Summary
In suo motu contempt proceedings arising from a transfer petition that made scandalous allegations against a High Court Judge, the Supreme Court held that counsel who sign pleadings scandalising a court without satisfying themselves of adequate grounds are themselves liable for contempt, that involvement of a political figure is no ground to transfer a case out of a State, and that an apology for allegations against a High Court Judge should be tendered to that Judge. The alleged contemnors were permitted to apologise before the High Court Judge, with the matter reopened for that limited purpose, and the question of accepting their apology to the Supreme Court was deferred.
Issues
- Whether a litigant and the advocates who drew and filed a transfer petition containing scandalous allegations against a High Court Judge are liable for contempt, and whether their apology should be accepted.
- Whether the involvement of a political figure in a State is a ground to transfer proceedings from the High Court of that State to another High Court.
- Whether an apology for allegations against a High Court Judge tendered only to the Supreme Court is adequate.
Held
- Following M.Y. Shareef, counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves of the prima facie existence of adequate grounds are themselves guilty of contempt; it is no part of counsel's duty to the client to take any interest in such applications, and counsel must instead advise the client to refrain from such allegations. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- When a lawyer faces a conflict between the duty to the Court and the duty to the client, the duty to the Court must prevail. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The trend of criticising High Court and trial court Judges for no reason, and of alleging that a litigant cannot get justice in a State because a political figure is involved so as to seek transfer, cannot be countenanced; High Court Judges are constitutional functionaries in no way inferior to Supreme Court Judges, enjoy the same immunity, and it is the Supreme Court's duty to protect them when scandalous allegations are made. Implying that a High Court Judge would not act independently because a political figure is involved scandalises the institution of administration of justice. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The mere fact that a petition involves a political figure in a State cannot constitute a ground to transfer proceedings from that State's High Court to another High Court. (¶ 14)
- Since the scandalous allegations were made against the High Court Judge, an apology tendered only to the Supreme Court was inappropriate; the alleged contemnors were permitted to tender an unconditional apology before the High Court Judge, with the disposed-of criminal petition reopened for that limited purpose within one week, the apology to be tendered within a week of reopening and decided within a week thereafter. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22)
- Courts take no pleasure in punishing lawyers for contempt; as held in N. Eswaranathan, the majesty of law lies in forgiving one who acknowledges a mistake, and the Court will be guided by this when deciding on acceptance of the apology tendered to it. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Result
Alleged contemnors permitted to tender unconditional apology before the High Court Judge; Registrar General of the High Court directed to reopen Criminal Petition No. 4162 of 2020 for that limited purpose within one week; question of acceptance of the apology tendered to the Supreme Court deferred; matter listed after four weeks.