment. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have expressed their regret and
prayed for unconditional apology from the day one they appeared before the court. They have tried to explain
the circumstances under which the said news item is published. They have stated that the period during which
the news is published were the days of election. Respondent No. 4 was a candidate for the Parliamentary
election from Kapadavanj constituency. Candidates used to campaign through media and they used to send
press notes in connection with their election campaign. As respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were over-burdened in
those days, treating the press note as pertaining to election campaign, they had published as received from
respondent No. 4, who was a candidate for Parliamentary election representing Bahujan Samaj party, and they
have published the same, for which they have expressed regret, saying that had been published inadvertently
and without any notice as to the contents thereof. They have stated that they esteem the court highest and they
are duty bound to honour the dignity, honour and respect of the judiciary and of this court, which is the
highest court of the State. Thus, they sincerely regret for editing, printing and publishing and seek indulgence
for having explained as to what has actually happened. In this background, the question arises is what
punishment should be imposed against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in view of their unconditional apology
made at the outset. Respondent No. 1 is the owner, respondent No. 2 is the Editor and respondent No. 3 is the
publisher of Bindu daily. We put a question to learned counsel Mr. M.R. Barot whether the owner, editor and
publisher are bound to publish any press note or have they any discretion to refuse the same and the answer
was that they are not bound to publish any press note received by them. We also put a question to Mr. Barot,
learned counsel, that whether the owner, Editor and Publisher are relieved of their liability by putting a note
that they are not in agreement with what is published in the newspaper. There also, the answer was that they
do not get relieved of the liability, be civil or criminal, if arises out of such printing and/or publishing.
Therefore, what is required to be considered in view of this state of affair is whether the explanation advanced
for printing and publishing this news item should weigh with the court as a circumstance, in addition to their
regret and unconditional apology for deciding the quantum of punishment ? In our opinion, answer is 'no'. If
one looks at the press note, xerox copy of the original is produced by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with the
previous affidavit-in-reply, that press note has a title (high judiciary) Unchha Nyaya Tantra. If such was the
title of the press note, then it can be said that it was brought to their notice by respondent No. 4 that this does
not pertain to election campaign. In view of such title respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were required to be vigilant
before publishing the same. Carelessness does not relieve a person from criminal liability, if any, arises. Even
below that title "high judiciary", sub-title refers to a demand for resignation of Acting Chief Justice. This must
have brought to their notice that this press note does not refer to any election campaign. Printer, in our
opinion, at least must have gone through the contents of the press note while reading the proof. It was his duty
to bring it to the notice of either Editor or owner whether it should be published or not. Then comes the duty
of the Editor. It is the duty of the Editor to know what is printed in his newspaper. If one looks at the news
item of 25.4.96, it is in bold letters which reads "demand of resignation of Chief Justice Shri Mehta, who is
involved in scam against corruption and irregularities". It is a matter of common knowledge, in our opinion,
that whenever a newspaper is received by anyone, at least he would read headlines, if not in detail of the
news. In any case, headings are always read. Editor must have at least read the heading and it must have
immediately struck him that it pertains to judiciary and put on guard to allow it to go in circulation or not ?
Respondent No. 1 being proprietor of the newspaper is overall responsible to see that palatable news item is
always published. Hence he is liable as owner. Thus, the explanation how they have published the news either
due to inadvertence or mistake, in our opinion, does not relieve them from liability, which arises due to such
printing and publication. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have done any less
damage to the institution than respondent No. 4. But for such publication people would not have come to
know about this, the system would not have been lowered down in the eye of the public and, therefore,
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 should be saddled with punishment.
18. Learned counsel Mr. Barot contended before us that in view of the small circulation being a small daily
and having expressed regret and tendered apology from the day one of the service of the notice, they should
be looked upon with a liberal view. Whether a newspaper daily is with a little circulation or a larger
circulation, but its news carries the same impact. A daily newspaper with a smaller circulation may earn less
profit than one with a larger circulation.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405223/

Arun H. Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996

19. However, when a regret has been expressed, unconditional apology having been tendered, it will be in the
fitness of the matter to be little liberal and to take a more lenient view than the one we are inclined to take for
respondent No. 4. Explanation to sub-Sec. (1) to Sec. 12 of the Contempt Act provides that an apology shall
not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional, if the accused makes it bona fide. Here,
it is very difficult to say that it is not a bona fide one, but whether to accept the apology or not has to be
decided by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Looking to the imputations made and
published by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, we do not accept the apology of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Learned counsel
Mr. Barot contended before us that in view of the small circulation being a small daily and having expressed
regret and tendered apology from the day one of the service of the notice, they should be looked upon with a
liberal view. However, in this view we would not take as harsh a view as may be taken in the case of
respondent No. 4. 18.9.96
20. On Sept. 13, 1996, a telegram sent by respondent No. 4 was placed before us. In view of the said telegram
and as respondent No. 4 appears in person, we deferred further dictation to 16.9.96, as requested by him in the
telegram.
21. On Sept.16, 1996, we did not proceed further with the dictation in view of the resolution passed by the Bar
Association to abstain from work on account of sad demise of an eminent lawyer of this Bar and Speaker of
the State Assembly. Respondent No. 4 had not remained present on that day.
22. Today, respondent No. 4 is absent. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are present with their learned Advocate Mr.
Dave.
23. At the time when the hearing was over, we had also called upon the respondent No. 4 to address this court
on the question of sentence. We informed him that in case if the court does not agree or accede to his request
to drop the proceedings but decide to impose punishment, what has he to say ? At this time also, respondent
No. 4 emphatically stated before the court that if an opportunity is given to him to lead necessary evidence to
prove correctness of the allegation and to cross-examine the Judge against whom the imputations are made, he
is in a position to prove the same, as what he has stated is the truth. When we asked him to submit against the
sentence if to be imposed, the reply was a shocking one. Respondent No. 4 stated before the court that if any
punishment is imposed, he will be appreciated and received by the members of his Union with colouRs.
Instead of regret and crave to be discharged, his tone and manners were authoritative and contemptuous. He
has unhesitatingly invited punishment. He further stated before the court that if punishment is imposed, he
will be more popular in his Union and may bring further unity. If punishment is imposed, it ill be in the
welfare and interest of laboureRs. What transpired from his say is that if he has punished, he will be accepted
as hero by his union membeRs. If this is the approach of respondent No. 4 before the court, we feel that we
should oblige him by imposing maximum punishment available under the law. This apart, since 12.9.96
onwards when this court started dictating the judgment, he has deliberately remained absent under one pretext
or the other. As a law-abiding citizen and as a responsible Union leader well versed with court procedure, we
think that it was his duty to remain present boldly before the court instead of avoiding the court. When he was
present before the court at the time of hearing, he did not express any regret even by conduct. On the contrary,
he presented himself as if he has committed an act of bravery or chivalry.
24. Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 12 of the Contempt Act provides simple imprisonment, which may extend to six
months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2000/- or with both. However, the proviso contemplates that the
accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the
satisfaction of the court. In view of his obstinate defiance and antagonising manner before the court even if
respondent No. 4 has expressed any regret or apology, then also proviso may not be attracted. Explanation to
sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 12 also does not come in play, as there is no apology tendered by respondent No. 4.
Looking to the imputations and implications thereof, the gravity of the contempt is at the highest and we are
of the view that in the set of facts and in the circumstances of the case, this is a case where maximum
punishment should be imposed.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405223/

Arun H. Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996

25. We are supported in our above view for maximum punishment by the observations of the Supreme Court
in the case of in Re.Vinay Chandra Mishra (AIR 1995 SC 2348) in para 13, relevant portion of which reads as
under:"If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are
sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.
Otherwise the very corner-stone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule
of law and the civilised life in the society. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with the
extra-ordinary power of punishing those who indulge in acts whether inside or outside the courts, which tend
to undermine their authority and bring them in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising them and obstructing
them from discharging their duties without fear or favour. When the court exercises this power, it does not do
so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalized, but to
uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust
and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation
itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by
creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded".
26. It is the law that intention or motive is not a criterion to be considered in criminal contempt. At the most,
the same can be relevant for mitigation or aggravation of the sentence (1995 Criminal Law Journal 2107).
Here, in the instant case, intention or motive of the respondent No. 4 is very clear. It is with a view to not only
scandalize the Judge concerned, but it is with a view to interfere with the administration of justice. As the
respondent No. 4 did not get the expected result to get his public interest litigation petition admitted, he came
out with curt language imputing the judge as corrupt and guilty of nepotism. The conduct suggests a threat to
the independence of the institution. All the allegations are calculated to bring the judiciary to a ridiculous
matrix with a view to shake the confidence of the people. We feel that it is our duty to take care of the same.
27. In view of the above discussion, and considering the totality of the impact and intention of respondent No.
4 and the gravest magnitude of the contumacious conduct of the contemnor, we are left with no option but to
convict and sentence them as under:28. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are convicted under section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
29. Each of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are ordered to undergo S.I. for a period of two months and a fine of
Rs. 2000/- payable in a period of three months and in case of default, to undergo further S.I. for a period of 15
days.
30. Respondent No. 3 shall undergo S.I. for a period of one month with a fine of Rs. 2000/- payable in a
period of three months and in case of default, to undergo further S.I. for a period of 15 days.
31. Respondent No. 4 shall undergo S.I. for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 2000/- payable in a
period of three months and in case of default, to undergo S.I. to undergo further S.I. for a period of one month.
32. In view of the conviction and sentence, Office is directed to issue warrants of arrest against all the
respondents and confine them in Sabarmati Central Jail for their undergoing the sentence as imposed
hereinabove.
33. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are present before the court. They are directed to surrender to the warrants that
may be issued.
34. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 request the court to grant them time to
surrender, as respondents Nos. 1 to 3 would like to approach the apex court. In view of this, time to surrender
is granted upto four weeks from today to respondent Nos. 1 to
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405223/

Arun H. Mehta vs Mahesh Harshadrai Desai on 12 September, 1996

3.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1405223/