Accusing Judge As Corrupt In Open Court, Does It Not Lower Image Of Judiciary?

Justice. Abhay M. Thipsay

27 Jan 2025 12:17 PM IST

  • Accusing Judge As Corrupt In Open Court, Does It Not Lower Image Of Judiciary?

    Recently, I went through a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the matter of S.B. Patil Versus Manubhai Hargovandas Patel, Criminal Reference No.5 of 2024 decided on September 3, 2024 (reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3609). Finding the judgment erroneous and contrary to law on the face of it, I collected the record of the reference and was further shocked to note the glaring errors...

    Recently, I went through a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the matter of S.B. Patil Versus Manubhai Hargovandas Patel, Criminal Reference No.5 of 2024 decided on September 3, 2024 (reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3609). Finding the judgment erroneous and contrary to law on the face of it, I collected the record of the reference and was further shocked to note the glaring errors in the said decision of the Bombay High Court and its devastating effect on the judiciary.

    The facts of the case, as seen from the judgement of the Bombay High Court itself, are as follows:

    1 One S.B. Patil, 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, had made a reference to the High Court under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, stating that one Manubhai Patel i.e. the Respondent had committed gross Contempt of Court. The facts show that the said Manubhai Patel was plaintiff in a suit pending before the said court viz, Court of the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, and that the suit had been filed for recovery of money. The said Manubhai Patel had filed written notes of arguments and prayed for passing of ex-parte decree. The matter was thereafter adjourned for further arguments. That, on 04/01/2024, when the Judge was hearing a time bound matter, the said Manubhai Patel, who was appearing as 'party in person,' requested for hearing of his matter, which was not possible. He was accordingly informed that the matter was adjourned to some other date. The reference mentions that the Judge had shown tolerance while entertaining the said Manubhai Patel, in the midst of the hearing of a time bound matter, considering his age and to avoid inconvenience to him. On being informed of the new date, the said Manubhai Patel said to the Judge in open court “तुम्हाला किती लाच द्यायची” (how much bribe is to be given to you). Upon this, the judge issued a notice to him calling upon him to show cause as to “why reference under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act should not be made to the High Court.” Thereafter, the said Manubhai Patel filed another application making scandalous and wild allegations against the Judge about demand of illegal gratification. He also filed one more miscellaneous application purporting to be under section 479 of Criminal Procedure Code, contending that the Court had lost jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Again, a show cause notice was issued to the said Manubhai Patel for his additional and further acts of contempt. He submitted his reply to the show cause notices. He did not tender any apology, but, on the contrary, again made more scandalous and derogatory statements. The Civil Judge therefore made a reference as contemplated under section 15(2) to the Contempt of Courts Act, to the High Court.

    The matter came up before a Division Bench of Hon'ble Judges of the Bombay High Court. The order passed by the High Court shows that the learned Judges had gone through the documents submitted along with the reference. They then focused on the reply filed by the said Manubhai Patel to the show cause notice issued by the Civil Judge and found that the said Manubhai Patel had quoted 'British Judge Lord Denning'. The learned Judges reproduced the observations of Lord Denning as quoted by the said Manubhai Patel. The High Court came to the conclusion that the said Manubhai Patel “has made personal allegations against the judicial officer due to the time consumed in the litigation and we find that though the Judicial Officer might be justified in adjourning the matter, however it seems that the litigant got disturbed due to the delay and the time consumed in the litigation, and hence he made personal allegations against the referral Judge of seeking illegal gratification for hearing the matter”. (Para-9 of the reported judgement).

    2 The High Court further observed that “considering that these are the personal remarks made against the concerned Judge, and it do not amount to 'causing interference', in the administration of justice or lowering the authority of the Court and it does not attract Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. We find no case being made out for reference. Hence, the Reference is declined. (Para-10 of the reported judgment).

    Thus, the matter came to be dismissed without even issuing a notice to the said Manubhai Patel and even without calling upon him to have his say in the matter. Two paragraphs from his reply to the show cause notice issued by the Civil Judge, were quoted in the order, but the High Court did not express whether it agreed with those paragraphs or whether the High Court had gone through the judgment in which the observations of Lord Denning were supposed to be contained.

    3 It is unfortunate that the High Court had failed to grasp the concept of 'Contempt of Court'.

    4 Contempt of Court is a concept under which the Courts have been vested with the jurisdiction and power to punish a contemnor. The object of conferring this jurisdiction and power is to prevent obstruction to the proper administration of justice. The Courts which are required to decide the disputes between the contesting parties need to be fearless and independent. A party not satisfied with the decision of the Court/Judge (and ordinarily, one party is bound to be unsatisfied with the decision) may tendency to attack the integrity of the proceedings including the integrity of the Judge. Such attacks are bound to reduce the faith of public in the administration of justice. Judges need to be given some protection from some such possible attacks. Even before a decision is rendered, parties are likely to pressurize a Judge for giving a decision as per their desire by making insinuations and/ or allegations that the Judge is not acting fairly or honestly and attribute dishonest or corrupt motives to him. The law relating to 'Contempt of Court' originates from the necessity to deter the litigants and public from making such attacks on the Judges and to ensure that the Judges maintain their freedom and fearlessness to decide a case in accordance with law and further that the orders passed by them are duly complied with.

    5 The Contempt of Courts Act contemplates two types of contempt: one 'Civil Contempt' and the other 'Criminal Contempt'. Civil Contempt is defined as “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” (Section 2 [b]). Criminal Contempt is defined as “the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which

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

    ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or

    iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; (Section 2[c]).

    6 Thus, an act which scandalizes, or tends to scandalize, or lowers, or tends to lower the authority of any Court, is “criminal contempt”. Further, any act which prejudices, or interferes with, or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings, is criminal contempt. Also, an act which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner, is criminal contempt.

    Subordinate Courts have not been given the powers to punish the contemnor (except when the contemnor intentionally offers any insult, or causes interruption to a public servant while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, which is an offence under the penal law). Such power has been vested in the High Courts. Section 15 provides for taking cognizance of criminal contempt. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, provides that in the case of criminal contempt of Subordinate Court, the High Court may take action on a reference made by it to the High Court, or on a motion made by the Advocate General. Various High Courts have framed Rules under the powers vested in them by Article-227 of the Constitution of India and such Rules are included in the criminal manuals issued by the High Courts for the guidance of the Subordinate judiciary within their jurisdiction. These rules basically require holding of some sort of inquiry by the Subordinate Court before making a reference and forwarding the relevant documents to the High Court so that the High Court has material before it while taking cognizance of the alleged contempt. In this background, declining to take a note of the reference and disposing of the matter without even issuing a notice to the alleged contemnor, indicates that the High Court was of the view.

    (i) that a litigant's act of asking a Judge in open court as "तुम्हाला किती लाच द्यायची" (as to 'how much bribe is to be given to you) does not, even prima-facie, scandalize or lower the authority of the Court on the face of which such a statement is made.

    (ii) such remarks or question by the contemnor – who a litigant is - in open court, does not prejudice or interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings.

    (iii) such questioning in open court and conveying / making an allegation of corrupt motives to the Judge by a litigant, does not interfere or obstruct the administration of justice, in any manner.

    7 The reasoning of the High Court reflected in Para 9 of the order is that “plaintiff has made personal allegations against the Judicial Officer due to the time consumed in the litigation”. The High Court further observed that 'though the Judicial Officer might be justified in adjourning the matter it seems that the litigant got disturbed due to the delay and the time consumed in the litigation, and hence he made personal allegations against the referral Judge of seeking illegal gratification for hearing the matter'. The High Court seems to be of the view that if a litigant gets disturbed due to the delay and the time consumed in the litigation and makes 'personal allegations' against the judge of seeking illegal gratification for hearing the matter, then, that would not amount to contempt. In fact, the High Court has not said – and could not have said – that these allegations were true; and from the observations made by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has accepted the fact that these allegations were made only because the litigant was unhappy about the delay. In other words, the High Court has considered the allegations to be not correct; and originating from the disturbed state of mind of the litigant, which disturbed state of was due to the delay in disposing of the matter, even though the act of adjourning the matter would be justified. Thus, the High Court's view is that if the litigant feels aggrieved or is unhappy about the way his matters are conducted, he can make an allegation against the judge of seeking illegal gratification and that this would not amount to contempt, 'being personal remarks against the judge'.

    8 The High Court has further observed in Para-10 that these are 'personal allegations against the concerned Judge and it do not (sic) amount to causing interference in the administration of justice or lowering the authority of the court'. This is also shocking. It is because 'the lowing of the authority of the court' or 'scandalizing the court' or 'interfering with the judicial proceedings' or 'obstructing the administration of justice', usually is caused by making personal remarks against the concerned judges. 'Scandalizing the court' cannot take place without scandalizing the judicial officer, who presides over the court. The authority of any court is exercised through the judicial officer presiding over it and lowering the authority of any court obviously does not mean lowering the authority of the court building or walls or furniture.

    If decided cases in relation to criminal contempt are examined, invariably one would find that 'scandalizing the court' has taken place by making allegations and remarks against an individual judge; and these acts of making such remarks have been held to be 'Contempt of Court'. The proposition that 'the act of a litigant in 'making personnel remarks' against a judge in open court, and thereby alleging and conveying that the judge expects a bribe from a litigant to decide a case does not amount to contempt', is shocking. The High Court should have at least kept in mind the provisions of Section-6 of the Act, the marginal note of which reads as 'Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt'. The marginal note itself indicates that complaints against presiding officers of subordinate courts would amount to contempt except in the cases excempted in the said section. Even remarks in a complaint against a judge would amount to contempt of court. To exempt a person from being guilty of contempt by making imputations or allegations against the presiding officers of subordinate courts, such imputations should have been made by him, firstly, in good faith and secondly, before appropriate authorities. In fact, this section says even a complaint, or allegations made in good faith would amount to contempt if it is not made to the authorities mentioned in the section.

    9 The High Court has not examined the context in which Lord Denning's observations were made. In fact, it does not appear from the judgment that the High Court tried to trace the case law wherein, according to the contemner, the observations have been made. Instead, the High Court appears to have relied upon the statement of the contemnor, to hold that Lord Denning had indeed made such a statement.

    10 Personal remarks on the Judges may not amount to contempt of court if they have no relation to any proceedings pending before the court and if they do not have the tendency to scandalize or lower the authority of the court, or to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings, etc. There is no dearth of reported cases where 'personal remarks' against a Judge, scandalizing him- sometimes even in complaints to superior authorities or in transfer applications- have been held to be Contempt of Court.

    11 If the record of the Reference is seen, it is revealed to be a case of gross criminal contempt by a reckless litigant. The reference gives the relevant details. The reference also mentions that the contemnor was insisting that the order in his favour must be passed immediately, and on the court not doing that, made an allegation, that the Judge needed bribe for passing the order. When the show cause notice was issued to the contemnor, he filed an application saying that the court hadlost jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. The reference also reveals that the contemnor was in the habit of making complaints and even on earlier instances, the contemnor had made allegations of bias against the presiding officers. The reference clearly shows that the contemnor had been pressurizing the judges for passing order without going through the merits of the matter; and on the refusal of the court to pass such order on his mere asking, he would make scandalous allegations against the presiding officers and threaten them. The contemnor had gone to the extent of filing an application in the court 'to display the board showing amount of bribe to be paid, name of the person and his mobile number, for payment of bribe'. The reference specifically states that because of his act, the contemnor has lowered the image of the judge in the mind of staff members and litigants.

    12 An examination of the record further shows that he mischievously made an application with a 'humble prayer' to give the name of agent/mediator and amount of bribe to be paid in the matter to get justice on merit. This mockery of the court itself is a serious and gross contempt in itself. In some of the applications filed by him, the title clause reads as “In the court of corrupt and anti-national Judge'' Such applications were presented before the Registry which were rightly not numbered by the Registry. This has been observed by the High Court in its order also.

    13 If, in such a case, the High Court does not even issue a notice to the alleged contemnor, the High Court is failing in its constitutional duty. The High Court is supposed to act as guardian of subordinate judiciary. The High Court has a duty to protect the independence, fearlessness and dignity of the courts, in which, the High Court has, clearly, failed. The High Court did not give a thought even to what would be the effect of its order on the concerned judge, and the entire Subordinate judiciary.

    14 Even in the High Court, several matters are adjourned every day for want of time, much against the wishes of one of the parties. Surely, this is due to the time constraint and volume of the work in the High Court. But what if a litigant is annoyed or disturbed by the delay and makes 'personal remarks' against the concerned Judge/Judges attributing or suggesting corruption? Will the High Court hold in such cases that the person is not guilty of contempt?

    15 I am reminded of a case where a Magistrate at Nadiyad, Gujarat, was assaulted and paraded on road by the police. The matter got great publicity in media. However, the Sessions Court had kept quiet and granted anticipatory bail-that too a personal bond- to some of the accused police officers. The High Court also did nothing. The Supreme Court, however, took a serious note of the incident and in its extraordinary jurisdiction, convicted several senior police officers, including IPS officers, holding them guilty of gross Contempt of Court. The incident had not taken place in the court, and it was only a “personal beating” given to the Judge. However, it was held to be criminal contempt of the highest order. One can hope that this matter also draws the attention of students of law and is deliberated upon the contours of contempt jurisdiction.


    The author is a former Judge at Bombay High Court. Views are personal.

    Next Story