Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding of criminal contempt, dismissed the appeal, and modified the imprisonment to continue till the rising of the Court due to the appellant's age and medical condition.

Summary

The appellant, a practising advocate and former army officer, repeatedly threatened a lady counsel, failed to appear before the Delhi High Court despite several adjournments, and filed baseless applications maligning judges, prompting the High Court to invoke its suo motu contempt jurisdiction. The High Court convicted him of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sentencing him to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000 in each of two contempt proceedings. The appellant appealed, contending lack of proper notice, bias, and arguing that his apology should be accepted and that the sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court examined the appellant's conduct, affirmed that his actions amounted to intentional, malicious contempt that interfered with the administration of justice, and rejected his apology as insincere. While upholding the conviction, the Court modified the imprisonment to remain till the rising of the Court in view of the appellant's age and medical ailments. The appeal was dismissed and the connected matters were de‑tagged for separate hearing.

Issues considered

Whether the Delhi High Court validly exercised suo motu contempt jurisdiction against the appellant for threatening counsel and repeatedly disobeying court orders.
Whether the appellant's repeated non‑appearance, filing of frivolous applications and alleged threats constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether the appellant's apology can be accepted as a mitigating factor.
Whether the sentence of three months' imprisonment should be altered on account of the appellant's age and health.
Whether the ancillary matters should be de‑tagged from the contempt proceedings.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Subjects

Contempt of CourtSuo motu contempt jurisdictionCriminal contemptCivil imprisonmentAdjournmentCasting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the mattersBailable warrantsNon-Bailable warrantsJudicial independenceMaligning the reputation of judicial officersLibellous and motivated allegationsAdministration of justiceDignity and reputation of judicial officersApologyForum shoppingService of noticeBiasMisbehaviourModification of sentence

Judgment

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1151 : 2024 INSC 74

Gulshan Bajwa
v.
Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2007)
30 January 2024
[Vikram Nath and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
High Court exercising suo motu contempt jurisdiction against the
appellant for repeatedly disobeying the orders of the court, and
for casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the
matters, and thereafter, holding him guilty of criminal contempt
and sentencing him, if calls for interference

Headnotes
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Appellant-practising advocate
and former army personnel threatened lady counsel appearing
for the opposite side after seeking adjournment in the matter,
repeatedly disobeyed orders, repeatedly failed to appear before
the court despite attempts made to secure his presence and
casted aspersions and threatened the Judges hearing the
matters – Suo motu contempt jurisdiction exercised by the
High Court – Appellant held guilty of criminal contempt and
awarded a punishment of simple imprisonment of 3 months
along with a fine of Rs. 2000, in each contempt proceeding
– Interference with:
Held: Appellant’s conduct before the High Court and even before
this Court, amounts to undermining the system of the law and
interfering with the course of justice administration – High Court
observed a pattern in the behaviour of the appellant – He has had
a habit of misbehaving with a Bench which is not agreeing with
him – Misbehaviour goes to the extent of casting aspersions and
threatening the Judges hearing the matters – High Court rightly
held that there is need to maintain the dignity and reputation of
judicial officers and to protect them from motivated, libellous and
unfounded allegations which interfere with the administration of
justice – Also, the High Court rightly rejected the apology tendered
by the appellant since it was not bonafide and lacked in sincerity,
apart from being belated and a mere ‘lip service’ – Furthermore,
the appellant was trying to resort to forum shopping by asking this
1152 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Court to refer the matter to a judge who had issued notice in a
connected matter – Appellant failed to see that notice in the lead
matter was issued more than a decade and half ago – In view
thereof, the finding of conviction against the appellant warrants
no interference – However, considering his age and his medical
ailments, the sentence imposed is modified from imprisonment for
three months till the rising of the court. [Paras 17-18, 21, 22, 23]
Judicial independence – Protection of:
Held: Judicial independence ought to be protected from acts
maligning the reputation of judicial officers – There is need to
maintain the dignity of the Court and majesty of law. [Para 17]
Contempt of court – Apology tendered, when can be accepted:
Held: Apology must evidence remorse with respect to the
contemptuous acts and is not to be used as a weapon to purge
the guilty of their offence – An apology lacking in sincerity and not
evidencing contriteness, cannot be accepted. [Para 22]

Case Law Cited
M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab &
Haryana, 1991 (3) SCR 312 : (1991) 3 SCC 600; Pritam
Pal v. High Court of M.P., Jabalpur, [1992] 1 SCR
864 : 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529; Ajay Kumar Pandey,
Advocate, In Re, 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 87 : (1998) 7
SCC 248 – relied on.
M.Y. Shareef v. Hon’ble Judges of High Court of Nagpur,
(1955) 1 SCR 757 ; Omesh Saigal and State v. R.K.
Dalmia, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 179; L. D. Jaikwal v.
State of U.P., 1984 (3) SCR 833 : (1984) 3 SCC 405
– referred to.

List of Acts
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

List Keywords
Contempt of Court; Suo motu contempt jurisdiction; Criminal
contempt; Civil imprisonment; Adjournment; Casting aspersions
and threatening the Judges hearing the matters; Bailable warrents;
Non-Bailable warrents; Judicial independence; Maligning the
reputation of judicial officers; Libellous and motivated allegations
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1153

Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.

against the Court and its Judges; Administration of justice; Dignity
and reputation of judicial officers; Apology; Forum shopping; Service
of notice; Bias; Misbehaviour; Modification of sentence.

Case Arising From

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.577
of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2006 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CC Nos.16 and 17 of 2006.
With
M.A. 256 of 2017 In Contempt Petition (C) No.64 of 2007 With SLP
(Crl.) No.9689 of 2018 With Diary No.44408 of 2018.
Appearances for Parties
Petitioner-in-person
Kanhaiya Singhal, Prasanna, Mrs. Vani Singhal, Ajay Kumar, Udit
Bakshi, Anmol Sharma, Teeksh Singhal, Ujwal Ghai, Chirag M.
Shroff, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Gopal Singh Chauhan,
Deepak Goel, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. 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. 16 of 2006 and 17 of 2006.
2. By virtue of the impugned order, the High Court exercising its suo
motu contempt jurisdiction, convicted the sole appellant herein, a
practising advocate and a former army personnel, under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 (“Act”) and sentenced him to civil imprisonment
of three months which was to run concurrently and a fine of Rs.
2,000, each in both the contempt cases.
3. Facts in the lead matter: On 17.08.2006, in a writ petition before
the High Court, the appellant, appearing as counsel, sought an
adjournment. After granting an adjournment, the Court noticed the
appellant’s conduct relating to giving threats to the lady counsel
1154 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

who was appearing for the other side. Thereafter, the High Court
passed an order directing him to explain his conduct. The order is
reproduced herein for ready reference:-
“Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he wishes
to file some applications and requests for adjournment.
Request is allowed.
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. She brought it to the notice of the Court and
we requested the Counsel appearing for the petitioner to
come back, which he did.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a threatening
remark to her, saying that now she be prepared for the
consequences. Shri Dipak Bhattacharya (Advocate), who
was also present in the Court duly confirmed that he
overheard this remark being made to the lady Advocate
appearing for the respondents.
We find this attitude of the Counsel appearing for the
petitioner to be undesirable and needs to be deprecated
and dealt with in accordance with law. It is unfair for any
Counsel to give any threats to the Counsel appearing
on the other side, as all of them appear as officers of
the Court and assist the Court or their respective clients.
However, before we direct any further action or issue notice
for contempt, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a
request and the case is directed to be listed for tomorrow.
List on 18.8.2006.”
4. On 18.08.2006, when the matter was called out, the appellant failed
to appear. Therefore, the Bench adjourned the matter to 21.08.2006.
In fact, a counsel standing in the courtroom at that time undertook
to personally inform the appellant about the next date of hearing.
Surprisingly, the appellant had filed an application seeking transfer
of the said writ petition to a different bench of the High Court, even
though he failed to physically appear in the matter. Later in the day,
a counsel appearing on behalf the appellant made a request for an
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1155

Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.

adjournment on the ground that the appellant was unwell. That said,
the standing counsel for the Union of India, who was also present in
the same court at that time, informed the Bench that the appellant
was seen in the court premises earlier in the day. Nonetheless, in
the interest of justice, the Bench adjourned the matter to 21.08.2006.
5. Thereafter, even on 21.08.2006, the appellant failed to appear.
However, he had filed applications in the same matter making reckless
and unsubstantiated allegations against the judges of the High
Court. Clearly, by failing to appear and filing baseless allegations,
the appellant had disobeyed the orders of the Court. In fact, it also
came to the knowledge of the High Court that the appellant herein has
frequently filed transfer applications on behalf of his clients, without
their knowledge. 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 No. 16 of 2006).
6. 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. Even in
this contempt proceeding as well as the writ petition, the appellant
failed to appear. However, he was filing applications day-after-day
making reckless allegations against the Judges. While issuing a
show-cause notice on 08.08.2006 (Suo Motu Contempt Case No.
17 of 2006), the High Court noted as follows:
“We have looked into the statement made in the application,
which is registered as CM No. 9695/2006. Having gone
through the same, we direct for issuance of a notice to
the petitioner to show cause why appropriate action under
the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or otherwise
shall not be initiated against him. Notice shall be issued to
the petitioner by the registry of this Court without process
fee and shall be served by the Process Serving Agency
of this Court, returnable on 3rd October, 2006.”
7. Both the suo motu contempt proceedings were tagged and listed for
22.08.2006. However, neither on that date nor on subsequent dates
did the appellant appear.
1156 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

8. Multiple ways were adopted to secure the presence of the appellant,
without any avail. The appellant was not to be found on the addresses
mentioned and hence, service of notice under the Act could not be
completed. As a last resort, the High Court issued bailable warrants
against the appellant. Upon failure to secure the appellant’s presence
even then, non-bailable warrants were issued. The said warrants
could also not be executed since the appellant was not available
on any of the addresses mentioned.
9. After numerous attempts, the High Court directed the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, to be present in Court. Upon his
appearance in Court, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi
was directed to ensure the presence of the appellant in Court. Soon
thereafter, on 18.09.2006, he was produced in Court. On the same
day, while the Appeallant was released upon furnishing a personal
bond, he was arrested by the Police of Uttarakhand in furtherance
of another non-bailable warrant issued by a Family Court in a case
filed by the appellant’s wife for execution of a decree. The High
Court noted that even during this time, the appellant failed to appear
before the Court, instead, he was filing applications challenging the
jurisdiction of the Court in issuing such warrants.
10. This is a long-drawn case in which the appellant has been committing
successive acts of contempt. There are about seven instances which
the High Court has taken into account, where the conduct of the
appellant came under scrutiny in different proceedings. In all those
cases, the egregious act of contempt of the appellant was recorded.
These instances in short are as follows:
(i) In a case concerning his dismissal from service, the matter
got carried up to this 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. While referring the matter to the Bar Council, this Court
observed as under
“We have carefully perused the review petition as well as
the documents annexed therewith, but we find no merit in
the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Having regard to the allegations and insinuations contained
in the review petition, there is justification for action under
the Contempt of Courts Act, against the petitioner. However,
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1157

Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.

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.
However, we notice that the petitioner is an Advocate and
is practising as an Advocate-on-Record in this Court. The
conduct of the petitioner in filing a review petition containing
such baseless allegations and insinuations reflecting on
the conduct of Judges of this Court does call for closer
scrutiny, as to whether his conduct does no credit to the
noble profession to which he belongs. However, since that
matter is not within our jurisdiction and it is only the Bar
Council of India which is empowered to take appropriate
action, we refer this matter to the Bar Council of India for
such action as it may consider appropriate.”
(ii) In Suo Motu Contempt Case No. 16 of 2006, the appellant had
filed transfer petitions seeking transfer of the underlying matter
as well as the suo motu contempt proceeding before a different
bench of the High Court. Admittedly, he had filed the transfer
petition on grounds which were devoid of the writ petitioner’s
knowledge. 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 Bench which issued notice in Suo Motu
Contempt Case No. 16 of 2006 on 21.08.2006. It has to be
stated here that the original writ petitioner in this writ petition
was personally present in the Court on 29.08.2006 and stated
that he had not read the content of the transfer petition nor did
he sign the transfer petition.
(iii) In a different writ petition before High Court, in which the
appellant was appearing as a counsel, he had filed an application
wherein he made allegations against the Judges of the High
Court as well as this Court. He also alleged that the transfer
petitions were never placed before the then Acting Chief Justice
of the High Court, thus, causing injustice.
1158 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(iv) In W.P. 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. The details are
however, available in the order impugned before us):
‘The following Hon’ble Judges declined to hear the personal
matters of the petitioner— (1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) ... (5) ...
In addition, from time-to-time, the following Hon’ble Judges
also declined to hear the petitioner’s personal matters—
(6) ... (7) … (8) … (9) … (10) ... (11) ... (12) ... (13) ...
The said refusal stemmed partly from the death of Hon’ble
Mr. Justice …’s son and the death of Hon’ble Mr. Justice
… as a result of the written curse (‘shrap’) made by the
humble petitioner; Hon’ble Mr. Justice …’s son, too, died,
and Hon’ble Mr. Justice … has been paralysed for life.’
(v) Further, in W.P. No. 5183 of 2005 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. The details are
however, available in the order impugned before us):
“Apparently, it is the ego of the judicial office and
the accompanying powers—which can be used or
mischievously abused/misused, which is making him
ill-treat the Hon’ble Members of the Bar and to act in a
whimsical, vengeant and harassing manner towards me,
in particular. 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. Justice … shall die; his son died within 4 days. Again,
I wrote to His Lordship that Mr. Justice … shall die—he
died within 7 days. Similarly, Mr. Justice …. died, Mr. …
(retired Judge) has been paralysed for life, Mr. Justice …
is also suffering with medical problems, etc. Since then at
least 13 Hon’ble Judges have declined to hear my personal
matters—including Mr. Chief Justice …”
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1159

Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.

(vi) In CM 9695 of 2006 in WP (C) No. 9244 of 2006 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. The
details are however, available in the order impugned before us):
“3. That several Universal Legal Maxims/Principles/
Premises—which are followed by all the civilised Nations,
have been given a go-by in several legal cases (including
the instant case) and the same is palpably apparent on the
face of the record. Hence, the humble Applicant hereby
curses that one son/child of each of the individuals who
passed the motivated orders shall die prematurely—and
so shall it happen soon. Bismillah!
In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that it is on the written
record of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the applicant
herein had stated in writing that one son of the then Mr.
Justice … would die—he died within 4 days, that the then
Mr. Justice … would die—he, too, died within 7 days. And
the then Mr. Justice …’s son also died, Mr. … (retired Judge)
has been paralysed. 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. It is pertinent to
mention that blatant and motivated abuse of their powers
by certain public officials has occasioned miscarriage of
justice against the ex-servicemen/servicemen, and their
said acts are an open instigation to the ex-servicemen/
servicemen to abuse their powers, too in any case, this
is a reason enough for lowering the morale of the Armed
Forces personnel who may even refuse to fight against the
intruders to save the lives of such corrupted individuals.
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-
1160 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

station matter. While granting an adjournment, the Bench listed
the matter for the next day. The next day when the matter was
called for hearing, it was again adjourned. It is the claim of
the appellant that the same was done out of vengeance since
one of the Judges on the Bench had a pre-existing tiff with the
appellant.
Findings of the High Court:
11. While analysing the conduct of the appellant, the High Court
summarised his contemptuous acts in the following words:
“(a) Use of undesirable language as afore-noticed with an
intention to malign the Court and to lower the dignity of
the Court. The intention is obvious i.e. transferring of the
cases in which he is the petitioner himself or Counsel for
the petitioner unless you are willing to pass favourable
orders only in those cases, failing which the threats were
extended to the various Courts with dire consequences
resulting from the curse written or otherwise of the said
person. This amounts to apparent interference with the
administration of justice and extending undesirable threats
to the Courts.
(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.
(c) Extending threats in presence of the Court to Ms.
Rekha Palli, Advocate for the respondents of facing dire
consequences in the case filed by the petitioner. This was
done in presence of the Court and the threats extended
were even overheard by a senior member of the Bar Mr.
Deepak Bhattacharya (Refer to order dated 17th August,
2006).”
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1161

Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.

12. 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
High Court held that the acts are intentional, malicious and have
persisted over a long period and are now clearly interfering with
the administration of justice and lowering the dignity of the Court.
13. Having recounted the above-referred incidents, the High Court
through its judgment and order dated 19.10.2006 found the appellant
guilty of criminal contempt and awarded a punishment of simple
imprisonment of 3 months along with a fine of Rs. 2000, in each
contempt proceeding. It is basing this conviction and sentence that
the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
Proceedings before this Court:
14. While admitting the appeal, this Court by order dated 16.04.2007,
granted a stay of the impugned order dated 19.10.2006. Thereafter,
the record of proceedings are replete with requests for adjournments,
and finally, by order dated 01.08.2023, one of us, vacated the interim
order and directed that the case will be heard without any further
adjournments. Thus, we heard the appellant and have also permitted
him to file written submissions. The written submissions were filed.
Submissions before this Court:
15. 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. Therefore, it is the submission of the appellant that
these matters should be heard by a bench presided over by that
particular Judge; (ii) none of the connected matters are related to
the contempt petition. Therefore, they must be de-tagged and be
heard separately; (iii) the Court Martial proceedings which were relied
upon by the High Court are not relevant to the present proceedings;
(iv) the matters before the High Court, in which the appellant was
appearing as a counsel, were being adjourned without a pass-
over being granted on the first call; (v) the threat given to the lady
advocate was nothing but elderly advice; (vi) no show cause notice
in the contempt proceedings was served on him; (vii) all the transfer
petitions and the underlying matters were transferred to one single
bench without following the rules framed by the High Court relating
1162 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

to assignment of matters; (viii) the Judges who heard his case and
issued notice under the Act were biased against him; and (ix) the
appellant challenged all other proceedings initiated against him on
the ground that the authorities conducting such proceedings were
biased against him.
16. We have also heard the learned counsel for the Respondent. It was
their submission that the order impugned herein has been rendered
after a detailed consideration of the material placed before them.
It was submitted that the appellant had appeared before the Court
pursuant to service of show cause notice under the Act, and the
submission that there was no proper service of notice is not correct.
It has also been contended that till date, the appellant has never
apologised for his actions. In fact, even before this Court, he has
been writing letters making reckless allegations against Judges and
the Judiciary.
Analysis:
17. At the outset, we note that the order impugned herein is a detailed
one, which considers and answers each and every aspect of the
matter. While imposing the punishment, the High Court relied on a
decision of this Court to highlight that judicial independence ought to
be protected from acts maligning the reputation of judicial officers1.
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
justice2. Furthermore, the High Court highlighted the importance of
protecting and upholding the dignity of the Court and the majesty
of the law as also observed previously by this Court3. We are in
complete agreement with the decision of the High Court on the need
to maintain the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and to protect
them from motivated, libellous and unfounded allegations. We are
also of the opinion that the High Court was correct in not accepting
the apology tendered by the appellant since it was not bonafide and
lacked in sincerity, apart from being belated and a mere ‘lip service’.

1 M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, 1991 ( 3 ) SCR 312 : (1991) 3 SCC 600.
2 Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P., Jabalpur, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529.
3 Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re, 1998 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 87 : (1998) 7 SCC 248.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1163

Gulshan Bajwa v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.

18. The submissions made before us are also not appealing. 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.
The appellant has failed to see that notice in the lead matter was
issued more than a decade and half ago. While the appellant seeks
to de-tag the court martial proceedings as if they are unconnected
to the egregious act of contempt, we note that those proceedings
were not of a client of the appellant, in fact, the appellant himself was
subjected to court martial proceedings, and he was in fact appearing
as a party-in-person. We do not see two different lives here. The
appellant contemnor is the petitioner in the court-martial proceedings.
19. It is also incorrect to say that there was no service of notice on the
appellant. The appellant had in fact appeared before the Court after
issuance of notice under the Act. Making an assertion that there
was no service of the notice is factually wrong. The appellant, while
making an allegation of bias should have supplemented it with cogent
material, which he has failed to do. This again, is an irresponsible
statement.
20. With respect to the other arguments made by the appellant before
us, we are of the view that the High Court has elaborately dealt
with the same and they require no interference or indulgence by us.
21. 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. The High
Court observed a pattern in the behaviour of the appellant. He has
had a habit of misbehaving with a Bench which is not agreeing with
him. The misbehaviour goes to the extent of casting aspersions and
threatening the Judges hearing the matters.
22. We are of the opinion that the High Court correctly rejected the
apology. An apology must evidence remorse with respect to the
contemptuous acts and is not to be used as a weapon to purge the
guilty of their offence4. Further, an apology lacking in sincerity and
not evidencing contriteness, cannot be accepted5.

4 M.Y. Shareef v. Hon’ble Judges of High Court of Nagpur, (1955) 1 SCR 757.
5 Omesh Saigal and State v. R.K. Dalmia, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 179 and L. D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P.,
1984 ( 3 ) SCR 833 : (1984) 3 SCC 405.
1164 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

23. Having considered the order impugned before us in detail and having
perused the way the appellant has conducted the proceedings before
this Court, and after giving our anxious consideration, we are of the
opinion that the finding of conviction against the appellant warrants
no interference. However, considering the age of the appellant and
taking note of his submission that he is suffering from certain medical
ailments, we modify the sentence imposed by the High Court from
imprisonment for three months till the rising of the court.
24. The three other connected matters being (a) M.A. 256/2017 in
Contempt Petition (C) No. 64/2007, (b) SLP (Crl.) No. 9689/2018,
and (c) Diary No. 44408/2018 are not related to the present criminal
appeal and, therefore, we de-tag them and direct them to be listed
for hearing separately.
25. In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No. 577/2007 arising out of
SLP (Crl.) 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. 16 & 17 of 2006, is dismissed, subject to the
above modification of the sentence till the rising of the Court.
26. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
27. No order as to costs.

Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.