Summary
The Central Administrative Tribunal charged an advocate with criminal contempt. The charge was that, in open court, he insisted on an in-camera hearing because he had something to say against the Chairman, and then refused to say it. He denied the charge and insisted on a trial under Rule 15 of the CAT Contempt Rules. Relying on Leila David, the Tribunal held that no trial was needed for contempt in the face of the court and convicted him, letting him off with a warning. The Court held that the Tribunal has the High Court's contempt powers under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, but not this Court's powers under Articles 129 and 142. With the central fact disputed, denying the trial contemplated by Section 14(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and Rule 15 was a miscarriage of justice. The conviction and the reference to the Bar Councils were set aside.
Issues
- Whether, after framing a charge of contempt in the face of the court that the alleged contemnor denied, the Central Administrative Tribunal could convict him without holding a trial or taking evidence.
- Whether Leila David v. State of Maharashtra permits a tribunal to dispense with trial in such a case.
Provisions considered
- Section 14, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971For contempt in the face of the court, the contemnor must be informed of the charge and given a chance to defend it. Evidence is to be taken as necessary or as he offers before the charge is determined, so a denied charge required evidence. (¶¶ 10, 13, 26)
- Section 17, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985It confers on the Tribunal the contempt powers of a High Court, including under Section 14. It confers none of the Supreme Court's powers under Articles 129 and 142, on which Leila David partly rested. (¶¶ 11, 24)
- Rules 13 and 15, Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992Where the respondent pleads not guilty to a framed charge, the case is to proceed to trial following summary trial procedure, with evidence by affidavit, cross-examination or witnesses. No such trial was held. (¶¶ 6, 14, 15, 26)
Held
- The appellant denied the charge and gave a materially different account of what happened. He did not admit making an insinuation against the Chairman or refusing to disclose it in open court. Had the charge been established, the Court would have had little difficulty upholding the conviction, but the crux of the matter was disputed. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Section 14(1)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and Rules 13 and 15 of the CAT Contempt Rules contemplate taking evidence and a trial when the charge is denied. The appellant pleaded not guilty and insisted on trial, yet judgment was reserved and delivered without any evidence being taken. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 19, 24)
- Leila David turned on its own facts of grave contumacious conduct in the face of this Court, including throwing footwear at the Judges, and on the powers under Articles 129 and 142. The Tribunal has a High Court's contempt powers under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act but not those Article powers, so it could not rely on Leila David to dispense with trial. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 27)
- Denial of the trial contemplated by the statute and the rules, on a denied charge, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The conviction was set aside only on this procedural ground. (¶¶ 26, 28)
Result
Appeal allowed. The Tribunal's order convicting the appellant of contempt, and the direction to forward it to the Bar Council of India and the Delhi State Bar Council, are set aside.