The above situation, in our
considered view, called for a broad and magnanimous view of
the matter and the acceptance of the unconditional apology
tendered. Such a course of action, according to us, would have
better served the dignity and majesty of the institution. In fact,
under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with
Explanation thereto an apology ought not to be rejected merely
on the ground that it is accompanied by an explanation for the
lapse that had occurred.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9095 OF 2013
(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.4757 of 2011)
T.C. GUPTA & ANR.
Vs.
HARI OM PRAKASH & ORS.
RANJAN GOGOI, J.1
Citation;(2013) 10 SCC 658
1. Leave granted.
2. By an order dated 31.01.2011 the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana has held the appellants guilty of commission of
contempt and had adjourned the matter to a subsequent date
for hearing on the question of sentence. Aggrieved, this appeal
has been filed.
3.
The facts, in brief, may be noticed.
The respondents 1 & 2 had filed a writ petition (C.W.P.
No.5104 of 2006) in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
challenging the acquisition of land belonging to them under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for
short “the Act”). By the impugned Notification(s) issued under
the Act, over 500 acres of land belonging to different land
owners, including respondents-writ petitioners, was sought to
be acquired.
According to the respondents-writ petitioners,
nearly 80% of the acquired area was subsequently released
from acquisition.
Consequently, the remaining land (which
included the land of the respondents-writ petitioners) had
ceased to be viable for the purpose for which the impugned
acquisition was made, namely, for development of residential
and commercial sectors 8-19 at Sonepat. It was the further
case of the respondents-writ petitioners before the High Court
that the release of the land proposed for acquisition was at the
instance of one Omaxe Housing and Developing Company Ltd.
which had arrived at some understandings with the land owners
and had executed agreements of sale with such land owners
even after publication of the notification under Section 6 of the
Act.
4.
The writ petition filed by the respondents was resisted by
the State by contending, inter-alia, the same to be not
maintainable
on
the
ground
that
the
respondents-writ
petitioners had not filed their objections under Section 5A of the
Act. What happened thereafter is not very relevant save and
except that on 17.01.2011 the following order came to be
passed by the High Court:
“Mr. Sehgal seeks time to file additional
affidavit on the following points:
1.
In how many cases the land of the
landowners who had not filed objections
under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was released through the
mechanism of collaboration agreements?
2. What are the norms to grant licence to
construct a Plotted Colony/Group Housing
Colony?
3. What are the rules regarding classification
of zones i.e. high potential, medium
potential and low potential zones, and
when those norms were amended?
4. Whether the policy/rules/norms were
relaxed to grant licence to any of the 11
collaborations in this case?
Adjourned to 19.1.2011.”
5.
On the date fixed i.e. 19.01.2011, the first appellant filed a
duly verified written statement wherein, after setting out the
order of the High Court dated 17.01.2011, the appellant had
submitted the details of the land owners who had filed their
objections under Section 5A of the Act and whose land was
released from acquisition.
This was in response to the first
query made by the High Court in the order dated 17.01.2011.
In so far as the second, third and fourth queries are concerned,
information was duly furnished by the first appellant. No issue
with regard to the said part of the order dated 17.01.2011
having been raised the same may be understood as not
requiring any further attention.
6.
On consideration of the written statement filed by the first
appellant, the High Court took exception to the information
placed before it in response to the first query.
What was
required to be furnished in response to the said query were the
names of such land owners who had not filed their objections
under Section 5A of the Act and yet their lands were released
from acquisition whereas the information furnished by the first
appellant in the written statement dated 19.01.2011 was the
reverse.
Consequently, notice was issued to both the
appellants to show cause as to why contempt proceedings
should not be initiated against them for not furnishing the
requisite information to the Court. The case was adjourned to
24.01.2011 and then to 28.01.2011.
7.
Separate affidavits were filed by both the appellants on
28.01.2011 wherein they had tendered unconditional and
unqualified apology for not furnishing the necessary information
as required in terms of the order of the High Court dated
17.01.2011. In the affidavit of the first appellant, it was also
stated that as many as 483 land owners had not filed their
objections under Section 5A of the Act despite which their lands
were released and only in 30 instances objections had been
filed pursuant to which the lands of such land owners were
released from acquisition.
also furnished.
All particulars in this regard were
The first appellant, in the affidavit filed, also
sought to explain why the requisite information could not be
furnished on the earlier date fixed i.e. 19.01.2011 along with
the written statement filed on the said date. In this regard it
was contended that though the first appellant was personally
present in court on 17.01.2011 he had not fully comprehended
the order as pronounced in Court.
A copy of the order of the
court dated 17.01.2011 was made available to him only at
about 6.00 p.m. on 18.01.2011 and the written statement was
filed in the next morning i.e. 19.01.2011. It was further stated
by the first appellant that, through hindsight, it would have
been prudent on his part to seek further time to furnish the
information against the first query contained in the order dated
17.01.2011. However, as the first appellant was in a position to
furnish all the requisite information in respect of the other
queries, the written statement dated 19.01.2011 came to be
filed. It was further stated by the first appellant that the lapse
on his part was bona fide and unintentional and he did not have
the remotest intent to withhold any information from the court.
8.
The second appellant who had filed a separate affidavit
also owned responsibility for placing inaccurate information
before the court though, according to him, he was entrusted
with the duty to collect information pertaining to query Nos. 2, 3
and 4 made by the order dated 17.01.2011 whereas the
information in respect of query No.1 was to be gathered by
another official.
9.
The matter was considered on 31.01.2011. The High Court
after noticing the terms of the order dated 17.01.2011; the
written statement filed by the appellant No. 1 on 19.01.2011;
the order dated 19.01.2011 passed by it and the separate
affidavits of the appellants filed on 28.01.2011 reiterated that
the first query raised by it was with regard to the particulars of
the land owners whose land was released from acquisition
though they had not filed their objections under Section 5A of
the Act. According to the High Court as the query raised by it
was “simple and straight” it is incomprehensible that the
appellants, who are senior officers and were personally present
in court, could not have understood the question(s) raised.
Placing reliance on the correspondence dated 17.01.2011
enclosed as annexure A2 and A3 to the affidavit dated
28.01.2011 filed by the first appellant, the High Court came to
the conclusion that from the said correspondence (letters
issued to subordinate officers) authored by the first appellant
himself it is evident that the first appellant understood the
query of the court in clear terms. The projections in the affidavit
dated 28.01.2011 were accordingly understood by the High
Court to be afterthoughts. In view of the above, coupled with
the fact that the first appellant had conducted himself similarly
on earlier occasions, the High Court took the view that in the
present case wrong information was deliberately furnished to
the Court which amounted to an “interference with the due
process of law and judicial proceedings.”
Accordingly, the
impugned order came to be passed holding that the appellants
had wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court for which they are
liable
to
be
punished.
Aggrieved
by
the
aforesaid
developments and the order passed, the present appeal has
been filed.
10. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants and Shri S.S. Shamshery, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
11. The material facts indicating the unfolding of the relevant
events leading to the eventual decision of the High Court has
been narrated in seriatim in the preceding paragraphs.
The
information sought for by the High Court; the response of the
appellants and their explanation with regard to the answers
provided in the first instance and the reasons which had
occasioned the errors therein have all been set out in detail.
Notwithstanding the above, the High Court has come to the
conclusion that the explanation provided by the appellants is a
mere
eyewash
furnished
and
and
wrong
correct
information
information
was
was
deliberately
withheld
by
the
appellants which make them liable in contempt. The basis for
the above conclusion reached by the High Court is the contents
of annexure A2 and A3 to the affidavit dated 28.01.2011 filed
by the first appellant, namely, the email dated 17.01.2011
alongwith attachment sent by the first appellant to his
subordinate officials.
The relevant part of the aforesaid
communication which has been extracted by the High Court in
its order dated 31.01.2011 is as follows:
“The Hon’ble High Court during the hearing
today has directed to file an affidavit whether
the landowners, in favour of whom, above
land has been released and licence has been
granted, filed objections under Section 5-A or
not. You are, therefore, directed to supply
this information in following format in respect
of those who had filed objections under
Section 5-A........”
12. A reading of the above extract would seem to indicate that
on the very day of the order i.e. 17.01.2011 the first appellant
understood the said order to be requiring him to lay before the
High Court information as to whether the land owners in favour
of whom land has been released had filed objections under
Section 5A of the Act or not.
This is how the first appellant
understood the order of the High Court. At that point of time the
order of the Court was not available to the first appellant. On
such understanding of the order dated 17.01.2011 the first
appellant directed the concerned subordinate official to furnish
information in the prescribed format in respect of the land
owners who had filed their objections under Section 5A of the
Act so that the same could be placed before the Court on the
date fixed.
While it may be correct that the first appellant
ought to have sought information not only in respect of land
owners who had filed their objections but also as regards the
land owners who had not filed their objections, the question
that arises is whether the said lapse, by itself, will make the first
appellant liable in contempt?
13. The e-mail dated 17.01.2011, extracted above, partially
bears out the stand taken by the first appellant that he
understood the order of the Court as requiring him to furnish
information in respect of land owners who had filed their
objections. Admittedly, a copy of the order of the court dated
17.01.2011 became available to the first appellant only at 6.00
p.m. on 18.01.2011. In his affidavit the first appellant had also
stated that it would have been better if, on 19.01.2011, he had
sought more time to furnish the requisite information against
query No.1. However, he did not do so as the information in
respect of other queries were available. The circumstances in
which the events have unfolded, in our considered view, does
not lead to the sole conclusion that there was a deliberate or
wilful attempt on the part of the first appellant not to furnish the
requisite information or to furnish wrong information to the
Court. Rather, it appears probable that the failure to furnish the
requisite information to the Court may have been occasioned by
a momentary error of judgment on the part of the first
appellant. For the said lapse he had tendered his unqualified
apology in the affidavit dated 28.01.2011 along with which he
had also furnished the requisite information i.e. name and
particulars of the land owners who had not filed their objections
under Section 5A of the Act.
The above situation, in our
considered view, called for a broad and magnanimous view of
the matter and the acceptance of the unconditional apology
tendered. Such a course of action, according to us, would have
better served the dignity and majesty of the institution. In fact,
under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with
Explanation thereto an apology ought not to be rejected merely
on the ground that it is accompanied by an explanation for the
lapse that had occurred.
14. Before parting, we consider it apt to quote hereunder
certain observations of this Court in its opinion rendered in the
Special Reference No. 1 of 19641 (under Article 143(1) of
the Constitution) made to this Court in the matter arising out of
notice of breach of privilege of the State Legislature issued to
two Hon’ble Judges of the Allahabad High Court as, according to
us it is in the aforesaid spirit that the contempt jurisdiction
ought to be viewed and exercised.
“142. Before we part with this topic, we
would like to refer to one aspect of the
question relating to the exercise of power to
punish for contempt. So far as the courts are
AIR 1965 SC 745
concerned, Judges always keep in mind the
warning addressed to them by Lord Atkin in
Andre Paul v. Attorney-General of Trinidad,
AIR 1936 PC 141. Said Lord Atkin, “Justice is
not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed
to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even
though out-spoken comments of ordinary
men.” We ought never to forget that the
power to punish for contempt large as it is,
must always be exercised cautiously, wisely
and with circumspection.
Frequent or
indiscriminate use of this power in anger or
irritation would not help to sustain the dignity
or status of the court, but may sometimes
affect it adversely. Wise Judges never forget
that the best way to sustain the dignity and
status of their office is to deserve respect
from the public at large by the quality of their
judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and
objectivity of their approach, and by the
restraint, dignity and decorum which they
observe in their judicial conduct. ..........”
15. That the power to punish for contempt is a rare specie of
judicial power which by the very nature calls for exercise with
great care and caution had been reiterated by this Court in
Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra2 whereas in In Re: S. Mulgaokar3, Justice V.R.
Krishna Iyer while noticing the principles of the exercise of
power of contempt had outlined the first of such principles to be
“wise economy of the use of the contempt power by the court”.
Reiteration of the aforesaid principle has been made in several
AIR 1971 SC 221
(1978) 3 SCC 339
subsequent pronouncements of this Court, reference to which
would not be necessary in view of the unanimity of opinion on
the issue that the power to punish for contempt ought to be
exercised only where “silence is no longer an option.”
16. For the aforesaid reasons we are unable to sustain the
conclusion reached by the High Court in its order dated
31.01.2011. We therefore deem it appropriate to set aside the
order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the High Court and allow the
present appeal.
.............................................CJI.
[P. SATHASIVAM]
.............................................J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
NEW DELHI,
OCTOBER 8, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment