Holding

A perfunctory written apology does not extinguish the contempt, and the High Court's conviction and sentence were justified.

Summary

Senior advocate L.D. Jaikwal, after being asked to appear in proper court attire before a Special Judge, left the courtroom and later submitted a written application using scurrilous language, calling the judge a "corrupt judge" and "contaminating the seat of justice" and forwarding copies to various authorities. The Allahabad High Court initiated contempt proceedings under Section 2(c)(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, found him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to one week imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500. Jaikwal appealed to the Supreme Court, tendering a written apology as directed, but the Court deemed it a perfunctory "paper" apology. The Supreme Court examined whether such an apology could set aside the conviction and held that a mere apology does not erase the mischief of contempt and that the High Court's sentence was neither excessive nor out of proportion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the contempt conviction and sentence.

Issues considered

Whether a written apology tendered after a conviction for criminal contempt can set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 2(c)(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether the High Court's sentence of one week imprisonment and fine was excessive or disproportionate.
Whether the conduct of the advocate amounted to criminal contempt within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 2(c)(1)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. 5(2)

Subjects

criminal contemptcontempt of courtapologyjudicial independenceadvocate conductlegal ethicssentencingContempt of Courts Act

Judgment

833

L.D. JAIKWAL A
v. •
•
STATE OF U.P.

May 17, 1.984 B
. · [A.P. SEN AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ .]

Contempt a/Courts Act 1971, Section 2(c)Jl)

Ad_vocate making written app/ichtion couched in sc.uri/lous language-Itn-pu-
tarion-Judgt! ·a corrupt Judge' 'and-_conta1ni11ating· the seat of ju'stice'.- High c
Gour~ convicting a_nd sentenci~g advocate_for contemPt of Court - appeal ·10
. Supre1ne Court-Written apology'tendered to Judge 'as directed by the suPreme.
; Court ·~whether sufficient to set aside coni,iction by Ei[gh Cou'rt.

The appellant ·was a senior advoc~te. He was required to_ appear before·
the Special Judge to make his submissiori on the question of sentence to be
imposed UpOn his cliept who was conVicted for an offence under s.5 (2) of the D
Prevention of Corru"ption Act, 1947: As .he· appeared in a shirt-and-trous'!r-
oUtfit aud n•t in Court attire, the Judg~ asked him to-<ippe"ar_ in the prescribed.
formal attii"e· for be_ing heard in his professional capacity. The appellant took um
brage and left the.Court. -Sonle other advqcate appeared ~in the matter and the
accused having being found gi:iilty of_the-thqrge ot corruption the Judge impOsed.
a sentence ·of _four years R._I. · E
~,

' The appellarit niade a written application to the Judge couched in scurillous
- lan8uage ·making the imputation ·that the Judge-was a 'corruPt Jlldge~ ·and added
that he was· 'contaminating the seat Of justice' ; and- forwarded Copies, of the
application, withOut occasion or Deed to the AdrnjnisttatiVe Judge, Chief
Secretary and Other authOrities.
F
The 'High Court initiated contempt proceedings, found 't_he- appellarit _guilty
of having con1mitte<t cfiminal contempt under s. 2(c)(l) of the.Contempt of.
, Courts Ao::t, 1971 and after affording fUll opportunity Of hear-ing, iinposed a
. 1'Jt .sen.teoce Of simple imprisonment for one Week and a fine _of. Rs. 500. ·

Dismissing the Ap~l,·
G
HELD : 1. ·eonsideratiOns regarding maintenance ·of the- independence of
the :i.uiiciary and' the morale of the Judges dema.nd that the appellant should
not escape with iinpunify on the mere .tendering of an apology which in any case
does not wipe_ o.ut the· mischief. ·If ~uch a apology Were to be accepted, as a
....
rule, an<i not as '.an e~ception, it \vo_uld vfrtua-IJy· be tantamount to issuing ~
H
i 'licence' to i;Candalize co~rts and .commit OOQ.tompt of court with impunity. The
High ~ourt was justified- in impo~ing a substantive Sentence and .the said
sentence cannot be said to be excessive or out of proponion.[838E ; 837E ; 83.SFJ
..

834 SUPRl!ME COURT REPORTS. [19841.3 s.c.R.
No Jadge can take- a deCiSiori which does Dot displease one side or the
A other. By the vety fl·ature of his work.he ~as to decide matters against One-or
o~her_ of the ·parties. lf the fact that he~ende·rs a decision which is resented to -by
a li~igarit or _his lawyer Were to ·expose hitri to such a· risk, it .will sound the
death knell of the institution. The day must be dreaded when a Judge cannat·
work with independence ·-by (eaSon O:f tl1e fear that a disgruntleid member of
the_ Bar can publicly ·humiliate him ·and heap disagree on him·with._lmpunity,
1J if any ot his_ otdets, or the decision rendered by him displeas_es any-of the
'Advoc.ates ·-.11ppearing in the miittcr. A line has therefore to be drawn some..
Where, some day, by some one, That -is why the Court is impelled to act
(rather than merely. sermonise) much as the.Court dis1ike.s im:posiiig punish~
ment whilst.ex~cising: tQe contempt jufisdiction; Wbi~h ·rto doubt has to be.
e~ercised .very sparingly and withcircurnspection. [837ll ; 838A-Bl

.2: An attituCI~ of un~erited ~enienc.y cannot be adopted at the cost of
princip.le an;d at the ex;1ense Of the Judge who ·has .been scanqalized. TO pursue
a popl.llist line of showing indulgence _is not very difficult in fact jt is more
difficult to resist the temptation .to ·do sO rather 'than tc;> ad4,Cre to. the m3.il~
studded. path of duty. Institutiorial perSpective demahds that considerations of
populism are not allowed to.obstruct the path of duty. [338C]

D. . In the .inst~nt c~se, the aPpeUan t sought to justify hiS co_nd~ct before the
High C.ourt on the gronnd of the treatment alloged to have .been meted out'to
him by the Special Jµdge. '.No remOr_se was felt. No sorrow Was e~pfessed.
No· apology was offerred. He .expressed his sorrow only before this Court••
saylng that hahad lost his m¢nta1 bala·ace, alld was granted ;an oPportunity to ·
tender® apology. ·He appeared before the Special Judge and tendered awritten
E apOJOgy indicaiing that· be was doing so : ('as Qire·cted by the· Hon'ble Si1pr~me
Court. 0 This circumstance showS.it Was a -~paper' apology, and that' the eXpres-
sion of sorrow came from bis pen, n·ot fr6m-his· heart.. It is one: thing to "say"
sorry~it:_ is another to ."fetl" sorry. This Court cannot subscribe to the' ·
'slap~say sorry~and forget' .school of thought in administration of contempi
jurisdiction. [886H; 837A-C] ·

F.
CRiMINAL ·APPELLAIB JUR1so1cr10N : Criminal Appeal No .
. 611 of 1982.

From.the Judgment and Order dated the 5t!\ November, 1982 ·
G of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Contempt Case No.
144/SL.
•
Appellant.
~ .
N.N. Sharma, Mrs. Pankaj Verma & Mrs. Vijay Gupta for. the

H
Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondent. ·

.
T]le Judgment of the Court was delivered by
. ' . .
L.D. JAIKWAL v. U.P. STATE (Thakkar, J.) 835

THAKKAR, J. We are sorry to say we cannot. subscribe to the
A
'slap-say sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of
• contempt j11risprudence, ·Saying 'sorry' does. not make the slapper
poorer. Nor does the cheek which has iakell the slap smart less
upon the said hypociitical word being uttered through the very lips
which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest
compunction. · • B
An Advocate whose client had been convicted by the learned
• • Special Judge, Dehra4un; was required to appear before the learned . ·
Judge to make his submissious on the question of 'sentence' to be·
imposed on the accused. upon his being found guilty of au of(ence
. under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Court. c
The learned Advocate app'eared in a shirt-and-trouser-outfit in ·
disregard of the rule requiring him to appear only in Court attire
when appearing in his professional Gapacity, The learned Judge
aske.d · him to. appear in the prescribed formal attire for be-
ing ·heard in his professio.nal capacity. The learned Advocate
apparently took umbrage·and left the Court. Some .other Advocate D
appeared on: behalf of. accused who had been found guilty · of a
. chatge of corruption. The learned. Judge iplposed a senteqce of 4 .
years' R.I. which may have been considered to be on the high side.
•
ii. The matter in that case could have been carried to the High Court
by way of an appeal, both, on the question of conviction as iilso, on
' ·the ·question of sentence.· But so far as the Court of the Special
E

Judge was ·concerned; as .the judgment had been pronounced anci
nothing more remained to be done by that Court, the matter should
have rested there. The. appellant, a senior Advocate of longstanding
(not an immature inexperienced junior), however made a wriiten
application to the learned Special Judge couched .in scurillous F
language· making the· !tnputation that the· Judge was a "corrupt
Judge'' and adding that he was . "contaminating the seat of justice".
A threat was also held 'OU! that a complaint was being lodged to
higher authorities that he was corrupt and did not deserve to be
retained
. .
in service .. The offending portion may better be quoted :-
G
"I am making a complaint against you to the' highest
authorities in the country, that you are corrupt and do not
j · deSe!'Ve to be retained in service. The earlier people like
·l . ypu are bundled out the better for us all. ·

As for (juantUm of sentence, I will neyer bow down
before you. You maY, award the m~m11m senten9e. Any,
836 SDPREME COURT JiEPORTS (1984] 3 s.c.&. ,. -
way, you should feel ashamed of yourself that you are con· '
A
taminating the seat of justice." ·
•
There is no known. pr.ovision for making such an application
after a matter is disposed of by a Judge. Nor was any legal pur'
pose to be .served by making such an application ..
B
Obviously application was made to terrorize and harass the
. Judg~for imposing a sentence which perhaps be considered to be ·on
the ·high side whether or .not it was really .so was for the higher.

C
Co11rt to decide.

As pointed.out carler, it was however notperinis·sible ·to adopt.
. . ''\

a course of intimidatfori in order to frighten the Judge. His malicious
·purpose in making the application is estaplished by another tell·tale
circumstance by forwarding copy _of this application, witho11t any •
. .
occassion or need for it, to severaLauth.orities and; diginitaries. ·
(·

D
I. Administrative Jl!dge, Allahabad for favour of requisi-
tioning case file S.T. No. 2 from.Dehradun and scann·
• !'
ing through the facts.
· 2, Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh.Government Lucknow ..
3. ·Director~ Vigilance Commission; U.P., Lucknow:
E
.4. · Prime Minister, Secretariat, Delhi..
J
..
5: State Counsel, Shri Pooran Singh, Court of Shri V.K. ·
Agarwal, Dehradun.
6. Shri D. Vira, I.C.S., Chaifman, Indian Police Comniis,
F sion, Delhi.
7. ·President, Bar Association, Dehradu~.
.
8. .The Hon'ble. Chief fostice of Bharat...
.

. The High Court of Allahabad intitiate.d contempt proceedings,
found· the appellant gulity of having committed.criminal contempt
'.
G
. under Section 2(c)(l) of. the Contempt of Courts Act, 197-1, after
affording him full opportunity of hearing, and imposed a sentence of
S:L for 1 week and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default to undergo a
further term of s:L for 1 week). Hence this appeal.
H
" Before the High Court the appellant sought to justify his
~onduct on the ground of the treatment alleged to have been meted
LD. JA.iKWAI, v. U.i>. STATE (Thakkar, J.) . 837
•
"
.out to him by the learned Judge. No remorse was felt. · No .sorrow · A
was expressed. No apology was offered. Only when the appellant
approached this Court he expressed his sorrow before this Court
saying that he had lost his mental ,balance. Upon finding that thi~
Court was reluctant
. to hear
. him even on the question
' . of sentence,
as he had not even tendered his apology to the learned Judge who
was scandalized, he .prayed for three weeks' time to.give him an B
opportunity to do:so. His request was granted. · He appeared before
the learned Judge and tendered a written apology wher.ein he stated
that he was doing so "as directed by the Him'ble Supreme Court."
. This circumstance in a way shows that it was a 'paper' apology and
the expression of sorrow ·came from· his pen, not from his heart.
For, it is one thing to "say" sorry-it is .another to "feel" .sorry. It c
is in this context that we have been obliged to make the opening
remarks at the commencement of this judgment ..

·We do not think that merely~because the appellant hhs tendered
his apology we should set asid~ the sentence and allow him to go
D
unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate a
Judge by making tlie grossest imputations against him has to ·do, is
to go ahead and scap:dalize him, and later on .tender a formal empty
apology which costs him practically nothing. ' ·

If such an apology were to be accepted, as a. rule, and not as
E
an exceptiou; it would in virtually be tentamount to issuing a
'licenc.e' to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with
' impunity; •

It will be rather difficult to persuade members of the.Bar, w)lo
care for their self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected F
to pay such a price fodt. And no sitting Judge will feel free to
decide any matter as pet the dictates of his conscience' on account
C>f .the fear .of being scandalized and persecuted by an Advocate who
does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against
•J
·-
his wishes. If this . -.
· situation
. .were to .be countenanced, advocates
who can cow down the Judges, make them fall in line with their G
wishes, by threats of character ass.asination and persecution, will be
preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are. mindful of profes·
sional ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of Courts. .

No Judge cah take a decision . which doi;~ not displease one H
.J side or the.othe.r. By the very nature of his work he has to decide
t
. matters ·against one or other of the parties; If the fact that he
•
..
T
..

838 SUPREME .COURT REPORTS . (1984) 3 S.C.R. ' """'·

A renders a decision wh!th fa resented to by a. litigant or his laWyer '
were to expose him to.such risk, jt wm·sound ·the death knell of the
instituti0n, A line has therefore to be drawn somewhere, some day,
by some orie. That is why the Court is· impelled to act (rather than
· merely sermonize), much as the Court dislikes imposing punishment.
whilst exerCising the'contempt jurisdictiop, which no doubt has to be
B . exercised very sparingly and with cir9umspection. we do not think
that we can adopt an attitude of unmerited leniency at the cost of 1· •
priftcip~e and at the expense <;>f th~ Judge who' has been sca.ndallzed.
We are fully aware that it is not very difticult to .show magnanimity
when some one else is the victim rather than when oneself is the
victim: To pµrslle a populist line of showing indulgence is not. very
c difficult-iii fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so
rather ·than to adhere to the nail-studded path of duty. Institutional
perspective demands tlrnt considerations of populism are not allowed
to obstructthe .path of duty.. We, therefore, . cannot take a lenient
· .or indulgent view of this matter,. the day. must be dreaded when a
·Judge cannot w9rk with independence by reason of the fear that
D
·a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly humiliate him and
heap disgrace ori.himwith impunity, if any of his orders, or .the
decision rendered. ·by him,· displeases any of the Advocates
. ',' . .
appearing in the matter.

We firmly believe that considerations. regarding maintenance .~
E
of the independence of'l)le judiciary and the morale of the Judges I
demand that we do not allow the appellant to escape with imp~nity
on the mere tendering of an apology which ·in· any case does not ·
wipe out the mischief. · We are of the opinion tba t the High Court
was therefore justified in imposing a substantive sentence. And the
.F sentence imposed cannot be said to be excessive or out of propor-
-.... t~OD.· '

G Appeal is accordingly dismissed. •
N.V.K. Appeal dismssed.

•