Allahabad High Court: In contempt application filed by an Advocate under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘Act’) with the prayer to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the then puine Judge of this Court Justice Sunita Agrawal (now Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court), the division bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, JJ. while rejecting the present Criminal Contempt Application, for being wholly misconceived, frivolous, irresponsible and merit-less, said that in the interest of proper functioning of this Institution, such applications should be discouraged. More so, when the litigant happens to be an Advocate from whom the Court is entitled to except certain degree of responsibility and restraint as an Officer of the Court.
The applicant submitted that an order dated 07-12-2020 was passed by the Division Bench presided over by the opposite party without hearing his arguments and a cost of Rs.15,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner.
The Court said that the orders passed by Justice Sunita Agrawal has been passed by the Division Bench presided over by her in exercise of its judicial discretion and based on the facts and circumstances of each case, which does not in any way tantamount to contempt of her own Court, for which, the applicant proposes to initiate the criminal contempt proceedings that too only against her.
After perusing Section 15(1)(a)(b) of the Act, the Court noted that in respect of criminal contempt, the Supreme Court or High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or another person with the consent of Advocate General in writing.
The Court highlighted that the instant criminal contempt application has not been filed by the Advocate General nor with his consent in writing, rather, the Advocate General vide his order dated 07-05-2024 has rejected the applicant’s application for consent in writing, which order has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
The Court remarked that the whole object of prescribing procedural mode of taking cognizance under Section 15 of the Act is to safeguard the valuable time of the Court from being wasted by the frivolous contempt petitions filed under the Act.
The Court mentioned that the requirement under Section15(1) is for the mere purpose of ensuring that the High Court is not flooded with frivolous motions but receives only motions of substance. The Advocate General has been entrusted with that function by virtue of his legal training, experience and the responsibility presumed in the holder of that Office.
The Court also said that the framers of the Act consciously wanted to put a bar on the power of private individuals, while charging any person for having committed criminal contempt of the Court with an object to curtail vexatious petition for settling personal score being filed by persons, who are purporting to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Court.
The Court remarked that “every citizen has no unfettered right in this respect because in some cases, he may act more out of personal prestige and vendetta than out of motive to uphold the dignity of Court”.
The Bench also reiterated that contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hypersensitive or swung by the emotions but must act judiciously.
The Court opined that the act and conduct of Justice Sunita Agrawal in passing the orders referred to herein-above, does not fall within the domain of “Criminal Contempt” as defined in the Act.
Thus, the Court held that the present criminal contempt application is not only frivolous but is also vexatious.
[Arun Mishra v. Justice Sunita Agrawal, 2024 SCC OnLine All 5519, decided on 21-09-2024]
