Supreme Court of India
SITA RAMversusBALBIR @ BALI .
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 1151
- Decided
- 15 December 2016
- Disposal
- Hearing Adjourned
- Bench
- T S THAKUR
Holding
The Court held that the respondent and the hospital’s medical director and managing director are guilty of both civil and criminal contempt for willfully obstructing the execution of the Supreme Court’s order, and that third parties can be held liable for contempt when they knowingly aid the violation of a court order.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined a contempt petition filed after the respondent, Balbir, evaded arrest by remaining admitted in a private hospital for 527 days without medical justification, despite a Supreme Court order cancelling his bail and directing his surrender. The Court found that the respondent deliberately used the hospital to defeat the order, constituting both civil and criminal contempt. It also held that the hospital’s medical director and managing director, though not parties to the original proceedings, knowingly aided the respondent and thus were liable for contempt. The police were found to have failed to execute non‑bailable warrants, prompting the Court to order strict administrative action against them. The Court declined to impose immediate punishment on the contemnors, granting them another opportunity to be heard, and directed their appearance on 2 January 2017 along with production of the respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether a person not directly bound by a court order can be held guilty of contempt for aiding its violation.
- Whether the respondent’s prolonged, unjustified hospital admission amounts to civil and criminal contempt.
- Whether the hospital’s medical director and managing director are liable for contempt for providing ‘medical asylum’ to the respondent.
- Whether police officials’ failure to execute non‑bailable warrants constitutes contempt or warrants disciplinary action.
- The extent of third‑party liability under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Legislation cited
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 2(b), s. 2(c)
Subjects
contempt of courtcivil contemptcriminal contemptobstruction of justicethird‑party liabilityhospital admissionpolice inactionbail cancellationnon‑bailable warrantmedical asylum
Judgment
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 984
A SITA RAM
v.
BALBIR @ BALI .
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of2014)
B In
(Criminal Appeal No.1834of2013)
D~CEMBER 15, 2016
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND
c UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.)
Contempt of Court - Willful and deliberate violation of order
of Supreme Court and obstruction in administration of justice -
Cancellation of bail of respondent-accused by Supreme Court order
dated 24.10.2013 - Despite multiple non-bailable warrants issued
by trial court respondent-accused could not be arrested - Contempt
0
petition filed - Respondent-accused failed to enter appearance
despite service of notice - Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP)
on being asked by the Court, stated in his affidavit that as per the
statement of the son of the accused he was admitted in a hospital
and also produced Medical Certificate dated 7.2.2015 - The Court
E directed personal appearance of SSP and Medical Director of the
Hospital - The Court further directed enquiry as to whether the
accused continued to avoid arrest and escaped with or without the
help of the ho~pital - As per Enquiry Report the accused remained
admitted in the hospital for a total 527 days on three occasions viz.
F From 15.11.2013 to 25.12.2013, from 31.12.2013 to 9.4.2014, and
from 11.4.2014 to 1.5.2015 - The Court further issued notice to the
Managing Director of the hospital - Held: In the facts of the case,
it is evident that the prolonged admission without any justifiable
medical reason till action was taken by the Court, in contempt
jurisdiction, was essentially to defeat the order dated 24.10.2013
G passed by Supreme Court and repeated non-bailable warrants issued
by the trial court - The accused, by disobeying the order of the
Court is liable for committing civil contempt and by defiance of the
order so passed has obstructed administration of justice and thus
further liable for criminal contempt - Hospital was the party to the
attempts on part of the accused to defeat the order passed by the
H 9~
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 985
Court by providing protection and asylum to the accused and thereby A
obstructed administration ofjustice - Therefore, the Medical Director
and the Managing Director of the hospital are liable for contempt
of court - However, one more opportunity is given to all three
contemnors - The conduct exhibited by concerned police officials
in not ensuring compliance of orders passed by trial court calls for
8
strict administrative action - The Court expressed dissatisfaction
regarding the conduct of the SSP.
The Court
HELD: 1. From the record and the Enquiry Report, it is
clear that soon after the Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this c
Court (whereby bail order passed by High Court was set aside),
the respondent remained admitted in the hospital for a total of
527 days. Nothing has been placed on record, neither any medical
condition nor reasons have been adverted to why such admission
was required in the first place. As found in the Enquiry, no
laboratory test was conducted during the period of admission from D
25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from 12.04.2014 to 01.05.2015.
This shows that the illness as projected was not serious at all and
no Intensive treatment as Indoor patient was required or called
for. This prolonged admission without any justifiable medical
reason was essentially to defeat the direction Issued by this Court E
in its Order dated 24.10.2013 and repeated non-bailable warrants
Issued by the Trial Court. (Para 16)(1005-D-F)
2. During the third admission of the respondent from
12.04.2014 the first payment to the hospital was made only on
10.01.2015 I.e. nearly after 247 days. It Is inconceivable that In F
normal circumstances a man, who has no ailment or a medical
condition requiring emergency treatment would be kept as indoor
patient without any laboratory test and without recovering a single
paisa for more than 247 days. Moreover, the record indicates
that on as many as 47 occasions during his admission the
respondent was allowed to move out of the hospital without even G
an endorsement by any medical professional justifying such
movement. The Enquiry Report further shows that there used
to be regular stream of visitors during the stay of respondent in
the hospital. These features clearly show that the respondent
was in perfect condition of health and never really required H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 8 S.C.R.
A admission in the hospital as an indoor patient.[Para 19](1006-F-
H]
3. The conduct exhibited by the respondent in getting
himself admitted in the hospital when there was no medical reason
to justify such admission and in continuing to remain admitted till
B action was taken by this Court in contempt jurisdiction, exhibits
scant respect and regard for the orders and processes issued by
the Court. Despite issuance of notice, the respondent has neither
filed any response nor tendered any apology. The respondent is
guilty of having committed contempt of the direction issued by
this Court in its Order dated 24.10.2013 and also in obstructing
c the administration of justice.(Para 18](1006-B-D]
4. Willful disobedience to a direction issued by this Court
on 24.10.2013 on part of the respondent is quite evident. He was
party to the proceedings and bound by the order and as such his
liability on that count stands established. Further, by his defiance
D of the direction so issued, be also obstructed administration of
justice. He is thus liable for committing civil contempt as well as
criminal contempt. [Para 23][1009-B-C]
5. The role of the hospital was certainly not as innocent as
is sought to be projected and the hospital was party to the
E attempts on part of the respondent to defeat the Order passed
by this Court. The explanation offered by the hospital that the
respondent trapped the hospital and by non-payment of the bills
kept prolonging his stay in the hospital does not inspire
confidence at all. If the hospital was really a victim of the
F machinations of the respondent, at the first opportunity i.e. when
requisition was made by the police on 13.02.2015, the hospital
would have responded immediately. The requisition dated
13.02.2015 had informed the hospital that respondent was a
proclaimed offender and that his custody was required. This
requisition was close on the heels of the medical certificate dated
G 07.02.2015 and if that certificate was a correct one, the time was
ripe for discharge of the respondent. However, the hospital
refused to discharge the respondent. The theory that the hospital
was trapped by the designs of the respondent is a mere eye-
wash. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the hospital
H extended protection and asylum to the respondent to defeat the
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 987
Order passed by this Court as well as those passed by the Trial A
Court and thereby obstructed administration of justice. [Paras
19 and 21][1006-H; 1007-A, G-H; 1008-A-C]
6. The continued admission for such a long period as indoor
patient was not justifiable for any reason or medical condition of
the respondent. Both these medical professionals (Medical B
Director and Managing Director of the hospital) are responsible
for such prolonged admission which was actuated by only one
reason which was to extend medical asylum to the respondent as
a cover to defeat the orders passed by this Court and the Trial
Court. In this process, these medical professionals not only C
helped the respondent in violating the Order of this court but
they also obstructed administration of justice.[Para 22)[1008-D-
E]
7. The Medical Professionals were not parties to the matter
where the direction in question was passed. As regards their
liability questions that arise are: 1) whether a person, who is not D
bound by a direction issued by the Court could be held guilty for
committing contempt of court for his conduct in either directly
aiding and abetting violation on part of the person who is bound
by such direction; and 2) what is the extent of liability of such
person. The Medical Professionals extended medical asylum to E
the respondent without there being any reason or medical
condition justifying prolonged admission of the respondent as an
indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed by this
Court and the Trial Court, and thereby aided and assisted the
respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct
these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of F
justice. [Paras 23, 24 and 25][1009-C-D; 1012-E-G]
Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. and Anr.
(1991) 2 All ER 398 - relied on.
Seaward v. Paterson (1895-99) All ER 1127; Z Ltd. v. A G
(1982) 1 All ER 556 - referred to.
8. The respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered
an apology. At the same time the Managing Director of the
company that owns the hospital is 76 years of age. Considering
the fact that these are medical professionals with sufficient
H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A standing, ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity Is
granted to them to present their view on the issue of punishment.
In the circumstances, presence of these three contemnors on
January 2, 2017 is directed. The respondent is In custody and
therefore the concerned police is directed to facilitate such
B production of the respondent. The contemnors can also present
their views and make appropriate submission in writing. [Para
26][1013-A-C]
9. The Order passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013
shows that an affidavit of son of the respondent was flied along
with a copy of review petition. The application seeking exemption
C was rejected by the Trial Court and SHO concerned was issued
notice why the war1·ant of arrest was not executed. Subsequent
Orders dated 05.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and 15.04.2014
Indicate that fresh warrants of arrest were issued through
Superintendent of Police. Neither the respondent surrendered
D to custody as directed by this Court nor the concerned police
took any steps to arrest him or try to find his whereabouts. No
report was made to the Trial Court. What is evident is total inaction
on the part of the police which helped the respondent in evading
the arrest and defeating the orders passed by this Court as well
as by the Trial Court. [Para 17)[1005-F-H; 1006-A-B)
E 10. The conduct exhibited by the concerned police officials
In not ensuring compliance of the Orders passed by the Trial
Court calls for strict administrative action. The Director General
of Police of Haryana and the Home Secretary are directed to look
Into the matter and ensure that the departmental proceedings
F are taken to logical end at the earliest. The status report/action
taken report in that behalf shall be flied in this court. [Para
27] [1013-D-E]
11. As regards the role of Superintendent of Police 'SA',
he took charge as Superintendent of Police on 24.11.2014 i.e.
G well after the Order dated 24.10.2013 of this Court and after the
Orders directing issuance of non-bailable warrants against the
respondent were passed by the Trial Court. However, even
according to his own affidavit, If he became aware that respondent
had not surrendered despite cancellation of his bail and that he
was admitted in the hospital only In February 2015, the steps
H that he took after 16.2.2015 cannot strictly be called actions taken
SITA RAM v. BALBIR@ BALI 989
with reasonable promptitude. Even according to affidavit dated A
2.07.2015 nothing was done during the period 27.02.2015 to
23.03.2015. The action apparently was initiated only after the
Order dated 24.4.2015 was passed by this Court. Though the
Court expresses dissatisfaction, It does not deem It appropriate
to carry the matter further as against him. [Para 28][1013-F-H;
8
1014-A]
Case Law Reference
(1895-99) All ER 1127 referred to Para 24
(1982) 1 All ER 556 referred to Para 24
(1991) 2 All ER 398 relied on Para 24 C
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C)
No. 374of2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of2013.
From the Order dated 11.02.2013 by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. M-40691/12 (O&M).
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Dushyant A. Dave, V. Mohana, Siddharth D
Luthra, Sr. Advs., Rahul Verma, Dr. Monika Gusain, Rishi Malhotra, R.
Balasubramanian, Santosh Kumar, Pranav Kumar, Ms. Sarita Panda,
Ms. Anindita Pujari, M. K. Maroria, T. A. Khan, Mohd. Taraz, V. Gandhi,
Sameer Chaudhary, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT J, I. This petition under Section 12 of E
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')
highlights willful and deliberate violation of the Judgment and Order dated
24.10.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013
and seeks initiation of appropriate proceedings under the Act.
2. The petitioner, original informant in FIR No.141 dated F
06.05.2011 with Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana for
offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013 assailing the Order
dated 11.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
0
granting bail to the respondent. While setting aside the Order granting
bail, this Court in its Judgment and dated 24.10.2013 observed as under:
"4. . .............. In the FIR, the Appellant/Informant
has stated that Respondent No. I fired upon his brother-in-
law Vishnu from his revolver and thereafter Sombir also
fired upon Vishnu. The other persons mentioned also H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 8 S.C.R.
A opened fire indiscriminately leading to firearm injuries on
several persons who were at the shop of the Appellant/
Informant at that fateful time.
5. . ........................... Respondent No. I is
B indubitably a very influential person in the area, at the time
of the incident he was an ex-MLA. Section 109 and Section
149, as envisaged under the IPC have been cited. By
Orders dated 23.1.2013, the Addi. Sessions Judge has, on a
perusal of the police report and material documents, found
existence of a prima facie case under Sections 148, 302
c read with Section 149, 307 read with Sections 149, 323 read
with Section 149 JPC against all the accused and in addition
to this a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC, I 09 !PC
and 25 of Arms Act against Balbir @ Bali, a prima facie
case under Section 307 !PC against Naresh and Rishi, a
D prima facie case under Section 25 of Arms Act against
Dinesh @ Kala and Sunil and a prima facie case under
Section 27 of Arms Act.
6. Keeping all these factors in perspective,
especially the wide-scale injuries suffered by several
E persons, there is a strong prima facie case of the involvement
of the Respondent No. I in the alleged crimes. Moreover,
the antecedents of Respondent No. I are such that a
reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with
witnesses or leveling of threats is imminent and omnipresent.
The severity of the attack should not be overlooked. For
F these manifold reasons, we set aside the impugned Order
dated 11.2.2013, allow the Appeal and cancel the bail granted
to Respondent No. I who shall surrender to custody
forthwith."
3. Thus, while setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court
G took into account the role played by the respondent in firing upon the
deceased and the fact that he was an influential person in the area with
criminal antecedents. In keeping with direction to surrender to custody
forthwith, it was expected of the respondent to do the needful. However,
the record indicates otherwise and shows attempts to evade execution
H of consequential non-bailable warrants issued from time to time leading
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 991
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
to delays in trial. The Orders passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013, A
05.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and 14.05.2014 bear testimony in
that behalf, which Orders were as under:
20.11.2013
"Present: Shri A.S. Kadian, Public Prosecutor for the State
assisted by Shri R.K. Sehgal, counsel for the complainant. B
Accused Sunil and Ajay in custody, whereas all the
remaining accused except accused Balwan alias Balli on
bail, with Shri O.P. Chugh, Shri Surinder Verma, Advocates.
Accused Balwan absent. c
Three PWs namely Sita Ram, Ram Chander and Ram
Mehar are present, but their statements could not be
recorded as warrant of arrest issued against accused
Balwan not received back either executed or unexecuted
and an application seeking exemption of accused Balwan
D
alias Balli from personal appearance for today along with
affidavit of his son and photocopy of the Special Criminal
Review Petition, has been moved. Heard. Perused. Since
there is no stay granted by Hon 'ble Supreme Court oflndia
in this case and further more bail of accused-applicant
Balwan had already been cancelled by Hon'ble Supreme E
Court oflndia, thus there is no merit in this application and
the same is hereby dismissed and fresh warrant of arrest
of accused Balwan be issued, 7.12.2013. PWs present
today stand discharged and would be summoned after
procuring the presence of accused Balwan.
F
Since there is non-compliance of the issuance of warrant
of arrest against accused Bal wan in view of the Order dated
24.10.2013 as passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court oflndia,
therefore, notice be given to SHO, Police Station Kalanaur
as to why warrant of arrest of accused Balwan alias Balli
G
have not been sent back to this court either executed or
unexecuted, for 7.12.2013 ."
05.02.2014
H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 8 S.C.R.
A "Present: Shri A.S. Kadian, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Accused Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining accused
on bail except accused Balwan, with counsel Shri O.P.
• Ch ugh, Advocate .............................. .
Warrant of arrest of accused Balwan received back
B unexecuted. Now fresh warrant of arrest of accused
Balwan be issued through SPRohtakfor 15.03.2014. Notice
to surety and identifier of accused Balwan alias Bali be
also issued for the date fixed."
15.03.2014
c "Present : Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the
State. Accused Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining
accused on bail except accused Balbir alias Bali.
Warrant of arrest of accused Balbir alias Bali received back
unexecuted. Now fresh non-bailable-warrant against
D accused Balbir alias Bali be issued through SP Rohtak for
16.4.2014. Notice to his. surety and identifier be issued
through SHO concerned for the date fixed.
16.04.2014
"Present: Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the
E
State.
Shri O.P. Chugh, counsel for accused Rohtas and Balbir@
Bali. Accused Ajay in custody while all the remaining
accused on bail except accused Balbir @
Bali ........................ .
F
An application has been moved on behalf of accused Balbir
@Bali in which it is stated that accused Balbir@Bali has
filed Curative Petition No.12576/2014 in the Hon'bleApex
Court and hence, intimation is being submitted before the
Court. Since warrant of arrest have already been issued
G
against accused Balbir @ Bali, hence, the filing of the
application on behalf of accused is of no consequence. The
non-bailable warrant which was issued against Balbir @
Bali received back unexecuted and the report is perused.
Fresh non-bailable warrant be again issued against Balbir
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR@ BALI 993
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
@Bali and be sent through Superintendent of Police, Rohtak A
with the direction that the same be executed through some
responsible police officer for 14.5.2014."
14.05.2014
" Present Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the
State. B
Shri O.P. Chugh, counsel for the accused Balbir@ Bali.
Accused Ajay in custody while all the remaining accused
on bail except accused Balbir@ Bali.
Non-bailable warrant issued against accused Balbir@Bali c
received back unexecuted. Even the bailable warrant issued
against surety has not been executed. Report perused. It
appears that State is not making serious efforts for execution
of the warrant of arrest. Hence, fresh non-bailable warrant
be issued against accused Balbir@ Bali and the same be D
sent to a Superintendent of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak
for execution with the direction to get the same executed
through some responsible officer of the police for
07.07.2014. Fresh bailable warrant against surety in the
sum of Rs. I 0,000/- be also issued for the next date of
hearing." E
4. These Orders passed by the Trial Court show that although
witnesses for prosecution were present to [ecord their statements on
20.11.2013, no statements could be recorded in the absence of the
accused. Further, on subsequent dates the accused in custody was
produced but the respondent consistently remained absent. Though he F
was represented by his Advocate, the record does not indicate whether
the whereabouts of the respondent were disclosed. In these
circumstances, the present petition was filed in which notice was issued
by this Court on 29.08.2014. Since the respondent could not be served,
fresh notice was ordered to be issued on 27.10.2014 to be served through
G
the District Judge, Rohtak. The compliance report dated 15.01.2015
was forwarded by the District Judge, Rohtak whereafter this Court passed
the followingOrderon 19.01.2015:
"In the present contempt petition also the respondent has
failed to enter appearance despite service of a notice issued
H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A by this Court. Our attention is drawn by learned counsel
for the petitioner to an Order dated 14.05.2014 passed by
the Trial Court who also appear to have issued non-bailable
warrants against respondent No. I which warrants also
remain to be unserved despite several efforts. Be that as it
may from the service report dated 14.01.2015 submitted to
B
this Court it appears that respondent No. I is admitted to
the hospital for the past 15 months. No medical certificate
to that effect is however available on record. In the
circumstance we deem it fit to direct the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak Range to verify whether
C the statement made by Amit Kumar son of the respondent
regarding admission of respondent No. I in the hospital is
factually correct and to file a report before this Court
regarding his medical condition ifhe is indeed admitted to
the hospital anywhere in the State ofHaryana".
D 5. Accordingly Mr. Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police,
Rohtak submitted an affidavit on 16.02.2015, stating that son of the
respondent in his statement recorded on 8.02.2015 had stated that his
father was admitted in Privat Hospital, Gurgaon and that said son also
produced Medical Certificate dated 7.02.2015 to that effect. After
verifying the fact, instructions were issued to keep close watch and take
E the respondent in custody upon his discharge. The Medical Certificate
dated 07.02.2015 was annexed to the affidavit and the Certificate reads
as under:-
"PRIVAT HOSPITAL DR. SACHDEV PVT. LTD.
F DLF PHASE-II, M.G. ROAD,
GURGAON-122002, INDIA.
Date:07.02.2015
MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
Certified that Mr. Balbir Singh is admitted in Privat Hospital
G
since 11.04.2014 with diagnosis of
An o/c of Ischaemic Heart Disease
With Angioplasty done twice in past
With hypertension
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 995
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
With COPD and Acute Examination A
With Anxiety with Acid Peptic Disorder
And GIRD.·
He has improved significantly, symptomatically and no
intervention was done during the hospitalization. He is likely B
to be discharged in next 5-7 days ....... "
-
6. The matter was taken up on 24.04.20 I 5 when the Counsel for
the State produced copies ofMedicaI Certificates dated I I .04.20I4 and
26.03.20 I 5. The Certificate dated 26.03 .20 I 5 stated thatthe respondent
was fit to be produced in a Court of Law but it did not indicate whether C
he was discharged, and if not discharged, the reason for his continued
admission. This Court, being prima facie of the view that the Hospital
was providing medi_cal asylum to the respondent to avoid arrest, ordered
as under:- ·
" .................... We are in the circumstances inclined to D
direct the personal presence of the Superintendent of Police,
Rohtak, and Dr. Munish Prabhakar, Medical Director, Privat
Hospital, Gurgaon, who shall file an affidavit and explain
why: ·
( 1) Respondent No. I has not been taken into custody despite
E
an order of arrest and medical certificate dated 261h March,
2015 issued by the hospital which declares him
asymptomatic.
(2) The hospital has not formally discharged respondent
No.I ifhe is otherwise fit and does not require any further
F
hospitalization.
(3) The Medical Director shall also place on record details
about the medical bills raised against respondent No. I from
the date ofhis admission till date and the amount paid towards
the same by the patient or anyone on his behalf.
G
7. Pursuant to the Order dated 24.04.20 I 5 an affidavit was filed
by Dr. Munish Prabhakar, Medical Director, Privat Hospital, Gurgaon
on 02.07 .20 I 5. Relevant portions of paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the
affidavit were as under:-
H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A "5. The patient had improved significantly symptomatically
but required Angiography/Thallium scan for further
management but never gave consent for that. He always
refused consent and wanted conservative treatment.
During the stay he was told many times that he can be
discharged but kept on delaying the decision for being
B
discharged. He was not making payments for his medical
bills. He had kept on assuring the hospital that he will clear
all the medical bills but kept on paying small amounts and
promising balance of payment soon.
6. It is submitted that on 13.02.2015, the police officials at
c PS Kalanaur, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana had informed the
Hospital that the hospital may inform the SHO, Kalanaur
Police Station, Rohtak, whenever the Hospital discharges
this patient. ....... .
7. Subsequently, the Police official from Kalanaur Police
D Station, Rohtak vi de his communication dated 15.03.2015
inter alia, requesting the Hospital to opine whether this
patient can be produced in the Court ofLd. ADJ, Rohtak.
8. In response to his communication dated 15.03.2015 of
the Rohtak Police, the Hospital had clearly informed them
E on 16.3.2015 that the patient Mr. Balbir Singh is fit to be
produced in the Court. The further details of his treatment
in the Hospital with a Certificate were also issued on
26.03.2015 ......... The police officials from Rohtak by his
communication dated 1.5 .15 had requested the Hospital to
F issue a discharge slip. While respectfully reiterating that
from 15.3.15 itself the police officials of Rohtak Police had
been clearly told by the Hospital that this patient is fit to be
taken to the Court where he is required, the Hospital once
again acceded to the request of the Rohtak Police and also
issued a Discharge Slip on the same day, i.e.,
G 01.05.2015 ............ "
The affidavit went on to state that the Hospital was not aware of
any direction to the respondent to surrender to custody which he had not
complied with and that the respondent had cleverly continued to stay in
the Hospital.
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 997
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
8. Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak filed his A
affidavit dated 02.07.2015 in which developments subsequent to the filing
of the earlier affidavit were detailed in paragraphs 6 to 13:-
"6. It is further submitted that on 21.02.2015, the S.H.O.
Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana along with
other police officials of the Police Station went to the above B
said hospital to arrest accused Balbir@ Bali but doctors of
the above said hospital refused to discharge the accused
Balbir@Bali. In this regard DD Rs No.9 and No.38 dated
21.02.2015 were recorded by the SHO Police Station
Kalanaur, Rohtak, Haryana.
c
7. That it is pertinent to mention here that on 21.02.2015,
27.02.2015 and 25.03.2015 Sh. Pawan Kumar, HPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak had also telephonically
contacted Mr: R. N. Sharma, Administrative Officer and
Dr. Prabhakar, Medical Director of the said hospital and
D
requested them to discharge the accused Balbir@ Bali but
no positive response was provided by the hospital authorities.
8. That accused Balbir@Bali through his counsel served
a legal notice dated 20.03.2015 upon SHO Police Station
Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana and Deputy
E
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, Haryana (Supervisory
Officer of Police Statfon Kalanaur) calling upon them not
to harass him, who is a patient and further, if any harassment
is caused they shall be personally responsible for the same.
In the said notice it was mentioned that accused Balbir@
Bali, who was under regular treatment and was unable to F
appear in the court, was being unnecessarily harassed by
the police.
9. That on 25.03.2015, the S.H.O, of Police Station
Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana along with other police
officials of the Police Station had gone to Privat Hospital G
Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd., Phase-II, M.G Road, Gurgaon to
arrest accused Balbir@ Bali who was declared Proclaimed
Offender in case FIR No.141 dated 06.05.2011 under
Sections 148/149/323/325/307/302/109/114 IPC & 25 of
H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A Anns Act, Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana
but the doctors ofthe said hospital again refused to discharge
accused Balbir@ Bali under the pretext that his treatment
was going on and intimation shall be given within two days
after completing his treatment. The S.H.0., Police Station
Kalanaur, District Rohtak before going and after returning
B
recorded the DDR No.12 dated 25.03.2015 at 8.20 AM
and DDR No.42 at I 0.20 PM mentioning all these details
therein at Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak,
Haryana.
10. That notwithstanding the issuance of medical certificate
c dated 26.3.2015 by Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd.
Gurgaon, Haryana, the concerned hospital authorities
intentionally did not discharge the accused Balbir@ Bali
from the hospital for reasons known to them. It is further
mentioned that the doctors of the said hospital orally advised
D the police not to arrest the accused as it may put his life in
jeopardy/or danger.
11. That owing to the prevarication on part of authorities
of Privat Hospital, a request was made to the ChiefMedical
Officer (CMO), Gurgaon, Haryana by the S.H.0. Police
E Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana through AS!
Mahabir Singh No.222/RTK of the said Police Station for
constituting a Medical Board to give opinion whether the
accused Balbir@ Bali who is getting treatment in the said
hospital can be arrested from the hospital in the said situation
by getting his physical condition and if not, then to provide
F the medical team of Doctors to accompany the police for
bringing him to Rohtak so that he may be produced before
the learned Court in the supervision of Doctors.
_ That the authorities of Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev
Pvt. l td. Gurgaon failed to formally discharge the accused
G Balbir@ Bali from the hospital despite several visits of the
local police. Due to non-cooperation of Privat Hospital
authorities, accused Balbir@ Bali could not be taken into
custody despite an Order of arrest. It is further submitted
that the Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon also refused t.o
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 999
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
provide an Ambulance and team of Doctors in whose A
supervision accused Balbir@ Bali i.e. respondent No.1 could
be brought to Rohtak and produced before the learned Court
of concerned Magistrate, Rohtak. The local police tried its
level best to arrest the accused by making sincere efforts
but due to the above said circumstances, it could not succeed
B
in arresting accused Balbir@ Bali i.e. respondent No. I.
13. That on 01.05.2015, accused Balbir@Bali was formally
discharged by the hospital authorities and thereafter, he was
immediately arrested and produced before the learned Court
of concerned Magistrate, Rohtak, Haryana, on very same
day by a team of police officials headed by Sh. Pawan c
Kumar, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. The
learned Court issued direction to the police that "before
taking him to central jail, accused shall be medico legally
examined and ifthe Medical officer examing the accused
feels any necessity of retaining him in the hospital, then it is D
for him to decide. In compliance of Order dated 01.05.2015
passed by the learned Court ofACJM, Rohtak, the accused
was brought before Medical Officer of PGIMS, Rohtak,
who after examining the accused admitted him in ICCU
vide CR No.342761 dated 01.05.2015 for evaluation,
investigation, treatment and monitoring. The accused Balbir E
@ Bali remained admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak from
01.05.2015 to 12.05.2015. That on 12.05.2015, accused
Balbir@ Bali was discharged from PGIMS, Rohtak and is
since in District Jail, Rohtak, Haryana."
9. The matter was thereafter taken up on 08.07.2015 when this F
Court, with a view to find out whether the Hospital had become party to
attempts of the respondent to prevent the law from taking its course,
passed following Order:-
" ......... From the versions presented to us about the
circumstances in which respondent-Balbir continued to G
evade arrest by the police on account of his prolonged
admission to the hospital, we are prima facie of the view
that an appropriate enquiry is called for in order to bring the
truth to light especially with a view to finding out whether
the hospital had become a privy to the attempt of the H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A respondent to somehow prevent the Jaw from taking its
course. The fact that the respondent remained admitted to
the hospital concerned for a Jong period without so much
as paying the amount claimed by the hospital shows that
the admission of the respondent to the hospital may not
have been an innocent act. We do not for the present wish
B
to say anything further at this stage lest it causes prejudice
to any party. All that we need mention is that, in our opinion,
the appropriate course would be to direct a proper inquiry
into the circumstances in which the respondent-Balbir
continued to avoid arrest and escape from the long arms of
c law with or without the help of the hospital concerned.
We accordingly direct the Director of Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) to suitably nominate a seniorofficerto
conduct an inquiry into the circumstances in which the
respondent was admitted to the Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev
D Pvt. Ltd. and also to report whether there was any criminality
attached to the action of the management of the hospital or
on the part of the doctors concerned in granting a prolonged
admission to the respondent with the object of protecting
the respondent from being arrested and committed to jail.
We hope and trust the officer concerned completes the
E inquiry expeditiously and submits a report tmhis Court within
a period of two months from today ........ "
10. An enquiry was accordingly conducted by Shri S.S. Ki shore,
Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi. In his report dated 18.09.2015
he summarized the matter as under:-
F
"(4). Summary of the Enquiry Report is as follows:
(a) Accused Balbir Singh is a heart patient and had
undergone a treatment at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon as
an indoor patient from 4.9.2013 to 10.9.2013 and as an
G outdoor patient on 17.9.2013 and 18.10.2013 i.e. prior to
cancellation of his bail by this Hon'ble Court.
(b) After this Hon 'ble Court cancelled the bail of accused
Balbir Singh on 24. l 0.2013, the accused got himself admitted
in the said Hospital on 15.11.2013.
H (c) Accused Balbir singh remained admitted in the said
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 1001
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
Hospital for a total 527 days on three occasions viz. from A
15.11.2013 to 25.12.2013 for 41 days, from 31.12.2013 to
9.04.2014 for 100 days and from 11.04.2014 to 1.05.2015
for 386 days, respectively.
(d) Accused Balbir Singh did not give his consent for
Angiography as suggested by the doctors during his B
admission in the said Hospital, and requested for
Conservative Treatment through medicines which was
agreed to by the doctors.
(e) Accused Balbir Singh was not required to remain
admitted in the said Hospital for such a long period for the c
Conservative Treatment which he was given in said Hospital
as confirmed by Dr. Munish Prabhakar, the Consultant
Physician of the said Hospital.
(f) There was no change in the condition of accused
Balbir Singh from 12.06.2014 to 1.12.2014 necessitating him D
to be kept as indoor patient as is evident from the table
given at Para 3 (ii) (c) at Page No.5 of this Enquiry Report,
still he was kept in the said Hospital for no reason.
(g) No laboratory tests were conducted during the period
from 25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from 12.04.2014 to E
01.5.2015 which indicate that neither illness of accused
Balbir Singh was serious nor treatment given to him was
intensive.
(h) There was no cogent ground for which accused
Balbir Singh was allowed to move out of the said Hospital
F
for 4 7 times during the admission in the said Hospital. Rather
it establishes that he was fit to move freely and was not
required to be kept as indoor patient.
(i) There was no justification for the continued admission
of accused Balbir Singh in the said Hospital from 11.04.2014
G
to 1.05.2015 i.e. for 386 days.
(j) Accused Balbir Singh remained admitted in the said
Hospital without any payment forthe first 274 days during
his third admission as he was admitted in the said Hospital
on 11.04.2014 and hemade the first payment of Rs. 50,000/-
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A only on 10.01.2015.
(k) The administration of said Hospital kept the accused
admitted for financial gains as they were getting
approximately Rs. 9,500/- per day.
(I) Accused Balbir Singh made full payment of his first
B and second admission bills in said Hospital, but paid only a
part of his dues for his third admission bills.
(m) Filing of complaint case against accused Balbir Singh
in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, I" Class, Gurgaon u/s
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 20.07.2015 for
c dishonour of cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- and filing of a suit
against accused Balbir Singh on 13.08.2015 in the Court of
Civil Judge, Gurgaon for recovery of remaining bill
amounting to Rs. 29,58,459/-(Twenty Nine Lakh Fifty Eight
Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Nine) appear to be
D afterthoughts of the administration of the said Hospital as
these have been filed after the Order dated 8.07.2015 of
this Hon'ble Court.
(n) The said Hospital on more than one occasion informed
Rohtak Police in writing that accused Balbir Singh was fit
E to be taken to Court but did not discharge him.
(o) It appears that Rohtak Police came to know about
accused Balbir Singh being admitted in the said Hospital on
8.02.2015, but arrested the accused only on 1.05.2015.
(p) The stand ofRohtak Police that accused could not be
F arrested as he was not discharged by the said Hospital does
not hold substance.
(q) Certain inconsistencies have been found in the affidavit
filed by Rohtak Police. The details are mentioned in Para 3
(x) at Page Nos. 12 and 13 of this Enquiry Report."
G
11. The Enquiry Report also dealt with the efforts made by local
police to locate and arrest the respondent and reported as under:-
"(viii). NBWs and Efforts made by local police to locate
and arrest accused Balbir Singh
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 1003
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
This Hon'ble Court had rejected the bail of A
accused B:~}bir Singh on 24.10.2013 and directed him to
surrender L~hwith. Accused Balbir Singh did not comply
with the Order of this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the Trial
Court ofAdditional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, Haryana issued
various non-bailable warrants of arrest against accused
B
Balbir Singh on 08.11.2013, 21.11.2013, 02.01.2014,
12.2.2014, 19.03.2014, 18.04.2014 and 15.05.2014 which
were returned unexecuted by PS Kalanaur. None of the
execution report mentioned about any enquiry from family
members of the accused or his whereabouts. It was also
revealed that some of the entries made in the General Diaries c
of PS Kalanaur in connection with the efforts f~r arresting
the accuse,d Balbir Singh do not correspond with the
respective log books of vehicles."
12. After considering the Enquiry Report, this Court was prima
facie of the opinion, that notice was required to be issued to Dr. K.S. D
Sachdev, why he should not be punished for committing contempt of
court. The Order dated 19.11.2015 passed by this Court dealt with the
matter as under:-
" .................. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and are of the view that a notice of show cause E
ought to issue even to Dr. K.S. Sachdev who happens to
be the Managing Director of Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev
Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. A notice shall accordingly issue asking
Dr. K.S. Sachdev to show cause why he should not be
punished for committing contempt of this Court in as much
as from the material placed on record, it appears that Balbir F
Singh accused in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2011 was
harboured by the Hospital run by the Company of which he
is the Managing Director for a considerable period and prima
facie without any justification and only with a view to
preventing his arrest and committal to jail pursuant to the G
Orders passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1834
of2013 the Orders passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 1834of2013 dated 24.10.2013. Notice shall be directed
to the Station House Officer to the Jurisdictional Police
Station for service upon Dr. K.S. Sachdev.
H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A ................... Mr. Shashank Anand, S.P. shall also file
his reply affidavit to the contempt petition as also the
preliminary report within three weeks from today with an
advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner who will
have one week thereafter to respond to the same."
B 13. Accordingly, Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police,
Rohtak filed his affidavit dated 07.12.2015 submitting that he took charge
as Superintendent of Police, Rohtak on 24.11.2014. He stated that the
fact that the respondent had not surrendered despite cancellation of his
bail by this Court was brought to his knowledge for the first time on
12.01.2015, whereafter the matter was entrusted to Deputy
c Superintendent of Police, Meham, Rohtak. He further stated that he
became aware of the admission of the respondent in Privat Hospital,
Gurgaon on 16.02.2015. He thereafter undertook steps to ensure that
the respondent did not escape and deployed a guard at the hospital since
16.02.2015 right till 01.05.2015 when the respondent was finally
D discharged from the hospital. The affidavit further stated that soon after
the enquiry report of CBI a fact finding probe to fix the responsibility/
negligence/ connivance on part of police officials who dealt with process
of service of non-bailable warrant against the respondent was
undertaken. Pursuant to the enquiry report dated 07.12.2015, vide Memo
Nos.2145, 2146, 214 7 and 2148 all dated 07.12.2015, necessary action
E was recommended against certain police officials.
14. A reply affidavit was also filed by Dr. K.S. Sachdev on
07.01.2016. It was submitted that the hospital came to know that the
respondent was required in a criminal case only on 13.02.2015. However,
the affidavit did not disclose why even after 13.02.2015 the respondent-
F contemnor was not discharged. The affidavit stated that after it received
a communication from Rohtak Police dated 15.03.2015 to get the
respondent examined by a Medical Board, thatthe hospital on 16.03.2015
furnished a fitness report to Rohtak Police declaring the respondent to
be fit to be produced in court oflaw. The affidavit further stated that for
G reasons best known to them the police did not take the respondent from
the hospital despite such fitness report and the respondent was finally
discharged after letter dated 01.05.2015 seeking his discharge was
received from the police. The affidavit stated that no police official
came to the hospital seeking custody of the respondent and that the
hospital had not refused to comply with the request of the police at any
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 1005
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)
stage. It further stated: A
"The prolonged admission happened as the accused trapped
the Hospital by not paying. There was no criminality on
part of hospital as it was totally unaware of his criminal
status before 13.02.2015. The hospital did not keep him
as he was paying Rs.9,500/- to the hospital, it was non- B
payment of this amount that gave him prolonged stay and
he very cleverly used this position that for the fear oflosing
money, the hospital will not discharge him and he trapped
the hospital very cleverly being a wily politician."
15. We heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate for the C
petitioner, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Mr. Dushyant
A. Dave, learned Senior Advocate for Dr. K.S. Sachdev and Mr.
Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate for Dr. Munish Prabhakar.
16. From the record and the Enquiry Report as stated above, it is D
clear that soon after the Order dated 24. l 0.2013 passed by this Court,
the respondent remained admitted in the Hospital for a total of 527 days.
Nothing has been placed on record, nor any medical condition or reasons
have been adverted to why such admission was required in the first
place. As found in the Enquiry, no laboratory test was conducted during
the period of admission from 25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from E
12.04.2014to01.05.2015. This shows that the illness as projected was
not serious at all and no intensive treatment as indoor patient was required
or called for. This prolonged admission without any justifiable medical
reason was essentially to defeat the direction issued by this Court in its
Order dated 24.10.2013 and repeated non-bailable warrants issued by F
the Trial Court.
17. The Order passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013 shows
that an affidavit of son of the respondent was filed along with a copy of
review petition. The application seeking exemption was rejected by the
Trial Court and SHO concerned was issued notice why the warrant of G
arrest was not executed. Subsequent Orders dated 05.02.2014,
15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and 15.04.2014 indicate that fresh warrants of
arrest were issued through Superintendent of Police. Neither the
respondent surrendered to custody as directed by this Court nor the
concerned police took any steps to arrest him or try to find his
H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A whereabouts. No report was made to the Trial Court. What is evident is
total inaction on the part of the police which helped the respondent in
evading the arrest and defeating the Orders passed by this Court as well
as by the Trial Court. This callous attitude and conduct of the police
calls for strict administrative actions and corrective penal measures.
B 18. The conduct exhibited by the respondent in getting himself
admitted in the hospital when there was no medical reason to justify
such admission and in continuing to remain admitted till action was
taken by this Court in contempt jurisdiction, exhibits scant respect and
regard for the orders and processes issued by the Court. Despite issuance
of notice, the respondent has neither filed any response nor tendered
c any apology. Having gone through the record and considered the Enquiry
Report, we have no doubt that the respondent is guilty of having committed
contempt ofthe direction issued by this Court in its Order dated 24.l 0.2013
and also in obstructing the administration ofjustice.
19. We now turn to the role of the hospital and medical
D professionals. The explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and
Dr. K.S. Sachdev was that they were not aware of any direction by this
Court to the respondent to surrender to custody or that the respondent
was required in connection with any crime. At the outset, it must be
stated that the respondent stood admitted in the hospital for 527 days.
E Not a single laboratory test was conducted during the period from
15.02.2014 to 01.05.2015. The papers produced on record do not in any
way suggest any medical emergency which could justify continued
admission of the respondent as an indoor patient. Further, during the
third admission of the respondent from 12.04.2014 the first paymentto
the hospital was made only on I0.01.2015 i.e. nearly after 24 7 days. It
F is inconceivable that in normal circumstances a man, who has no ailment
or a medical condition requiring emergency treatment would be kept as
indoor patient without any laboratory test and without recovering a single
paisa for more than 24 7 days. Moreover, the record indicates that on as
many as 47 occasions during his admission the respondent was allowed
G to move out of the hospital without even an endorsement by any medical
professional justifying such movement. The Enquiry Report further shows
that there used to be regular stream of visitors during the stay of
respondent in the hospital. These features clearly show that the
respondent was in perfect condition of health and never really required
admission in the hospital as an indoor patient. The role of the hospital
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 1007
[UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
was certainly not as innocent as is sought to be projected and the features A
detailed above clearly show that the hospital was party to the attempts
on part of the respondent to defeat the Order passed by this Court.
20. When the compliance report forwarded by the District Judge,
Rohtak on 15.01.2015 indicated admission of the respondent in a hospital,
this Court by Order dated 19.01.2015 called for a report from the B
Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. The enquiry initiated thereafter resulted
in recording of the statement of son of the respondent on 08.02.2015
who also produced medical certificate dated 07.02.2015. This certificate
issued by Privat Hospital shows that the respondent was likely to be
discharged in next 5 to 7 days. Significantly, said certificate was not
even referred to in any of the subsequent affidavits filed by Dr. Munish C
Prabhakar or Dr. K.S. Sachdev. If the respondent was likely to be
discharged in few days as certified on 07.02.2015 what went wrong in
not discharging him or was there any medical emergency justifying his
continued admission? Nothing is spelt out in any of the affidavits. As a
matter of fact, the subsequent certificate dated 26.03.2015 did not even D
speak of likelihood of discharge and used the expression " ......... he is
fit to be produced in the Court of law as per present health condition."
The assertions made by ShashankAnand in his affidavit dated 02.07.2015
are that notwithstanding issuance of such certificate dated 26.03.2015,
the hospital refused to discharge the respondent and orally advised the
police not to arrest the respondent lest it may put his life in jeopardy or E
danger. The Enquiry Report rightly observed " ...... the said hospital on
more than one occasion informed Rohtak Police in writing that accused
Balbir Singh was fit to be taken to court but did not discharge him." It
was only after this Court passed the Order dated 24.04.2015 directing
personal presence of Dr. Munish Prabhakar with a direction to file an F
affidavit and explain the situation, that the hospital discharged the
respondent on 01.05.2015 which then resulted in arrest and production
of the respondent.
21. The explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr.
Sachdev that the respondent trapped the hospital and by non-payment G
of the bills kept prolonging his stay in the hospital does not inspire
confidence at all. If the hospital was really a victim of the machinations
of the respondent, at the first opportunity i.e. when requisition was made
by the police on 13 .02.2015, the hospital would have responded
immediately. The requisition dated 13.02.2015 had informed the hospital
H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A that respondent was a proclaimed offender and that his custody was
required. This requisition was close on the heels of the medical certificate
dated 07.02.2015 and ifthat certificate was a correct one, the time was
ripe for discharge of the respondent. However, as stated by Shashank
Anand in his affidavit dated 02.07.2015, the hospital refused to discharge
B the respondent. The theory that the hospital was trapped by the designs
of the respondent is a mere eye-wash and we reject the same. Thus, the
inescapable conclusion is that the hospital extended protection and asylum
to the respondent to defeat the Order passed by this Court as well as
those passed by the Trial Court and thereby obstructed administration of
justice.
c 22. Dr. Munish Prabhakar has been Medical Director of the hospital
and as submitted by learned Senior Counsel on his behalf, he receives
salary and some percentage of consultation charges recovered from the
patients. Dr. K.S. Sachdev, on the other hand, has been the Managing
Director of the Company which owns and runs said hospital. We have
D found that the continued admission for such a long period as indoor patient
was not justifiable for any reason or medical condition of the respondent.
Both these medical professionals are responsible for such prolonged
admission which was actuated by only one reason which was to extend
medical asylum to the respondent as a cover to defeat the orders passed
by this Court and the Trial Court. In this process, these medical
E professionals not only helped the respondent in violating the Order of
this court but they also obstructed administration ofjustice.
23. The aforementioned conclusions then raise issues regarding
the extent of liability of the contemnors. Sections 2 (b) and 2 (c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which define 'civil contempt' and 'criminal
F contempt' are as under:-
"(b) "civil contempt" means willful disobedience to any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of
a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court;
G (c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by
words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of, any court; or
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR@ BALI 1009
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the A
due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or
tends to obstruct, the administration ofjustice in any other
manner;"
Willful disobedience to a direction issued by this Court on B
24.10.2013 on part of the respondent is quite evident. He was party to
the proceedings and bound by the order and as such his liability on that
court stands established. Further, by his defiance of the direction so
issued, he also obstructed administration ofjustice. He is thus liable for
committing civil contempt as well as criminal contempt. But the Medical c
Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev were
not parties to the matter where the direction in question was passed.
24.As regards the liability of the aforesaid Medical Professionals,
questions that arise are: 1) whether a person, who is not bound by a
direction issued by the Court could be held guilty for committing contempt D
of court for his conduct in either directly aiding and abetting violation on
part of the person who is bound by such direction; and 2) what is the
extent ofliability of such person.
A.] In Seaward v. Paterson 1 the landlord of the concerned
premises had obtained an injunction against Paterson i.e. his tenant E
restraining him from doing or allowing to be done anything on the premises
which would be a nuisance to the landlord and fror.1 using the premises
otherwise than for the purposes of a private club. Alleging that the
tenant had committed contempt of the court by allowing the premises to
be used for boxing matches, the landlord applied for committal of two
other persons, namely, Sheppard and Murray on the ground that they F
had aided and assisted the tenant in his disobedience to the injunction.
The following passages from the Judgment of Lindley LJ are quite
instructive:
"Now, Let us consider what jurisdiction the court has to
make an order against Murray. There is no injunction against G
him- He is no more bound by the injunction granted against
Paterson than any other member of the public. He is bound',
like other members of the public, not to interfere with, and
not to obstruct, the course of justice; and the case, if any,
I (1895-99) All ER 1127
H
...
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A made against him must be this--not that he has technically
infringed the injunction, which was not granted against him
in any sense of the word, but that he has been aiding and
abetting others in setting the Court at defiance, and
deliberately treating the order of the Court as unworthy of
notice. Ifhe has so conducted himself, it is perfectly idle to
B
say that there is no jurisdiction to commit him for contempt
as distinguished from a breach of the injunction, which has
a technical meaning."
"A motion to commit a man for breach of an injunction,
which is technically wrong unless he is bound by the ·
c injunction, is one thing; and a motion to commit a man for
contempt of court, not because he is bound by the injunction
by being party to the cause, but because he is conducting
himself so as to obstruct the course of justice, is another
and a totally different thing. The difference is very marked.
D In the one case the party who is bound by the injunction is
proceeded against for the purpose of enforcing the Order
of the Court for the benefit of the person who got it. In the
other case, the Court will not allow its process to be set at
naught and treated with contempt."
E B] In Z Ltd. v. A 2 the plaintiff had obtained injunction against
certain defendants and the assets of one such defendant against whom
the injunction was granted, were held by a bank. The bank was served
with a copy of the injunction but the concerned defendant had not yet
been served. While considering the question whether any disposal of
assets belonging to the defendant by the bank would make it liable for
F committing contempt of Court, it was stated as under:
"I think that the following propositions may be stated as to
the consequences which ensue when there are acts or
omissions which are contrary to the terms of injunction. (1)
The person against whom the Order is made will be liable
G for contempt of Court if he acts in breach of the Order
after having notice of it. (2) A third party will also be liable
ifhe knowingly assists in the breach, that is to say if knowing
the terms of the injunction he willfully assists the person to
whom it was directed to disobey it. This will be so whether
' ( 1982) I All ER 556
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 1011
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
or not the person enjoined has had notice of the injunction ... A
I will give my reasons for the second proposition and take
first the question of prior notice to the defendant. It was
argued that the liability of the third person arose because
he was treated as aiding and abetting the defendant (i.e.
was an accessory) and as the defendant could himself not
B
be in breach unless he had notice it followed that there was
no offence to which the third party could be an accessory.
In my opinion this argument misunderstands the true nature
of the liability of the third party. He is liable for contempt of
court committed by himself. It is true that his conduct may
very often be seen as possessing a dual character of c
contempt of court by himself and aiding and abetting the
contempt by another, but the conduct will always amount
to contempt by himself. It will be conduct which knowingly
interferes with the administration ofjustice by causing the
Order of the court to be thwarted."
D
C] The extent of liability of third party in such actions was
considered by the House of Lords in Attorney General v. Times
Newspapers Ltd. and another'. In that case the Attorney General
had brought action against two newspapers seeking permanent injunction
restraining them from publishing material from a book written by a person
who was formerly a member of the security service and by terms of his E
employment was bound by confidentiality which would stand breached
if his memoirs were published. While the interlocutory injunctions
restraining publication of the material pending trial of such action was
granted against those two newspapers, three other newspapers published
extensive extracts and summaries of the book following which F
proceedings for criminal contempt against them were brought by the
Attorney General. At the trial of those proceedings those three other
newspapers were held to be guilty of criminal contempt. Lord Brandon
of Oakbrook concluded as under:
" .................. The claims of the Attorney General in the G
confidentiality actions were for permanent injunctions
restraining the defendants from publishing what may
conveniently be called Spycatcher material. The purpose
of the Millet injunctions was to prevent the publication of
3
(1991) 2 All ER 398
H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A any such material pending the trial of the confidentiality
actions. The consequence of the publication ofSpycatcher
material by the publishers and editor of the Sunday Times
before the trial of the confidentiality actions was to nullify,
in part at least, the purpose of such trial because it put into
the public domain part of the material which it was claimed
B
by the Attorney General in the confidentiality actions ought
to remain confidential: It follows that the conduct of the
publishers and editor of the Sunday Times constituted the
actus reus ofimpeding or interfering with the administation
ofjustice by the court in the confidentiality actions."
c D] In a separate concurring opinion Lord Jauncey ofTullichettle
stated as under:
"I turn to consider whether there is any reason why
established principle should not be applied to the situation in
this case. I do not accept the propostion that to apply
D established principles in the foregoing circumstances would
effectively be to convert every injuction from an order in
personam to an order contra mundum. That proposition
ignores the distinction between the breach of an order by
the person named therein and interference with the course
E of justice resulting from a frustration of the order by the
third party."
25. In our view, the Medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish
Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to the
respondent without there being any reason or medical condition justifying
F prolonged admission of the respondent as an indoor patient as a cover to
defeat the Orders passed by this Court and the Trial Court, as stated
above and thereby aided and assisted the respondent in violating the
Order of this Court. By such conduct these Medical Professionals have
obstructed administration ofj ustice.
G 26. We thus hold that the respondent guilty of having violated the
Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court and for having obstructed
administration of justice. We also hold Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr.
K.S. Sachdev guilty for having helped the respondent in his attempts
and thereby obstructing administration of justice. Having held so, we
could straightaway have imposed appropriate punishment under the Act.
H
SITA RAM v. BALBIR @ BALI 1013
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
However, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to these A
contemnors. The respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered an
apology. At the same time for Dr. K.S. Sachdev, Managing Director of
the company that owns the hospital is said to be 76 years of age.
Considering the fact that these are medical professionals with sufficient
standing, in our view ends ofjustice would be met if on!;) more opportunity B
is granted to them to present their view on the issue of punishment. In
the circumstances, we direct presence of these three contemnors on
January 2, 2017. The respondent is in custody and therefore appropriate
production warrant shall be issued under the signature of Registrar of
this Court ensuring presence of the respondent before this Court. The
concerned police is directed to facilitate such production of the C
respondent. The contemnors can also present their views and make
appropriate submission in writi11g on or before December 23, 2016:
27. Coming to the role of the police officials in the present matter,
we have already observed that the conduct exhibited by the concerned
police officials in not ensuring compliance of the Orders passed by the D ·
Trial Court calls for strict administrative action. The actions in that
behalf have already been initiated and for the present we rest content by
observing that the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken to logical end
and the guilty shall be brought to book. We request the Director General
of Police of Haryana and the Home Secretary to look into the matter
and ensure that the departmental proceedings are taken to logical end at E
the earliest. The status report/action taken report in that behalf shall be
filed in this court within three months from the date of this judgment.
28. As regards the role of Mr. ShanshankAnand, Superintendent
of Police, Rohtak, we find that he took charge as Superintendent of
Police, Rohtak on 24. l I .2014 i.e. well afterthe Order dated 24.10.2013 F
of this Court and after the Orders directing issuance of non-bailable
warrants against the respondent were passed by the Trial Court. However,
even according to his own affidavit, ifhc became aware that respondent
had not surrendered despite cancellation of his bail and that he was
admitted in Privat Hospital, Gurgaon only in February 2015, the steps G
that he took after I 6.2.20 I 5 cannot strictly be called actions taken with
reasonable promptitude. Even according to Paras 6, 7 and 8 of affidavit
dated 2.07.2015 nothing was done during the period 27.02.2015 to
23.03.2015. The action apparently was initiated only after the Order
dated 24.4.2015 was passed by this Court. Though we express
H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R.
A dissatisfaction, we do not deem it appropriate to carry the matter further
as against him. The notice issued to him is discharged and the petition
as against him stands closed.
29. Ordered accordingly.
B
Kalpana K. Tripathy Matter adjourned.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search