Holding

The affidavit’s malicious allegations against the Court constitute criminal contempt, and the contemner’s apology is not accepted, leading to conviction and fine.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard a suo moto contempt petition against Deputy Secretary Sanjiv Datta of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, who filed an affidavit in a writ petition concerning a cricket broadcasting dispute that alleged the Court had erred, mocked government policy, and undermined national sovereignty. The Court held that the statements were intentional, malicious attempts to cast aspersions on its authority and therefore amounted to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Datta's unconditional apology was rejected because it was made without consulting his advocates and showed a lack of respect for the Court's authority. The Court also found that the advocate who filed the affidavit, Kailash Vasdev, was liable for contempt but accepted his apology, and discharged the notice against Ms. K.K. Kumaramangalam after accepting her explanation. Datta was convicted, fined Rs. 2,000 and sentenced to one week of simple imprisonment, but the Court directed that no departmental disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him.

Issues considered

The affidavit filed by the contemner contains statements that constitute criminal contempt of the Supreme Court.
Whether an unconditional apology offered by a contemner can be accepted when made without proper consultation of counsel.
Whether the advocate who files a contemptuous document is also liable for contempt.
Whether the drafter of the offending affidavit can be held liable for contempt.
Whether a conviction for contempt necessitates departmental disciplinary action against a government officer.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 129, s. Article 142
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 2(c)
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

Subjects

criminal contemptSupreme Courtaffidavitunconditional apologyexecutive vs judiciaryrule of lawseparation of powersdisciplinary actionlegal profession

Judgment

A IN RE: SANJIV DATTA AND ORS.

APRIL 19, 1995

[P.B. SAWANT AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.]

B
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sec 2(c), 12-Contempt of Court-Suo

4
moto contempt notice issued to a public servant and his advocates-Affidavit
filed in the Supreme Court containing a/legations against the Court-Allega-
tions made with intention of casting aspersions on the Court and attributing
motives to it--Accusing the Court of making mockery of established policy of
c Government of India by pennitting a foreign agency to undertake broadcasting
from India against national interest thereby undennining sovereignty of the
nation--Unconditional apology of public servant not accepted-Allegations
made by the contemner were intentional-Made with full knowledge of its
grave implications and therefore has potentiality of mischief-If not curbed
D finn/y, may assume proportion grave enough to sabotage the rnle of law.
Unconditional apology of advocates-Accepted for want of knowledge of al-
legations.

The contemner, a Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting (MIB), filed in the Supreme Court oflndia an affidavit
E in reply, on behalf of the MIB, to a writ petition filed by the Cricket
Association of Bengal (CAB). The said writ petition arose from a dispute
between the CAB on one hand and the Government of India and Director
General of Doordarshan on the other, regarding the right to broadcast a
six- nation cricket tournament.
F
The CAB as par of its diamond jubilee celebrations organised. a -4
six-nation tournament from 9th November to 20th November, 1993. In
order to make arrangements for telecasting ad broadcasting the matches,
through its agency, the Transworld International (1WI), the CAB started
to negotiate with the Director General of Doordarshan. In course of the
G said negotiations a stage reached when the CAB had to file writ petitions
before the High Court of Calcutta and subsequently before the Supreme
Court of India. This Court taking into consideration the then hostile
relations between the parties and to avoid constant bickering and disputes .-~
between them resulting in possible interruption in telecasting, thus affect-
H Ing the interests of the viewers, permitted the 1WI to generate its own
450
RE: SANJN DATIA 451

signals for broadcasting and telecasting of the matches and stayed the A
order of the Secretary, MIB.

It is then that the contemner on behalf of the MIB filed in this Court,
an affidavit in reply making allegations against the Court and casting
aspersions on the Court. The said affidavit though filed through his
Advocates, was done so, without. giving the Advocates any opportunity to B
peruse the contents of the same and was done without their consultation.
Written unconditional apologies were tendered by the contemner and his
Advocates.

Disposing of the contempt petition, th.is Court
c
HELD : 1. Our Constitution has demarcated the functions of the
three organs of the State. Each bas to perform its functions entrusted to
it and respect that of the others. None is free from errors and the judiciary
does not claim infallibility. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility
of courts and provides for both internal and external checks to correct the D
errors. Abuses, attribution of motives, vituperative terrorism and defiance
are no methods to correct the errors of the Court. In discharge of their
functions the Courts must be allowed to operate freely and fearlessly but
for which impartial adjudication will be an impossibility. [461·A, B, C, DJ

2. The Constitution entrusts the task of interpreting and administer·
E
ing the law to the judiciary, and those living and functioning under the
Constitution have to accept and submit to this obligation of respecting the
Constitutional authority of the Courts. [461-E)

3. Courts verdict has to be respected not necessarily by authority of F
its reason but always by reason of its authority. Any conduct which
challenges this crucial balance of power, devised by the Constitution Is an
attempt to subvert the rule of law and an invitation to anarchy. [461-F)

4. In the present case, a responsible officer of the Government like
the contemner ought to have knoivn the' serious implications of bis state· G
ments. Coming as they do from a public functionary representing the
executive, the Court will fail in its duty if it does not bring home his special
obligations to respect the authority of the Court, and if he is all!Jwed to go
scot free there is a danger of the erosion of the deference to and confidence
in the judicial system. [460-D, E] · H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A 5. Since the contemner did not even take care to have the opinion of
his Advocates it makes his action doubly suspect with regard to his
intentions. This conduct of his, speaks for itself and aggravates his offence.
His apology therefore cannot be accepted. Hence, the contemner is held
guilty of criminal contempt of Court and is convicted for the said offence.
Contemner is accordingly sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 and in default
B to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Since the said offence
committed by him, was done so, not for his personal gain or advantage,
the Government is directed not to initiate any departmental disciplinary
proceedings against him. [460-G, H, 462-B, 462-C]

C 6. The offence of Contempt of Court is committed, not only by those
who author the offensive document but also those who file it in the Court.
In the present case the affidavit in question came to be filed without the
Advocates having an opportunity to peruse it and was also not the one
correcttd or settled by them. Hence their apologies are accepted f~r want
of knowledge. [462-E, 4~4-G, HJ
D
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No.
101of1995.

Suo Moto proceedings for contempt of Court initiated vide this
Court's orders dated 9.2.1995 and 28.2.1995 for the contents of the Af.
E fidavit dated 30.11.93 filed in Writ Petition No. 836 of 1993.

F.S. Nariman, Ms. K.Kumaramangalam, Mrs. Radha Rangaswmay
and U.N. Banerjee for the Contemners.

Dipankar Gupta, Solicitor General, B.K. Prasad, T.C. Sharma, V.B.
F Desai, P. Patnaik, K. Vasdev and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondent. "'

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

~AWANT, J. These contempt proceedings arise out of Writ Petition
No. 836/93 which has already been disposed of along with C.A. Nos.
G 1429-30/1995 by our decision of 9th February, 1995. It is not necessary lo
refer to all the details of the said proceedings for deciding this matter.
Suffice it to say that the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) had or-
ganised a six-nation internationel cricket tournament from 9th November,
.-4
1993 to 20th November, 1993 as a part of its Diamond Jubilee Celebrations.
H the first of the matches was to be played in Bangalore on 9th November,
RE: SANJIVDATIAISAWANT,J.J 453

1993. As early as on 15th March, 1993, the CAB had intimated the s.aid A
fact to the Directbr General of Doordarshan (DD) and negotiations for
the telecasting of the match had started since that day. Rest of the history
of the developments in the negotiations h.as been referred to in our
decision.

It appears that during the course of the said negotiations and offers B
and counter offers for telecasting of the matches, a stage reached when the
CAB had to file a writ petition on 8th November, 1993 before the Calcutta
High Court praying, among other things, that the respondents to the writ
petition · Union of India, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
(MIB), Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) and Doordarshan (DD) - C
should be directed to provide telecast and broadcast of all the matches and
also to provide all arrangements and facilities for telecasting and broad-
casting of the matches by the agency engaged by the CAB, viz., Trans
World International (TWI). In view of the urgency of the matter, interim
reliefs were also sought in the petition. The learned Single Judge of the
High Court on the same day, directed the learned advocate of the Union D
Of India· to obtain instructions in the matter, and in the meanwhile, passed
interim order making it clear that it would not prevent the DD f~om
telecasting the matches without affecting the existing arrangements be-
tween the CAB and TWI. The writ petition was posted for further hearing
on 9th November, 1993 on which date, the learned Single Judge confirmed E
the interim order and the respondents were restrained from interfering
with the frequency lines given to TWI. On 10th November, 1993, the VSNL
advised INTELSAT at Washington seeking cancellation of its request for
booking. On 11th November, 1993, the learned Single judge partly allowed
/·
the writ petition by directing the All India Radio to broadcast the matches. F
Against these orders, the Union of India preferred an appeal before the
Division Bench of the High Court on 12th November, 1993 and the Division
· Bench passed an order to the following effect :-

(a) that CAB would pay DD a sum of Rs. 5 lakh per match and
the revenue collected by DD on account of sponsorship will be G
kept in separate account.

.. (b) that DD would be the host broadcaster.

(c} that Ministry of Telecommunication would consider the ques-
tion of issuing a license to TWI under the Telegraphs Act and H
454 SUPREME COURT REP OR TS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A decide the same within three days.

On 12th November, 1993, the Film Facilities Officer of the MIB
informed the Customs Department at New Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta
airports, that as TWI had not obtained the required clearance from the
Government for the coverage of the tournament, they should not be
B permitted to expose the films outside India till it was cleared by the
Government. On the same day, DD asked CAB for providing various
facilities at each match venue, as this was a pre-requisite for creating host
broadcaster's signal in India. CAB sent a reply on the same day and called
upon DD to telecast matches with'n India pursuant to the High Court's
C order of 12th November, 1993. On the same day, the Collector of Customs,
Bombay called upon the CAB to pay customs duty on the equipment as
there was a breach of the terms of the exemption order. The Committee
of Secretaries of the Government of India also decided on the same day
that the telecast of all sporting events should be within the exclusive
purview of the DD/MIB.
D
On 14th November, 1993, the Division Bench of the High Court in
clarification of its order of 12th November, 1993 directed among othe,., as
follows :

(a) In case the signal is required to be generated by TWI separately,
E such necessary permission should be given by DD and/or other
competent authorities.

(b) The differences with regard to the placement of cameras etc., if
any, between cricket authority and DD should be mutually
worked out, and if this cannot be done, the dispute should be
F
decided by the Head of the Police in the place where the match
was being played.

(c) The equipment of TWI which had been seized by the Customs
Authority should be released upon undertaking that the same
G would not be used for any other purpose and

(d) The VSNL should take proper steps for uplinking, and should
not take any steps to defeat tlie orders of the Court. The TWI
should comply with all financial commitments to VSNL.

H 2. On 15th November, 1993, CAB and another filed writ petition No.
RE: SANJIV DATIA [SAWANT, J.] 455

836/1993 in this Court from which the present contempt proceedings have A
arisen. On 15th November, 1993, this Court passed an order directing the
Secretary, Ministry of Communications to hold meeting on the same day
by 4.30 p.m. and communicate its decision by 7.30 p.m. This order became
necessary because, although the High Court on 12th November, 1993 had
directed that the Ministry of Telecommunications should consider the B
question of issuing licence to TWI under the Telegraph Act and decide
the same within three. days from that date (which time limit was expiring
in any case by 15th November, 1993), the Secretary of the MIB had fixed
the meeting only on 16th November, 1993. This Court by the same order
also directed the Customs authorities to release the equipment.
c
The Secretary, Ministry of Communications passed his order by
about 7.30 p.m. on that day. However, the order directed TWI, i.e., the
agency engaged by the CAB, to take the signal from the DD, thus keeping
the CAB and the TWI at the mercy of the DD. On the same night,
therefore, the CAii moved this Court and this Court taking into considera- D
tion the then hostile rt>lations between the parties and to avoid constant
irritations,. bickerings and disputes between them resulting in possible
interruptions in telecasting thus affecting the interests of the viewers,
permitted · the TWI to generate its own signals and also directed the
Customs authorities to release the goods forthwith. That order may be
reproduced here: E

"The order passed by Shri N. Vittal, Chairman (TC) &
St>cretary, DOT on 15.11.1993 is stayed to the extent that it imposes
the condition that the TWI will have to get th<> signals from
Doordarshan for uplinking through the VSNL by making mutual F
arrangements. The. TWI can generate their own signal by focussing
their cameras only on the ground where the cricket matches are
being played, as directed by th<> Home Ministry, they will take care
not to f0cus their cameras anywhere else.

The learned counsel appearing for the Doordarshan states that G
Mr. Basu, the Director General of Doordarshan informed her at
.. 5.30 P.M. today on telephone that the Customs Authorities are
releasing the equipment as. directed by this Court: Shri Sibbal
appearing for the petitioners informs us that the equipment has
not been released by ihe Customs Authorities. However, the H
I

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A learned counsel further informs after taking instructions from his
junior that a copy of the court's order was served on Mr. Devender
Singh, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance who was present
before Mr. Vittal at the time of hearing this evening. In case, the
customs authorities ha\e not as yet released the equipment, they
are once again directed to release the equipment forthwith. This
B shalt not be treated as a precedent in the future and the order is
made in the facts and circumstances of the present case keeping
in view the fact that no appeal has been filed against the order of
the Calcutta High Court by the Doordarshan."

C It is thereafter that the affidavit in reply to the writ petition was filed on
behalf of the MIB by the contemner Shri Sanjiv Datta, who is working as
Deputy Secretary in MIB. In the said affidavit, the contemner, among other
things, averred as follows:

"This Hon'ble Court erred in law by entertaining this petition and
D thereafter passing interim orders with undue haste on it without
affording an opportunity to the respondents to set down their case
through a proper affidavit thereby causing irreparable damage to
the respondents by making a mockery of the established policy of
I.he Government of India by permitting a foreign corporation to
undertake broadcasting from India against the national interest
E
and thereby undermining the sovereignty of the national in order
to ensure the execution of an agreement that the petitioners
entered into with the foreign corporation which was ab-initio void
because of the failure of the petitioners to apply for and be granted
the requisite licence to enable them to operate from Indian soil.'
F
3. This Court on 6th December, 1993 issued a notice to the contem-
ner to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for
contempt of this Court for the above statements made by him. On 7th
January, 1994, the contemner filed his reply to the show cause notice
G tendering unconditional apology for not only the statements mentioned in
the show cause notice but also for the following statements in the counter
filed on behalf of the MIB: -~
"However, since this hon'ble court has already passed two interim
orders on 15.11.1993, without affording the respondents an oppor-
H tunity to submit their written submissions in the matter, the respon-
RE: SANJIV DATIA(SAWANT. J.J 457
dents now set out the grounds on which the said petition should A
have been and should now be dismissed.

xxxxxxxx

It is, therefore, submitted that the order passed by this court nn
15th November staying the condition imposed by the Secretary, B
Ministry of Telecommunications directing TWI to take the signal
~.).. of Doordarshan is bad in law since it flows from the erroneous
conclusions drawn by the High Court of Calcutta that a legitimate
expectation had been created in the minds of the petitioners by
the no objection certificate conveyed by the Department of c
Telecommunication to the Ministry of Finance - a letter the
petitioners were not legitimately required to possess - and accep-
tance of money by VSNL which as has been pointed out earlier is
only a service agency and not a licensing authority under the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885. D
r--' xxxxxxxx

The odds cannot, it is submitted, be totally loaded against Door-
darshan. Either, it is allowed to decide such matter on purely
commercial considerations and its decision respected or, its posi- E
lion as the host broadcaster, consistent with the established policy
of the government of India, be recognised and no party, much less
a foreign party, allowed to subvert the law of this land be it in
connivance with an Indian entity such as the petitioners for petty
commercial considerations.
F
xxxxxxxx

It is submitted that without adjudicating as to how the order passed
by the Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunications was erroneous
or bad in law, this Court stayed the condition imposed in the order G
requiring TWI to take the signal from Doordarshan and allowed
___;.. TWI to generate its own signal. Further, the hollowness of the so
called "urgent" nature of the matter presented before this Court
while moving this petition stands exposed by the subsequent be-
haviour of TWI in failing to cover the matches held at Patna and H
r

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A Indore. It also brings into focus the purely commercial nature of
its agreement with the petitioners belong all their protestations of
working in the interest of the cricket lovers of this country."

4. We have given above in extenso the background of the two orders
B that this Court passed on 15th November, 1993 with a view to point out
that the contemner all along was aware of the urgency of and the reasons
for the passing of the said orders and also of the fact that the orders were
passed after fully hearing the counsel for the parties on both the occasions.
As a responsible officer, he ought to have known that on many occasions
even in non-urgent matters, interim orders are passed on the basis of the
C oral arguments. In urgent matters such as the present, such a procedure
becomes all the more imperative to prevent injustice being done to one or
the other party in the meanwhile. Written submissions are not a sine qua
non of the hearing of a matter. Oral arguments are as good as written
submissions. It is not the case and it was never the grievance of the counsel
D appearing on behalf of the respondents that they were not heard in the
matter before the orders were passed. Hence the allegations made by the
contemner that the orders were passed "with undue haste" and "without
affording an opportunity to the respondents to set down their case through
a proper affidavit thereby causing irreparable damage" are factually incor-
rect, insinuating and malicious. These allegations are repeated throughout
E the affidavit in different forms with the same intention of casting aspersions
on the Court and to malign it. What is further, the contemner bas recklessly
accused the Court also of "making mockery" of the so-called established
policy of the Government of India, by permitting a foreign Corporation to
undertake broadcasting from India against the "national interest and there-
F by undermining the sovereignty of the nation". This, according to the
contemner, was done by the Court "in order to ensure the execution of an
agreement which the petitioners entered into with the foreign Corpora-
tion". This accusation not only attributes motives to the Court but also
accuses it of working against the national interests and to undermine the
sovereignty of the nation. These accusations, attributions and aspersions
G are not only deliberately calculated to malign the Court but also to under-
mine its authority and to deter it from performing its duty. It is nothing but
an intentional attempt to obstruct the curse of justice and thus patently
amounts to the criminal contempt of the court. This is to disputed before
us. In fact, to purge the contempt, the contemner has tendered an uncon-
H ditional apology in the following terms:
RE: SANJIV DAITA [SAWANT,J.] 459

'2. I say with all humility that I realise that the averments made in A
paragraph 17 of the said affidavit quoted in the said notice dated
13th December, 1993.... was most improper and unfortunate and
the said averments ought not to have been made by me. I am truly
and sincerely sorry for having made such averments and I tender
my unreserved unqualified and unconditional apology to this B
Hon'ble Court for having done so. I most respectfully pray that
this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to accept the same.
I further pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit
me to withdraw the said portion of paragraph 17 of the said
affidavit and to order that the same may be expunged.

4. I have carefully gone through the rest of the averments made by
c
me in my said affidavit dated 30th November 1993 and I most
respectfully submit that the following further portions contained
therein are also improper and unfortunate and these averments
also ought not to have been made by me.
D
(i) In paragraph 1 of the said affidavit:

xxxxxxxx

(ii) In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit:
E
xxxxxxxx

(iii) In paragiaph 10 of the said affidavit:

xxxxxxxx
F
(iv) In paragraph 16 of the affidavit:

xxxxxxxx
5. I am truly and sincerely sorry for having made such averments
in the said other paragraphs of the said affidavit for which in all G
humility I tender my unreserved, unqualified and unconditional
apology to this Hon'bli: Court. I most respectfully pray that this
) '--').' Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to accept the same .

. 6. I further pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit
to further withdraw the said portions of paragraph 1, 7, 10 and 16 H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R.

A of the said affidavit quoted above and to order that the same may
be expunged.

7. Without in any way trying to detract from the sincere expression
of contriteness and the unreserved and cunconditional apology
tendered above, which I repeat and reiterate, I submit that the said
B unfortunate averments came to be made not with any deliberate
or contumacious intent.

8. I once again express my unconditional and sincere apologies to
this Hon'ble Court for the language used in my said affidavit."
c
5. We have considered the above apology tendered by the contemner.
We find that the statements made in the affidavit when they were so made
were to the knowledge of the contemner, a malicious attempt to cast
aspersions on and attribute motives to the Court. They were not made in
D ignorance of their consequences nor were they innocent. A responsible
officer of the Government like the contemner ought to have known, and
we have no doubt that he did now the serious implications of the said
statements. If he did not know of their grave implications he does not
deserve to hold the office he does. If such statements were made by a
layman we might have probably ignored them and also accepted the
E apology. Coming as they do from a public functionary, the Court will fail
in its duty if it does not bring home to him his special obligations to respect
the authority of the Court. If such trends as are displayed in these proceed-
ings by the contemner are allowed to go scot-free, there is a danger of the
erosion of the deference to and confidence in the judicial system. Coming
F as it does from the executive branch of the State, it has all the potentiality
of mischief and if not curbed firmly, may in course of time assume propor-
tion grave enough to sabotage the rule of law from within. As it transpires,
the draft of the affidavit which was settled by Smt. Kumaramangalam was
not the one which was filed and the affidavit was filed without even Shri
Vasdev, Advocate-on-Record having a sufficient opportunity to peruse the
G same. That makes the action of the contemner doubly suspect with regard
to his intentions in filing the affidavit with the offending statements. He did
not even take care to have the opinion of his advocates on the said
statements. Probably, he did not want their opinion. This conduct of his
.z
speaks for itself and aggravates his offence. It is for this reason that we are
H not inclined to accept his apology.
RE: SANJIV DATIA[SAWANT, J.] 461
6. The responsibility to maintain the rule of law lies on all individuals A
and institutions. Much more so on the three organs of the State. Our
Constitution has separated and demarcated the functions of the Legisla-
ture, the Executive and the judiciary. Each has to perform the functions
entrusted to it and respect the functioning of the others. None is free from
errors, and the judiciary does not claim infallibility. It is truly said that a B
judge who has not committed a mistake is yet to be boni. Our legal system
in fact acknowledges the fallibility of the courts and provides for both
internal and external checks to correct the errors. The law, the
jurisprudence and the precedents, the open public hearings, reasoned
judgments, appeals, revisions, references and reviews constitute the inter-
nal checks while objective crit.iques, debates and discussions of judgments C
outside the courts, and legislative correctives provide the external checks.
Together, they go a long way to ensure judicial accountability. The law thus
provides procedure to correct judicial errors. Abuses, attribution of mo-
tives, vituperative terrorism and defiance are no methods to correct the
errors of the courts. In the discharge of their functions the courts have to D
be allowed to operate freely and fearlessly but for which impartial ad-
judication will be an impossibility. Ours is a Constitutional government .
based on the rule of law. The Constitution entrusts the task of interpreting
and administering the law to the judiciary whose view on the subject is
made legally final and binding on all till it is changed by a higher court or
by a permissible legislative measure. Those living and functioning under E
the Constitution have to accept and submit to this obligation of respecting
the constitutional authority of the courts. Under a Constitutional govern-
ment, such final authority has to vest in some institution. Otherwise, there
will be a chaos. The court's verdict has to be respected not necessarily by
the authority of is reason but always by reason of its authority. Any conduct F
designed to or suggestive of challenging this crucial balance of power
devised by the Constitution is an attempt to subvert the rule of law and an
invitation to anarchy.

The contemner, for reasons which can only be attributed to his
misconception of his role and over-zealousness· to assert himself and his G
side of the matter intentionally overstepped his limits and conveniently
ignored the above legal position, and abrogated to himself, in substance
'· the role of a judge in his own cause. He has thus in effect not only
challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to discharge its functions but also
its authority to do so. H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A 7. We, therefore, hold the contemuer guilty of the criminal contempt
of the court and convict him of the said offence. Taking into consideration
all the facts and circumstances of the case and exercising our power under
Article 129 independently and also under Article 129 read with Article 142
of the Constitution, we sentence the contemner to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000
B and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The con-
temner is given two weeks' time to pay the fine.

Although we have convicted the contemner as above, we are of the
view that his conviction needs no departmental disciplinary proceedings
against him. Nor should the conviction come in his way in his future career.
C This is because although the contemner has committed the offence, he has
done so not for his personal gain or advantage but to assert his ill-con-
ceived self-appointed role. We, therefore, direct that the Government
should not initiate any departmental disciplinary proceedings against him.

Contempt Petition against Advocates:
D
Re: Shri Kai/ash Vasdev

8. On 9th February, 1995 this Court issued a notice to Shri Kailash
Vasdev, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents in the writ petition, to show
E cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for the contempt of
this Court for filing the said affidavit of the contemner, Shri Sanjiv Datta.
The offence of contempt of the court is committed not only by those who
author an offensive document but also by those who file it in the Court. In
the present case, it is not disputed that Shri Vasdev had filed the said
affidavit. However, he has given his explanation tor the same as follows:
F
"... .! state that it is correct that the said affidavit of 30th of
November, 1993 was filed by me as an Advocate-on-Record
engaged on behalf of the Ministry of Information and BroaJcaS!·
ing. I state that on the 1st of December, 1993 when I was en! erinp
Court No. 2 the said affidavit was brought to me pre-..:. ,nc,!.
G pre-typed and pre-attested by the officials of the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting when I was attending to a part-
heard matter.. ...

I state that the present writ petition was to be heard on the 6th of
H December, 1993 therefore the affidavit in reply was to have been
~
\.

RE: SANJIV DATIA [SAWANT, J.] 463

filed 5 days prior to the listing of the case, and the same ;as filed A
on the 1st of December, 1993 .
._,,....
I state that l did not read the contents of the affidavit and I had
no reason to believe that there was any objectionable or derogatory
statement made in the said affidavit. I had no conference with the
deponent of the affidavit on the contents of the affidavit prior to B
the filing of this affidavit.

I state that when the matter was listed before this Hon'ble Court
'
)- on the 6th of December, 1993.. ., the learned Solicitor General of
India who appeared for the Ministry of Information and Broad- c
casting for whom .1 was acting as the Advocate-on-Record tendered
an unqualified apology on behalf of the deponent to the said
affidavit dated 30.11.1993 and myself for filing the said affidavit. I
state that on the 6th of December, 1993 itself - when I was present
in Court during these proceedings I tendered my own uncondi-
D
tional apology orally to. this Hon'ble Court for filing the said
affidavit. On that date, notice to show cause why proceedings for
)---'.
initiating proceedings for contempt of Court was issued only to
' Shri Sanjeev Dutta, Deputy Secretary, deponent of the said af-
fidavit dated 30.11.1993.
E
I state that on 9th February, 1995 when I was present in Court to
hear the judgment being pronounced by this Court, this Hon'ble
Court ascertained from me whether it was I who had drafted the

•j-
affidavit. In reply I state that the affidavit had not been drafted by
me and it was correct that the same had been filed under my
signature as the Advocate-on-Record.
F

I tender an unqualified and unconditional apology for my not
scrutinising the affidavit dated 30th November, 1993 before it was
filed since I genuinely had no apprehension or reason to ap-
prehend that any derogatory statement had been made in the said G
affidavit. It was entirely my fault that I did not peruse the said
\
affidavit for which I have tendered my unqualified apology. I now
/;, realise that had I been m0re vigilant, there would have been no
occasion for the public record to have been tainted with this
statement. I deeply regret that because of the constraints of time H
r

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995]3 S.C.R.

A the aforesaid affidavit had been filed. For this too, I unhesitatingly
and sincerely apologi<e.

I state that on the 6th of December 1993 itself I tendered my own
unconditional apology orally to this Hon'ble Court for filing the
said affidavit. I say that the only reason why I did not put this
B apology in writing an affidavit is that I carried a bona fide impres-
sion that this Hon'ble Court after considering the matter, had
confined the issue of notice for showing cause as to why action for
contempt be not taken only against Shri Sanjeev Dutta, and that
my oral unconditional apology stood accepted.

I submit that I have the greatest respect for this Honourable Court
and in my entire career of over 19 years at the Bar, I have not
knowingly done or permitted the doing of any act which would in
the least affect the prestige of this Hon'ble Court or any other
Court. I have not willfully or knowingly done anything in this case
D
which would be tantamount to contempt of this Honourable Court.
I have apologised and I repeat my apology for having filed the
affiJavit in question in the circumstances mentioned in this af-
fidavit.

L I once again tender my unqualified apology for having had filed
the aforesaid affidavit without perusing the same. I assure this
Hon'ble Court that such an action shall not be repeated on my
part. I most humbly and respectfully pray that my unqualified and
unconditional apology be accepted by this Hon'ble Court and the
r notice to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt be not
issued against me be discharged."

9. Shri Vasdev has been an advocate of this Court of the last 19 years
and during his practice he has not only not given any cause for complaint
but has in many respects displayed an exemplary conduct. We have no
G reason to doubt that the affidavit in question came to be filed without his
having had an opportunity to peruse the same in the circumstances ex-
plained by him. We have, further, no doubt that had he perused it, he
would certainly not have lent his services for filing it. We, therefore, accept .-\.....,
his unconditional apology and discharge the notice of contempt issued
H against him.
RE: SANJIV DA'ITA [SAWANT, J.] 465

Re: M1>. Kitty Kumaramangalam A
10. During the hearing of the contempt ;iroceedings against Shri
Vasdev on 28th February, 1995, it transpired that the draft of the affidavit
in question had passed through the hands of Mrs. Kumaramangalam. The
advocate who drafts and/or settles an offending document also commits
contempt of the court as the author of the document. We had, therefore, B
issued notice to her to show cause as to why action for the contempt be
not taken against her for the offending statements in the affidavit. This
became necessary also because Mrs. Kumaramangalarn was concerned
with the writ and appeal proceedings throughout and it was she who had
appeared on behalf of the Union oflndia, the MIB and the DD at the time C
of the hearing on 15th November, 1993 when both the abovesaid orders
were passed by this Court. However, she has given a written explanation
of the role she had played with regard to the affidavit. The relevant portion
of her explanation is as follows : •

"3. With reference to the notice issued by this Hon'ble Court, I say D
that a document called "parawise comments on the writ petition"
already drafted by someone was brought to me - frankly I cannot
recollect by whom it was brought. I made corrections in this
document and handed it back there and then. At that time another
document of a draft SLP (against the Calcutta High Court order) E
was also brought to me and I made corrections on the same and
handed it back there and then.

4. (a) When it became known that notice to show cause was issued
to me by this Hon'ble Court on 28.2.1995, I approached the
Learned Solicitor General, who was kind enough to permit me to F
glance through the particular "parawise comments on the writ
petition", some pages of which had my handwriting in pencil. This
was on 1.3.1995. However, another document containing my hand-
writing could I see in the file.

(b) Later, after receiving the formal notice of this Hon'ble G
Court, I requested the Director General, Doordarshan by letter
dated 8.3.1995 to permit me to scrutinise the file - finally on
13.3.1995 I was permitted to go through the file in the room of the
Secretary to the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting at Shastri
Bhavan. I could not locate in the file either my detailed draft H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A counter, all of which was in my handwriting nor the draft SLP, all
of which was also in my handwriting. I also could not locate the
draft SLP which should have had corrections in my handwriting,
as the same was corrected at the same time as the "parawise
comments .... " were corrected by me. I asked for tlie same, but was
informed that all the relevant documents were in the file of which
B I was being given inspection, and that there was no other document
containing my handwriting with the department. I was then given,
at my request, a zerox copy of the document headed "parawise
comments in the writ petition ... ." which was in the file.

C 5. I wish to bring to your Lordship's notice:-

(i) that a comparison of the "parawise comments" [Zerox copy
supplied to me] and the counter affidavit as filed in this Hon'ble
C11urt show that it was not even my corrected/altered parawise
comments that were filed in Court - for instance, the second
D passage extracted from the counter affidavit in the order dated
28.2.1995 reads differently from what is found in the zerox copy of
the ''parawise comments".

(ii) that certain corrections like that on page 5 of the zerox
"parawise comment.<°' in regard to reply to para 13 of the writ
E
petition, is n 't to be 'ound in the final counter affidavit as filed.

(iii) that pag" '" 7, 8 and 9 of the zerox "parawise comments" does
[sic] not contain my handwriting at all - not even putting the words
"in reply to para ... ".
F
(iv) that with regard to the first passage quoted in Your Lordship's
order dated 28.2.1995 [at pages 9 and 10 of the zerox "parawise
comments"] no part of it contains my handwriting, and a certain
correction ("hon'ble") has been added in the final affidavit filed.
Besides, in the zerox draft "parawise comments" the letter "(a)"
G indicating that this was in reply to the prayer (a) found in para 25
of the writ petition is not present in the final counter affidavit as
filed.

(v) I wish to submit that to the best of my recollection, the first
H passage in this Hon'ble court's notice could not have been a
RE: SANJIV DATIA[SAWANT, J.] 467

paragraph I had ever perused. The language is not such which A
would ever be approved by me, nor pass through even a cursory
glance of mine.
' 6. Finally, I humbly submit that a comparison of the zerox of
11
parawise comment" and the final counter affidavit filed, reveal a
substantial number of omissions, corrections and additions. B
11. The above explanation of Mrs. Kumaramangalam reveals that the
\
j·
draft of the affidavit which was corrected or settled by her was not the
same which was ultimately filed in the Court. That made the offence of the
contemner, Shri Datta all the more serious as stated earlier. Not only he C
had not filed the draft which was settled by his counsel but also an affidavit
which the Advocate- on-Record had no time to peruse. He had, therefore,
taken the entire responsibility for making the offending statements in
question. However, since Mrs. Kumaramangalam has given her explanation
which absolves her of her responsibility in the matter, and since we have
no reason to disbelieve what she has stated in the exJilanation, we do not D
think it necessary to pursue this matter any further. We accept her explana-
tion and discharge the notice of contempt issued to her.

12. Betore parting with these contempt proceedings, we may voice a
few words not by way of admonition but caution. Judges also belong to E
legal fraternity. Most of them have come from the profession and some of
them have practised law for more years than they have administered it.
Hence the anxiety to express the concern.

Of late, we have been coming across several instances which can only
be described as unfortunate both for the legal profession and the ad- F
ministration of justice. It becomes, therefore, our duty to bring it to the
notice of the members of the profession that it is in their hands to improve
the quality of the service they render both to the litigant-public and to the
courts, and to brighten their image in the society. Some members of the
profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice G
of the profession. as is evident from their absence when the matters are
called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings - many times
even illegible and without personal check and verification, the non-payment
• of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the
failure to take steps to serve the parties,et al. They do not realise the
seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11995]3 S.C.R.

A contempt of the court but do positive dis- service to the litigants and create
embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and
delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial
system.

The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble
B calling und all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Al-
though the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the
qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to
be maintained by the its members by their exemplary conduct both in and
outside the court. The legal profession is different from other professions
C in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the ad-
ministration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both
as a leading member of the intelligentia of the society and as a responsible
citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his
professional and in his private and public life. The society has a right • to
expect of him such ideal behaviour. It must not be forgotten that the legal
D profession has always been held in high esteem and its m~mbers have
played an enviable role in public life. The regard for the legal and judicial
systems in this country is in no small measure due to the tireness role
played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. They took
their profession seriously and practised it with dignity, deference and
devotion. If the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be
E vitalised. No service will be too small in making the system efficient,
effective and credible. The casualness and indifference with which some
members practise the profession are certainly not calculated to achieve that
purpose or to enhance the prestige either of. the profession or of the
institution they are serving. If people lose confidence in the profession on
F account of the deviant ways of some of its members, it is not only the
profession which will suffer but also the administration of justice as a
whole. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when
the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from
outside. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the
corrective steps in time and also spare the courts the unpleasant duty. We
G say no more.

The contempt proceedings are disposed of in the above terms.

T.W. Petition disposed of.
.4