Is Acceptance Of Apology Enough To Purge Contempt? Allahabad High Court Explains Why Punishment Can Still Be Awarded

Dealing with the recall and apology plea of an advocate facing criminal contempt for making scandalous allegations against the court, a bench of Justice Siddharth observed that the acceptance of an apology is not equivalent to discharge.

It added that the court retains full discretion to decide whether to discharge the contemnor or still award punishment, depending on the gravity of the contempt.

"A bona fide apology surely must be taken into consideration in mitigating a sentence but it does not purge the contemnor. He cannot claim to be discharged as a matter of right", the bench noted.

Briefly put, the contemnor-advocate had earlier attributed to the judge the remark "यह बेवकूफी की बहस है" [Translation : This is a foolish argument) in his written submission. He also accused the Court of bias, dishonesty and lack of 'probity' during the hearing of a bail application.

Later, he unconditionally apologies and contended that once the court accepted his apology, it could not proceed further or impose punishment in view of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Rejecting this argument, the Court noted that proviso to Section 12 expressly envisages two possibilities: discharge of the contemnor or remission (mitigation) of punishment.

It added that the use of both expressions 'discharged' and 'remitted' in the proviso shows that the Legislature has intentionally left discretion with the court, rather than making acceptance of apology an automatic ground for discharge.

Justice Siddharth further elaborated that the word 'remit' carries two connotations, either complete pardon or partial mitigation of sentence. The Court explained thus:

"…a discretion is left to the court even after accepting an apology either to refrain from awarding any punishment to the contemnor or to award him lenient punishment. It is not for nothing that the Legislature has used both expressions in the proviso. If the intention of the Legislature was otherwise, it could have added in the proviso some such terms as "provided that the accused shall be discharged on an apology being made to the satisfaction of the court".

Thus, the Court made it clear that acceptance of apology doesn't mean that the accused is entitled to an automatic discharge and it is only a factor that may weigh in mitigation of sentence.

To hold thus, the Court referred to the ratio laid down in Addl, Sessions Judge Hardoi v Banwari Lal AIR 1948 Oudh 114 : (1948) 49 Cri LJ 108 where it was held that "an apology", though it often mitigates the offence, does not entitle the offender to a discharge as a matter of right

The single judge further observed that the gravity of the contempt plays a decisive role. If the contempt is minor, an unconditional and bona fide apology may be enough to purge it. But in grave cases, mere acceptance of apology "may not be adequate to meet the ends of justice".

Accordingly, the Court held that the contemnor cannot claim discharge as a matter of right simply because his apology was accepted.

More details of the order here : Allahabad High Court Refuses Relief To Advocate Facing Contempt For Alleging Judge Was 'Dishonest' & Lacked 'Probity'