Holding

The advocate's intemperate language, threats, and filing of complaints against judges constitute criminal contempt, warranting conviction and punishment.

Summary

Advocate Ajay Kumar Pandey filed petitions and letters containing intemperate, insulting language against two Supreme Court judges, demanded apologies and compensation, and threatened to prosecute them, also filing a criminal complaint in a magistrate's court. The Supreme Court, after giving him opportunities to delete the objectionable passages, found that his conduct amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it scandalised the court and threatened the independence of the judiciary. The Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 129 is independent of the Contempt Act and it may impose any punishment it deems fit. Although Pandey tendered an unconditional apology, the Court was not bound to accept it and convicted him, sentencing him to six months' imprisonment with two weeks to be served and the balance suspended for two years. The contempt petitions were disposed of and the conviction upheld.

Issues considered

The language and actions of the advocate constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 129 is independent of the Contempt of Courts Act and can impose any punishment.
Whether the advocate's unconditional apology and withdrawal of remarks extinguish liability for contempt.
Whether threats to prosecute judges for their judicial acts amount to contempt.
Whether the contempt petitions should be dismissed or the contemner punished.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 197
Constitution of Indias. Article 129
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. Section 19(1)(B), s. Section 2(c)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 167, s. Section 500, s. Section 504, s. Section 506

Subjects

criminal contemptArticle 129Constitutional jurisdictionfreedom of speechjudicial independencescandalising the courtadvocacyapologysanction under Section 197 CrPCthreats to judges

Judgment

In Re: A
AJAY KUMAR PANDEY ... Contemner

NOVEMBER 5, 1996

[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]
B
Constitution of India, 1950 :

Article 129-Contempt of Court~riminal Contempt-Advocate-
Filing a petition-in-person in Supreme Court containing intemperate
language and a/legations against Judges of High Court and subordinate C
court~ourt asking the Advocate to correct the language and remove other
defects poimed out by the Registry-Advocate levelling allegations against
the Judges hearing the petition and giving notice to them seeking
unconditional apology from them for their conduct and behavior in the
Court and also demanding compensation from them-Writing letter to
President ofIndia for sanction to prosecute the Judges-Threatening to go D
on hunger strike and to file case against them-Filing complaint against
the Judges branding their conduct as "goondaism "~ontempt proceedings
initiated against the Advocate. Contemner filing unconditional apology--
Held, the contemner, by questioning the conduct the Judges through his
notice and demanding apology and compensation from them as also by
lodging complaint against them, especially in the language employed by E
him, is guilty of "criminal contempt" and is liable to be punished therefor
in both cases~ontemner is convicted for obstructing the course ofjustice
by trying to threaten and overawe the Court by using insulting and
disrespectful language and issuing notices and also launching criminal
prosecution against Judges of the Court-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
under Article 129 is independent of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and F
the power under Article l 29 cannot be restricted or limited by the Act--
There is no restriction of/imitation on the nature ofpunishment that
/
Supreme
Court may award while exercising its contempt jurisdiction~ontemner
is sentenced to undergo imprisonmentfor a period ofsix months-On serving
the sentenced for two weeks, remaining sentence shall stand suspended for G
a period of two years and may be activated in case the contemner is
convicted/or any other offence ofContempt ofCourt within the saidperiod-
Contempt of Courts Act,1971-s.2.(c).

Dr. D.C.Saxena v. Hon 'ble the Chief Justice ofIndia, [1996] 5 SCC
216 and Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., H
407
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A [19911 4 sec 406, relied on.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 55 of
1996.

With Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 56 of 1996.
B
(Under Section 19(1)(B) Under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.)

Petitioner-in-person,

Raju Ramachandra and G.L. Sanghi (for A.C.) Arun Jaitey, Ms.
C Sushma Manchanda, Arun K. Sinha and Rajiv Garg and N.D. Garg for the
Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The contemner is a practicing advocate. He filed Complaint Case
D No. 451 of 1994 in the Court of VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lucknow against Shri Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms. Saroj Bala, VII
Additional District Judge, Lucknow for offences under Section 499/500
!PC. Mr. Mahesh Giri, at the relevant time, was the Govt. counsel deputed
to work for the prosecution in criminal cases in the Court of VII Additional
District Judge, Lucknow. It was alleged in the complaint (read with notice
E which preceded it as also contemner's statement recorded under Section
200 Cr. P.C.) that the accused namely, Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms.
Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow had imputed sexual
relations between the contemner and Ms. Saroj Bala which had defamed
the contemner and, therefore, he prayed that the accused be tried for the
said offences. The statement of the contemner was recorded under Section
F 200 Cr. P.C. on 21.9.Q4 but it remained inconclusive. The statement was
finally recorded on 26.10.94 and, thereafter, the case was adjourned for
enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. It was stated that the petitioner moved
an application that the witnesses whom the contemner wanted to examine
under Section 202 Cr. P.C. may be summoned by the Court as almost all
the them were practicing advocates and influential persons but the complaint
G itself was dismissed by the Magistrate on 16.11.94. The petitioner,
th~reafter, filed a Criminal Revision against the aforesaid order in the
High Court but it was dismissed on 15.2.95. Hon'ble Virendra Saran, J. of
the Allahabad High Court who disposed of the Revision observed, inter
alia, as under:-

H "It is well settled that ifthe veiled object ofa lame prosecution
IN RE: A. KR. PANDEY 409

is to disgrace, humiliate or cause harassment to the accused, A
the High Court must put an end to the mischief by quashing
such criminal proceedings. The facts of the record of the
instant case give a horrendous account of a framed-up case
against a responsible member of the lower judiciary holding
the post of an Additional Sessions Judge. at Lucknow and
hence, even ifthe order of the learned Magistrate dismissing B
the complaint under S.203 of the Code be not wholly justified
in law, it is not a fit case for the exercise of the discretionary
revisional jurisdiction. There can be no doubt that the
prosecution case unfolded in the complaint and the statement
of the applicant is nothing but an intricate web of perfidious
fabric. It appears that the aim of the applicant is to malign C
the learned judge (Smt. Saroj Bala) and hold her at ransom.
The applicant emphatically and repeatedly read out the lewd
passages from his deposition while arguing the revision, but
the palpably scurrilous, indecent and abominable recitals are
not worth reproduction in the judgment. Suffice it to observe
..
that the arguments of the applicant, so vehement and pungent, D
marked with sarcasm and sneer, do not impart any strength
to his case which in inherently unbelievable. They are
submissions directed more towards vilification than
substantiation of the pivotal points of the case. I was
constrained to ask the applicant not to make save additions E
to the evidence and show restraint in his colloquy.

2. The contemner, thereafter, filed SLP (Cr!.) Nos.819-20 of 1996
against the aforesaid judgment and Order dated 15.2.95 ofHon'ble Virendra
Saran, J. in this Court in which he impleaded only State of U.P. as a
proforma respondent. F
3. A similar complaint under Sections 500 and 504 !PC was also
filed by the contemner against (I) Shri Prakash Narayan Awasthi, Advocate
(2) Shri R.P. Misra, Advocate (3) Shri Vishambhar Singh, Advocate (4)
Shri T.N. Misra, Advocate (5) Shri Srikant Verma, Advocate (6) Shri G
Pankaj Sinha, Advocate and (7) Shri N.C. Pradhan, Advocate in which
again it was alleged that similar imputations were made by the aforesaid
advocates between contemner and Ms. Saroj Bala. This was registered as
Complaint Case No. 101 of 1995 in which petitioner's statement was
recorded under Section 200 Cr. P.C. Jn order to produce witnesses under
Section 202 Cr.P.C., the contemner gave a list of 31 advocates, practicing H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A at Lucknow, for being summoned by the Court as witnesses but the
application was rejected. It was against this Order that the petitioner filed
SLP (Crl). No 4114 of 1995 directly in this Court. The contemner also, in
the meantime filed Contempt Petition (Crl) Dy. No 16199/95 against
Hon 'ble Mrs. Justice Virendra Saran of the Allahabad High Court, contempt
Petition (Crl) Dy. No.1702 l/95 against Ms. Saroj Bala, JV Addi, District
B Judge, Lucknow, Shri Udai Raj, V.A.C.J.M., Lucknow, Shri R.P. Misra,
VI Addi, C.J.M., Lucknow and Contempt Petition (Cr!.) Dy No. I 7022/
95 against Shri J.C. Mishra. District Judge, Lucknow (now Judge of the
Allahabad High Court), Shri K.N. Ojha, lI Addi, District Judge, Lucknow
Shri Shailendra Saxena, IIII Addi. District Judge, Lucknow and Shri B.N.
Pandey, Special Judge, Lucknow. All the above matters were listed in
C Court No.9 before Hon'ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Hon'ble Mr. Justice
M.K. Mukherjee on 15th December, 1995 when the following Order was
passed:-

"In all these petitions, we find that attack in indecent, wild,
intemperate and even abusive language on the named Judges
D has been made at various places in each one of the petitions.
The petitioner, who is an advocate, has permitted himself
the liberty of using such expressions, which prima-facie tend
to scandalize the court in relation to judicial matters ·and
thus have the tendency to interfere with the administratfon
E of justice. We are inclined to initiate contempt proceedings
against the petitioner, but, on his request grant him six weeks
time to delete all the objectionable expressions used in the
petitions and file fresh petitions. He shall also remove the
other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he
files the fresh petitions. If the fresh petitions are filed, the
F same shall be listed after eight weeks. Otherwise, these
petitions shall be put up for drawing up contempt proceedings
against the petitioner, after eight weeks."

4. The contemner, however, did not avail of the above opportunity
G and filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 132/95 in paras 4,5 and 6
whereof he stated as under:-

"4. That today, the matter was listed in Court No. 9
alongwith all petitions at SI. No. 28 and 42 and when the
petitioner tried to start his argument the court openly harrased
H him and compelled him to withdraw the petition or remove
IN RE: A. KR. PANDEY 4II

all the facts but the petitioner refused to do so in view of the A
facts that he has only written the facts according to Section
I 67, 2 I 9 480 and 463 alongwith 120-B of tt.e !PC and
Section 44 and 165 of the evidence act alongwith section 2-
C and Section I6 and I2 and 15 of the contempt of court act
and the Indian Constitution.
B
5. That the Court is not allowed the petitioner to submit
his argument and passed an order to remove the all facts
from the petition and filed the fresh petitions and also ordered
for listing the matter after 8 weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner
mentioned and also tried to give in writing that he is not in a
position to remove anything and file fresh petitions in view C
of the fact that he wrote only truth and the court is bound to
hear the petition and decide the same according to the
constitution and contempt of court Act and other laws as
challenged by the petitioner but the Court without saying
anything retired to its chamber.
D
6. That the petitioner is not in a position to remove
anything and the deliberate injustice, fraud, cheating etc. had
been done by the contemnors for concealing their nefarious
acts and even they had gone to this extent to destroyed the
judicial records and fabricated some judicial papers."
E
5. This application was considered by the Court (Hon'ble Dr. Justice
A.S. Anand and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee) on 20.2.96 and in
the order passed thereon it was, inter alia, stated as under:-

"Inspite of the petitioner's attention having been drawn to F
the above noted passages on 15.12.1995, which we felt prima
facie, tended to scandalise the courticourts in relation to the
judicial matters and had the tendency to interfere with the
administration ofjustice and that the attack against the judges
was indecent, wild, intemperate and abusive, the petitioner G
refused to these objectionable passages and on the contr,.ry,
in his petition (Crl. M.P. No.132 of 1996), he has asserted
that he is not prepared to remove the objectionable passages/
sentences. On the other hand the petitioner asserts that this
Court "is bound to hear the petitioner and decide the same"
without the petitioner being obliged to remove ·the H
-412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A objectionable passages. This clearly discloses the adamant
and defiant attitude of the petitioner.

We, therefore, direct that a Rule be issued against the petitioner
asking him to show cause why he should not be punished for
committing criminal contempt of Court for the use of the
B objectionable language in this petition and the subsequent
application. The petitioner should file his reply to the Rule
within eight weeks.

List on 26th April, 1996.

c The petitioner--in--person has been informed of the date and
has been bound down to appear on the next date. No fresh
notice, therefore, need be issued to him.

A copy of the order issuing the Rule shall be handed over to
the petitioner-in-person.
D
We request the Solicitor General, Shri Dipankar Gupta to
assist the Court in these proceedings either himself or by
nominating some other law officer.

E The record of the cose may be forwarded to the learned
Solicitor General.

This special leave petition is dismissed in view of what we
have noticed above as also on merits. The contempt
proceedings shall be separately numbered."
F
6. The contempt matter has since been registered as Contempt Petition
(Crl.) No. 2/96. The contemner, in the meantime, moved application for
recall/review of the order dated 20.2.96 but the application was rejected
by order dated 9.8.96. The contemner also filed a Contempt Petition (Crl)
G No. 13/96 against Hon'ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Hon'ble Mr. Justice
M.K. Mukherjee which was rejected by this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice
J.S. Verma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal) on 5.8.96 by the following
Order:-

"We regret to find that the petitioner who is a practising
H lawyer of some standing has chosen to resort to such a
IN RE : A. KR. PANDEY 413

proceeding which, in our view, is misconceived. We find no A
merit in the same, but before dictating this order, we have
tried to explain this position to the petitioner with the hope
that he will appreciate that as a member of the Bar, he is
expected to utilise his time in a better manner to assist in the
administration ofjustice. The contempt petition is dismissed."
B
7. The contemner has since filed an application for recall of the
above order and for de.ciding the criminal contempt petition on merits. In
the affidavit accompanying this application, it is stated that if all matters
are not decided on merits, the contemner would be compelled to observe
continuous hunger strike from 25 .9 .1996. A copy of the application to
the President of India for permission to prosecute Hon'ble Dr. Justice C
A.S. Anand and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee, for their behaviour
in Court on 15.12.1995, as also two months notice to the President, were
filed with this application.

$. The Contempt Petition No. 2/96 in SLP (Crl.) No. 4114/96 was
taken up on 9.8.96 in which the following order was passed by Hon'ble D
Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee.

"On 20.2.1996, we directed a rule to be issued to the applicani
asking him to show cause why he should not be punished for
committing criminal contempt of the court for use of E
objectionable language in the SLP and the applications. He
was given eight weeks time to file his reply to the rule. Instead
of filing a reply to the rule, through these two applications,
the applicant seeks recall/review of the order dated 20.2.1996
passed in SLP (Cr!) No. 4114/95, Criminal Miscellaneous
Petitions Nos. 6242-6243/95 and SLP (Crl) 819-820 of !996 F
which were dismissed by this court and of the rule issued to
him. We do not find any reason to recall or review that order.
There is no merit in these applications which also bristle
with scandalous remarks and are couched in objectionable
language. The criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the G
applicant on 24.2.96 are, therefore, dismissed.

In our order dated 20.2. 96, we had directed the issuance of
rule and to number the contempt proceedings against the
applicant separately. Those have since been numbered as
criminal contempt petition No.2 of 1996. H
414 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A :The prayer of the applicant to transfer the case to 'another
bench' as he does not "wish to appear before this Bench"
apart from being itself contumacious is rejected because a
litigant cannot be permitted forum shopping. The case stands
assigned to this Bench.

B Since the applicant has not filed his reply to the notice to
show cause why he should not be punished for committing
criminal contempt of court, we, as a matter of indulgence,
grant him another opportunity to file the reply, if any, within
six weeks. List the matter for further proceedings and hearing
on 27.9.96. The alleged contemner Ajay Kumar Pandey, who
c is present in court, has been informed of the date of hearing
is directed to remain present on the next date of hearing, i.e.
27.9.1996, whether or not he filed his reply to the show
cause notice. No fresh notice shall be issued to him for his
appearance.

D Since Shri Dipankar Gupta has resigned, the Solicitor General
of India is requested to assist the court in the contempt
proceedings either himself or by nominating any other law
officer.

E 9. The petitioner subsequently moved an application dated 12.8.96
for recall of the aforesaid order at the end of which he put a 'note' as
under:-

"If this Hon 'hie Court would not hear and decide the matter
on their merits then the petitioner will be compelled to observe
F the continuous hunger strike in Supreme Court premises since
25.9.96."

10. Jn this application he indicated that he had already given to the
President of India an application dated 19.12.95 in which he, inter a/ia,
G stated as under:-

"Thereafter, they harassed, compelled and threatened me for
withdrawing the petitions or removing all things and filing
the fresh petitions and also did not allow me to submit the
arguments although the matter was fresh and two petitions
H had to dispose of finally according to the settled law and
IN RE : A. KR. PANDEY 415

passed an order in hasty manner to this effect,"The petitioner A
will remove all the allegations from petitions and file the
fresh petitions and thereafter the matter will be listed after 8
weeks otherwise the contempt proceedings be drawn against
him etc."

Thereafter I again mentioned the matter at 2 P.M. and clearly B
said, "I am not in a position to remove anything and file the
fresh petitions and my petitions may be heard immediately
as it is because I wrote only facts and made the grounds
according to the Indian Penal Code, Contempt of Courts Act,
Evidence Act and Constitution etc." but they without saying
retired to their chambers. Then I immediately moved an C
application in the Registry of the Court and clearly said about
each and everything and also said,"! am not in a position to
remove anything and the Court is bound to hear the same
and decide the same according to Law and settled norms of
justice."
D
I am bringing the facts in the knowledge of your execellency
that the Supreme Court has heard the contempt petitions
against many citizens of the country· i.e. Advocates,
Bureaucrats, Leaders and Police Officer, etc. and has punished
them but when I filed the contempt petitions against some E
corrupt people who had defrauded and cheated me and
destroyed/fabricated some judicial records to conceal their
nefarious acts by exercising their judicial powers then Mr.
Justice A.S. Anand and Mr. Justice M.K. Mukhergee harassed,
compelled and threatened me in open Court and also did not
allow me to submit the arguments and even they had gone in F
saying that they would see me and forfeit my license advocacy
despite the fact that I have been appearing in person and the
matter had no connection with my profession or professional
capacity.
G
I am saying with great sorrow and the matter is also very
serious that the above two Judges consider themselves the
lord paramount/almighty and attacked at the integrity and
dignity at a human being/litigant and also threatened a young
Advocate/boy although, the God is one an only who makes
everybody either he is king or ordinary man and every human H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A being is also equal along with equality before law and the
court is bound (the paramount duty) to hear the case as it is
despite the fact that who is O.P. (King or Judge or ordinary
man), but it is very unfortunate and horrendous that the above
two judges have fully forgotten that the God is seeing the
acts of everybody by his spiritual eyes and almighty lives in
B every soul and attacking on any people is amounted to insult
the God.

l am also saying that both the judges broke the decorum of
the court, dismantled the temple of justice and thus
embarrassed the Goddess of justice. Their hurling upon me
c is attack at the human dignity, and fundamental and legal
rights of a honest and genuine litigant and also restraining a
poor litigant to pursue his case and obstruction in the way of
justice/holy stream of justice.

I am requesting to your excellency that being the head of the
D nation/the highest constitutional authority, kindly suggest Mr.
Justice A.S. Anand and Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee of the
Supreme Court to feel sorry before me for their highly
objectionable behaviour with me on 15.12.95 otherwise I
will be at liberty to take any action according to law and in
that case the whole world will see the power oftruth/dhanna
E
and they will be responsible not !."

11. This application was given to the President of India for sanction
to prosecute the two Judges (Hon'ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee) for offences under Section i67, 504 and 506
F IPC with two months' notice to the President indicating therein that if the
sanction was not granted within two months, it shall be deemed to have
been granted.

I 2. He further stated in para 5 and 6 of the application as under:-
G
"5. That the petitioner had received the letter dt. I 1.3.96
and no. PI-999 from the Rashtrapati Bhavan and according
to that his excellency sought the opinion of the ministry of
the law and justice in the matter. The copy of letter dt. 11.3.96
is annexed as annexure no.3 to this application for the perusal
H of this hon'ble Court.
IN RE: A. KR. PANDEY 417

6. That on the expiry of two months from 1-3-96 i.e. A
from the date of notice to his excellency, the petitioner had
obtained the formal sanction under section 197 to prosecute
Mr. A.S. Anand and Mr. M.K. Mukherjee."

13. He ultimately prayed as under:-
B
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to recall the order dated 9-
8-96 passed in the case mentioned above and hear all the
matters immediately by constituting a larger bench/
Constitution bench otherwise great injury would be caused C
to the applicants."

14. The contemner, thereafter, filed on 23.9.96 Complaint Case No.
122/1 of 1996 in the Court of Shri Nepal Singh, A.C.M.M., New Delhi
against Hon'ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K.
Mukherjee for offences under Section 167, 504 and 506 !PC. In this D
complaint, it was stated by the contemner as under:-

"I. That the Complainant.had filed S.L.P. (Crl) No. 4114/95
and Cr. M.P.N. 6242-43/95 along with Crl. Contempt
Petitions/ Diary No.16199,17021 and 17022/~5, in the
Supreme Court of India in the month of October/November, E
95 and they were first come up for hearing on 4.12.95 before
the Court No.2 of the apex Court and the bench concerned
after some time hearing ordered to this affect,' List these
matters before some other bench.'
F
2. That thereupon the petitions had come up for hearing on
15th day of December, 95, before the Court No.9 at serial
No. 28 and 42 and on that day the accused were on the bench
there.

3. That on the calling of the matter on that day, the
G
complainant who reached from Lucknow, stood before the
Court but as soon as he stood the accused without any
authority, basis, immoraly and illegally hurled upon him with
highly derogatory, insulting, offending and threatening
remarks with the following sentences:- H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A The accused No.I hurled, "You filed the petitions against the
High Court Judge etc. You will withdraw your petitions
otherwise we will take action against you and start the
contempt proceedings". The Complainant requested,"let me
argue", then the accused No. I again hurled, "we will send
you in jail otherwise withdraw the petitions or remove all
B things from the petitions and file the fresh petitions." The
Complainant refused to comply with their illegal and
offending directions and again said, 'Let me argue.' Then
accused No.2 hurled upon the Complainant in a highly
objectionable manner, "You do the practise in Lucknow, you
understand yourself very competent and intelligent, you
c abused your professional privilege, we will see you and forfeit
your license." The Complainant against prayed, 'submit me
arguments.' Thereupon the accused No.I again hurled, "we
will not allow you to submit the arguments on the points
which you raised and give the chance to the audience to hear
the same otherwise everybody will know the matter."
D
15. In para 4 of the complaint, the contemner reproduce the Order
passed by Hon'ble Dr. Justice A.S. Ananad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K.
Mukherjee as under:-

E "4. That thereafter the accused passed the following order in
a hasty manner:-

"In all the petitions, we find that attack in indecent, wild,
intemperate, and even abusive language on the named Judges
has been made at various places in each one of the petitions.
F The petitioner, who is an advocate, has permitted himself
the liberty of using such expression, which prima facie tend
to scandalize the Court in relation to judicial matter and thus
have the tendency to interfere with the administration of the
justice. We are inclined to initiate contempt proceedings
against the petitioner, but on his request grant him 6 weeks
G
time to delete all the objectionable expressions used in the
petitions and file the fresh petitions. He shall also remove
other defects, as pointed out in the office report when he
files the fresh petitions. If the fresh petitions are filed, the
same shall be listed after eight weeks. Otherwise, these
H petitions shall be put for drawing up contempt proceedings
IN RE : A. KR. PANDEY 419

against the petitioner after eight weeks." A
16. In paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the complaint, it was stated:-

"5. That on the such goondaism of the accuseds, the
Complainant left the Court Room and again he gone there at
2 P.M. and mentioned and also tried to give in writing, "I am B
not in a position to remove apy thing and file the fresh
petitions and my petitions be heard as it is immediately because
I wrote only the truth but the accuseds retired to their
Chambers without saying anything. It is the most important
to mention here that the Complainant never prayed to grant
6 weeks time for removing any thing from the petitions, C
filing fresh cases and the accuseds dictated the orders in this
regard by their own falsely, only with the sole motive to
waste the money and valuable time of the complainant, any
how harass him coupled with hide the sins/corruption of their
subordinate people.
D
6. That thereafter the complainant had immediately moved
an application No. 132/95 in the registry of the apex Court
and clearly said about his harassment by the accuseds and
their open goondaism and also prayed for hearing of his
petitions as it is and decide the same according to the settled E
norms of justice.

7. That the complainant also informed the Hon'ble President
of India about the goondaism of the accuseds through
registered letter No.162 and dt. 21.12.95 along with copies
to Hon'ble the.Vice President of India/Chief Justice oflndia F
through the certificate of posting.

8. That since the acts of the accuseds were the offences as
per the mandate and by virtue of the Indian Penal Code so an
application under section 197 of Cr. P.C. along with two G
months specific notice to accord the sanction to prosecute
the accuseds under sections 167, 500, 504 and 506 of !PC
had also been sent to his excellency vide registered post receipt
no.C-2174 and dated 2.3.96. It is the most important to
mention here again that although the offences as stated in
proceedings para don't come in many manner whatsoever H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R~- .

A within the judicial acts/never did while the accuseds had been
. discharging their judicial duties but inspite of this facts and
.. for_ saving any _future complication in ihe matter, the
.. complainant filed the application before Hon'ble the President
. and requested his excellency to decide the. matter in two
· ·months from the date of notice. · .-_,
B
.. 9. Th~i in r.,-sponse to the above" notice/application the
. complainant had received a letter elated 11396 and no. Pl·
.. ·. 999 from.the Rashtrapati Bhavan and accordingto the contents
.. of the same his excellency sought the opinion of the Ministry
of Law and Justice in the matter. The said letter was received
·by.the complainant in the third week of March, 1996.

. I 0. That the _complainant had also given registered notice to
the accuseds to tender unconditional apology in writing to
., him for their misdeeds on 15.12.95 and gave him one month
time for making the unconditional apology from the date of
D notice. The registered notices were sent to both the accuseds
on I 0.8.96 vide registered letter no2888 and 2889 dt. I 0.8.96
but they did not think fit and proper/necessary to response
the notices and tender the unconditional apology, however,
served on 12.8.96. ·
E
11. Thatthe accuseds committed the offences as contemplated
in the Indian Penal Code and liable to be dealt with strictly
··and exemplary otherwise it will be licensed to the judicial
. goondaism and the Courts/ law would have become the
instrumentality of the people like the accuseds and so the
F interest of the_ litigants will be jeopardised which is not
permissible in law.'~

17.- He made the following prayer in the complaint:-

G "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to take the cognizance of
the above mentioned offences and punish the accuseds
diterrently· and severely under the above stated circumstances
· and facts alongwith pass other necessary orders in the matter
-~ - and for which act of kindness the complainant shall ever
H pray as in duti bound."· ·
IN RE: A. KR. PANDEY - ' 421
~-
18. A copy of this complaint was filed by the petitioner himself on A
24.9.96 before the Registrar in Criminal Contempt Case No. 2/96. In his
letter addressed to the Registrar, he stated as under:- ·
.. ~

"I filed some papers in die Cases mentioned above and the
_ same are the important documents. Since the matter is listed
· in Court on 27.9.96 so the papers be circuliit~d forthe perusal B
of the hon'ble Court and read ·as part of the' petitions."
. - . ' . .. /
19. As Stated by the contemner himself in his 'aforesaid complaint,
he had issued a notice dated I 0.8.96 to both tlie learned Judges in which
he, inter alia, stated as under:- . .. . . . .
c
"2. Thafthere after the above petitions had been listed before
the Court No. 9 of 15-12-95 and both of you were on the
'·,Bench. On the calling oftlie' mattercin that day, 1who reached
from Lucknow, as soon ·as stood. befor~ the Court to argue,
· then both of you without ariy authority, ba5is, immoraly and
illegally hurled upon me with highly derogatory, insulting, D
offending· arid contemptuous remarks with the following
'sentences:-~ .·r~ ,, :· ·· '· - ·
';:, .
. ·The ~dtlressee nu~ber 1 hurled, ,;you flied the petitions against
the High Court Judge etc. You will withdraw your petitions E
·otherwise we ~ill take action against you and start the
contempt proceedings." I requested, "Let me argue." You,
addressee no. I hurled, ."we will send you in jail otherwise
or
withdraw the petitions remove all things from the petitions
.' and file fresh petitions." I refused to.do so and said, "Let me
argue." Then you the'. addressee no.2 hurled upon me in a F
highly objectionable manner, "You do the practise in
Lucknow, you understand yourself very competent and
· intelligent, you abused your professional privilege, we will
·. see you and forfeit your license," then !again prayed, "submit
.. · me arguments," then you, addressee· no. I again hurled, we G
will not allow you to submit the arguments on the points
which you raised and give the chance to the audience to hear
the same otherwise everybody will know the matter."

· 4. That on the above happening I left the Court room and
again' had gone there at 2. P.M; and mentioned and also tried H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

.A to give in writing,"[ am not in a position to remove any
thing and file the freshy petitions and my petitions be heard
as it is immediately because I wrote only the truth but both
of you without saying anything retired to your chambers. It
is the most important to mention here that I had never prayed
to grant six weeks time for removing anything from the
B petitions, filing the fresh petitions and you dictated absolutely
false in your order in this regard only with the sole motive to
waste the money and valuable time of the petitioner and any
how harass me alongwith hide the corruption, fraud, cheating
and forgery etc. in a short word, 'sins' of the people who are
the contemnors in the above said petitions."
c
20. In paras 5, 6 and 7 he, inter alia, stated as under:-

"5. But I am also warning you that the said application was
moved before his excellency only to avoid any future
complications in the matter otherwise according to the settled
D law viz. judicial precedents, as you also know very well, the
acts mentioned in paras 2 and 3 of this notice were your
personal acts and neither come in the definition of the official
acts nor were come in your judicial duties rendered by you.
As you know very well and according to the Indian Penal
Code, your acts were offences according to Sections 167,
E 500, 504 and 506 and due to your falsity, I suffered from a
heavy financial loss.

6. That it is not worthy that due to your falsity I suffered
from the loss of Rupees two thousand (2000) for appearing
F on that day in the case so I also entitled for the compensation
from you.
I
7. That I am warning you that from the date of this notice,
both of you tender unconditional written apology to me for
your offences on 15.12.95 in the Court No.9 of the Supreme
G Court of India coupled with the compensation of Rupees
two thousand (2000) and a handsome amount for my mental
harassment. The written apology alongwith compensation
be paid by you in a month from the date of this notice
otherwise I will be compelled to initiate the criminal
H proceedings against you in the competent criminal court and
IN RE: A. KR. PANDEY 423

you will be responsible for all cost and consequences." A
21. The aforesaid notice constitutes the basis of Contempt Petition
(Crl) No. 55196 while the complaint filed by the contemner against the
two Hon 'ble Judges of this Court is the basis of Contempt Petition (Cr!)
No. 56/96.
B
22. The notice issued to as also the complaint subsequently filed
against the two Hon'ble Judges of this Court were placed before Hon'ble
the Chief Justice of India who directed the same to be placed before the
Court. That is how these matters have come before us.

23. The aforesaid notice dated I 0.8.96 issued by the contemner to C
the two Hon'ble Judges calling upon them to tender unconditional written
apology to him and also to pay compensation, was placed with the officer
report dated 12.9.96 before the Court when the following order was passed
on 16.9.96:

"Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, C-2230, Indira Nagar,
D
Lucknow-226016 has sent registered letters dated August I 0,
1996 to two Hon'ble Judges of this Court. The language and
the tenor of the letter prima facie amounts to scandalising
and lowering the authority of this Court. We issue contempt
notice to Mr. Pandey, returnable on 30th September, 1996. E
He may show cause why he be not held guilty of the contempt
of court and punished suitably. Registry to serve the
respondent through the Additional Registrar of the Lucknow
Bench of Allahabad High Court. Mr. Pandey shall be
personally present in Court on 30th September, 1996 at I 0.30
a.m." F
24. When the matter was taken up on 30.9.96, the following order
was passed."

"Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, advocate, the contemnor is present G
before us. Initially, he had refused to accept summons of this
Court but later on he himself contacted the Registry of this
Court on September 27, 1996 and obtained the summons.
Apart from derogatory and scandalous language written in
the letter addressed to two Hon'ble Judges of this Court he
also threatened them that he would file criminal complaints H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A against them. He has, as a matter of fact, filed complaint
case No.122/1/96 on September 23, 1996, The contents of
\ the complaint, in totality, relate to the proceedings conducted
in Court No.9 of this Court. The complaint is full of
scandalous and abusive language. We issue notice to Mr. Ajay
K. Pandey why he should not be held guilty of contempt of
B court and be punished suitably for tiling this scandalous
complaint before Mr. Nepal Singh, Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate. We take suo moto notice of the
complaint filed before the A.C.M.M. The complaint is wholly
rivolous and amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court.
We quash the complaint. We are told that the A.C.M.M. has
c further marked that complaint to Ms. Renu Bhatnagar,
Metropolitan Magistrate who has fixed the date some time in
March, 1997. We quash the complaint and the proceedings
before Ms. Re nu Bhatnagar, M.M. Mr. Ajay K. Pandey,
standing before us, has fairly stated that he has no objection
to the quashing of the complaint. We are further of the view
D that A.C.M.M. and MM. who have dealt with this complaint
have acted without any application of mind~ It seems that
they have not even read the contents of the complaint. We
issue notice to both of them to show cause why contempt
proceedings be not initiated against them.
E Mr. Pandey may file his reply within one week from today
in this Court in both the contempt petitions. He may file all
the documents, affidavits of himself or of any other person
he wishes to file in support of his defence along with the
reply. The contempt petitions shall be heard on 10.10.96 at
F 10.30 A.M.

On our suggestion, Mr. Pandey states that he would not mind
having the assistance ofa counsel. Mr. Mukul Mudgal, learned
cou~sel present in Court states that he would request Ms.
Manju Goel, Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services
G Committee to assign a counsel to assist this Court on behalf
of the contemnor. We request Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior
counsel to assist this Cou·rt. A set of papers be sent to
Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned counsel. ·

The matter regarding contempt notice to Additional Chief
H Metropolitan Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrates be
IN RE : A. KR. PANDEY 425

listed on 30.10.1996. They shall be personally present in A
Court."

25. Separate notices for contempt were issued to the two Magistrates,
who are being dealt with separately.

26. When the matter was taken up on 10.10.96, the contemner filed B
unqua.lified and unconditional apology to the following effect:

"I, Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, the Respondent contemner
herein do hereby tender my unqualified and unconditional
apology to this Hon'ble Court, for addressing registered letters
dated I0.8.96 to two Hon'ble Judges of this Hon'ble Court, C
for the language and contents of the said letters, for filing a
criminal complaint dated 23.9.96 in the court of Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, against two
Hon'ble Judges of this Hon'ble Court and for the language
and contents of the said complaint. I respectfully submit that
these actions of mine and the language used by me in relation D
to the Judges of this Hon'ble Court were as a result of my
losing control over myself for which I am genuinely repentant.
I humbly seek forgiveness from this Hon'ble Court, and pray
to this Hon'ble Court to accept my apology and show mercy
on me. I undertake not to repeat such conduct in the future."
E
27. The Court, however, passed the following order on that date:

"We have heard Mr. Raju Rarnachandran. On our request he
is appearing for the contemnor, A.K. Pandey. We have also
heard Mr. G.L. Sanghi, who on our request is appearing to F
assistthe Court. We have also heard Mr. A.K. Pandey. Initially
Mr. Pandey stated that he could not file reply because the
Registry declined to permit him to inspect all the records.
We placed the records before him and permitted him to
examine the same. Mr. Pandey, who is present in Court states G
that he does not want to inspect the records. Mr. Pandey has
filed unqualified and unconditional apology. This may be
taken on record.

We adjourn the hearing of this case to October 30, 1996.
Meanwhile, Mr. Pandey may file his reply to the Contempt H
•
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Petition, ifhe so wish. The application and the apology which
are already on the record shall be taken into consideration on
the next date of hearing. The contemnor to be present in
Court on October 30, 1996." ,

28. On 30.10.96 when the case was next taken up, the Court passed
B the following order:-

"Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate, represent Mr. Nepal Singh,
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Ms. Renu
Bhatnagar, Metropolitan Magistrate is represented by Mr.
Rajiv Garg, Advocate. Both the conternners are present in
c Court. To enable them to file affidavits in reply to the
contempt notice, we adjourn the hearing to 4th November,
1996. Meanwhile, we direct Registrar of Delhi High Court
to send the personal files of these two officers to this Court.
We are told that Justice J.K. Mehra and Justice S.N. Kapoor
are the inspecting Judges so far as these two judicial officers
D
are concerned. We would request Hon'ble Judges to give
their comments regarding these two officers. The earlier
orders of this Court in this case may also be sentto the Registry
of the Delhi High Court. ·

E To come up on 4th November, 1996.

Orders to be pronounced on 4th November, 1996 in respect
of Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey."

F 29. The background facts set out above would indicate that the
contemner is a practising Advocate who himself had filed criminal against
a brother advocate (Mr.Mrhesh Giri) and Ms. Saroj Bala who was a member
of the lower judiciary posted as VII Addi. District Judge at Lucknow, after
giving them a notice demanding compensation for having defamed him
by publicly saying that he had sexual relations with one of them, namely,
G Ms.Saroj Bala. This complaint was dismissed at the initial stage as indicated
in the earlier part of this judgment, but he raised a number of controversies,
including a demand for enquiry to be set up by the then District Judge,
Lucknow, Mr. J.C. Mishra, who is now a sitting Judge of the Allahabad
High Court. The contemner filed a Revision before the High Court against
H the order by which his complaint was dismissed and the application for
IN RE: A. KR. PANDEY 427

summoning the witnesses through court process was rejected. This revision, A
as pointed out earlier, was dismissed by Mr. Justice Virendra Saran.
In the Special Leave Petition filed against that jucgment, the
contemner has criticised Justice Virendra Saran in intemperate language
and termed his judgment as forged and fictitious, besides imputing bad
motive.
B
30. When this Court noticed the scandalous and even abusive language
by the contemner used against Mr. Virendra Saran and other officers of
the judiciary, it required the contemner to delete those sentences or portions
and/or file a fresh petition. Not satisfied, the contemner moved an application
for recall of the order and in that application he again used intemperate
language and thereafter started making efforts to avoid the Court (Hon 'ble C
Anand and Mukherjee,JJ) and for this purpose, he adopted derogatory and
bad tactics. He gave notice to the two Hon 'ble Judges seeking unconditional
apology from them for their conduct and behaviour in the Court and also
demanded compensation from them. He wrote to the President of India
for sanction to prosecute the Hon'ble Judges for offences under sections D
167, 500, 504 and 506 !PC giving two months time to the President to
grant sanction or else he would treat the sanction to have been granted to
him. He also threatened to go on hunger strike before the Supreme Court
with affect from 25.9.96. He then filed a complaint against the Hon'ble
Judges branding their conduct as "goondaism". He pleaded for his case to
be listed before some other Bench or to be referred to the Constitution E
Bench on the ground that both the Hon'ble Judges were personally involved
in the case and, therefore, they need not hear the matter, but he was
unsuccessful.

31. This Court, as the highest court of the land, has not only the
right to protect itself from being denigrated, but has also the right, F
jurisdiction and authority to protect the High Courts and the subordinate
courts from being insulted, abused or in any other way denigrated. All the
courts, be they the lower or the highest, function for the noble cause of
dispensing justice. Since they have to decide litigation between two
contesting parties, it is obvious that they have to have full freedom and G
independence in settling the litigation. The Presiding Officers who run
the courts and conduct the proceedings therein have to act fearlessly. Any
action in the part of any person or litigant or lawyer, which tends to interfere
or obstruct the process ofjustice, has to be deprecated so that the proceedings
may be held in an orderly fashion and everyone who participates in those H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A proceedings may have the feeling of liberty to address the court for proper
adjudication of his case.

32. An Advocate, as a citizen of this country, has the fundamental
right of freedom of expression and speech under Article 19 of the
Constitution. This right is also guaranteed to him under the Advocates
B Act. Apart from that, the legal profession has the inherent right to express
itself in the best manner possible in uninhibited language, but the right to
express also carries with it the duty to be dignified in the use of expression
and to maintain decorum and peace in the court proceedings.

C 33. In Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'b/e the Chief Justice ofIndia, [1996]
5 SCC 216, this Court observed, inter alia, as under:

"Advocacy touches and asserts the primary value of freedom
of expression. It is a practical manifestation of the principle
of freedom of speech. Freedom of expression in arguments
encourages the development ofjudicial dignity, forensic skills
D of advocacy and enables protection of fraternity, equality
· and justice. It plays its part in helping to secure the protection
of other fundamental human rights. Freedom of expression,
therefore, is one of the basic conditions for the progress of
advocacy and for the development of every man including
E legal fraternity practising the profession of law. Freedom of
expression, therefore, is vital to the maintenance of free
society. It is essential to the rule of law and liberty of the
citizens. The advocate or the party appearing in person,
therefore, is given liberty of expression. But they equally
owe countervailing duty to maintain dignity, decorum and
F order in the court proceedings or judicial process. The liberty
of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with
license to make unfounded allegations against any institution,
much less the judiciary."

G 34. It was further observed in that above case as under:-

"Scandalising the Court would mean hostile criticism of
judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack on a judge
in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under
law oflibel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning
H the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into contempt,
IN RE: A. KR. PANDEY 429

a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty A
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 the 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 B
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 the majesty of justice. When the
contemnor challenges the authority of the court, he interferes C
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 of judiciary into
contempt."

35. In the present case, we are concerned with the notice issued by D
the contemner to the two Hon'ble Judges demanding apolocy and
compensation and the subsequent complaint filed by him in the court of
A.C.M.M., Delhi, and the contents thereof. The notice relates to the
proceedings of the court on 15.12.1995. It is said that both the
Judges, "without any authority, basis, immorally and illegally hurled upon E
"me" with highly derogatory, insulting, offending and contemptuous
remarks."

36. After setting out what the Judges allegedly said, it is mentioned
in the notice as under:
F
"It is the most important to mention here that I had never
prayed to grant six weeks time for removing anything from
the petitions, filing the fresh petitions and you dictated
absolutely false in your order in this regard only with the
sole motive to waste the money and valuable time of the G
petitioner and anyhow harass me alongwith hide the
corruption, fraud, cheating and forgery etc. in a short word,
'sins'.

37. The notice also mentions his application to the President oflndia
for sanction and in it he held out a threat to the two Hon'ble Judges that if H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A they did not tender conditional written apology to him he would initiate
criminal proceedings in the competent criminal court.

38. The criminal contempt is defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 as under:

B "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."

C According to the definition reproduced above, the first pre-condition
is the publication or doing of any other act and the second is that the
publication or doing of the act has resulted in the consequences set out in
Section 2(c) (i), (ii) and (iii), namely:

(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to
D lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the
due course of any judicial proceeding: or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends
E to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

39. In view of the definition, the contemptuous conduct may be
either due to the publication or consist in the doing of any other act.

F 40. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and
Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 406, it was observed by this court that:

" .....The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to
include any act by a person which would tend to interfere
with the administration of justice or which would lower the
G authority of court. The public have a vital stake in effective
and orderly administration of justice. The court has the duty
of protecting the interest of the community in the due
administration ofjustice and, so it is entrusted with the power
to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity
H of the court against insult or injury, but, to protect and to
IN RE: A. KR. PANDEY 431

vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of A
justice is not pervClf!ed, prejudiced, obstruct~d or interfered
with."

41. In Dr. D.C. Saxena's case (supra), this court has already laid
down that if a Judge, on account of the proceedings conduc:ed by him in
his court, is threatened that he would be prosecuted in a court of law for B
the judicial act done by him, it amounts to criminal contempt as it lowers
and tends to lower the dignity of the court.

42. We are also of the same opinion. We may observe that any threat
offiling a complaint against the Judge in respect of the judicial proceedings
conducted by him in his own court is a positive attempt to interfere with C
the due course of administration of justice. In order that the judges may
fearlessly and independently act in the discharge of their judicial functions,
it is necessary that they should have full liberty to act within the sphere of
their activity. If, however, litigants and their counsel start threatening the
Judge or launch prosecution against him for what he has honestly and
bona fide done in his court, the judicial independence would vanish eroding D
the very edifice on which the institution of justice stands. It would also be
in violation of the statutory protection available to the Judges and
Magistrates under the Judicial Officers (Protection) Act as also the Judges
(Protection) Act.
E
43. Having seen the entire record, we are fully satisfied that the
contemner, by questioning the conduct of the Judges through his notice
and demanding apology and compensation from them as also the complaint
lodged against them, especially in the language employed by him, is guilty
of the 'criminal contempt' and is liable to be punished therefor in both the
cases. F

44. in relation to the quantum of punishment, we may observe that
the contemner, who is a practicing advocate and is young in age, had on
10.10.96 tendered before us an unconditional and unqualified apology in
writing, withdrawing all the objectionable remarks, sentences and words G
used by him in the application, notice and complaint and had expressed
his regrets. The Court, however, is not bound to accept the apology; unless
there is real feeling of repentance in the contemner. The contemner had
already been given an opportunity at the initial stage by both the learned
Judges to withdraw his remarks against a Judge of the Allahabad High
Court and other officers of the lower judiciary, but he insisted to proceed H
432 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A with the case. He even initiated contempt proceedings against both the
Hon 'ble Judges. But this Court took a lenient view and instead ofinitiating
any other action against him, dismissed the criminal contempt petition by
order dated 5.8.96 passed by Hon'ble J.S. Verma and Hon'ble B.N. Kirpal,
JJ.

B 45. The jurisdiction ofthis Court under Article 129 ofthe Constitution
is independent of the Contempt of Courts Act and the power under Article
129 cannot be denuded, restricted or limited by the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Thus there is no restriction or limitation on the nature of
punishment that this .Court may award while exercising its contempt
jurisdiction. But we do not intend to travel far and beyond.
c
46. Having convicted the contemner for obstructing the course of
justice by trying to threaten and overawe the Court by using insulting and
disrespectful language and issuing notices and also launching criminal
prosecution against two Hon'ble Judges, we sentence the contemner for
the offence of criminal contempt as under:
D
(a) The contemner Ajay Kumar Pandey is hereby sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. On
serving this sentence for two weeks, the remaining sentence
shall stand suspended for a period of two years and may be .
activated in case the cootemner is convicted for any other
E offence of contempt of court within the said period. He shall
be taken into custody forthwith but will be released after
two weeks, to be taken into custody again if and when his
remaining sentence stands activated.

F 4 7. The Contempt Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

R.P. Petitions disposed of.