Summary
The Court found the Trust’s chairman guilty of contempt for persistent attempts to scandalise and intimidate the Court and its officers during recovery of previously imposed costs. Repeated purported apologies lacked genuine remorse and were followed by renewed allegations. The Court reaffirmed that fair criticism is permissible but motivated attacks impairing administration of justice are not. The costs-recovery application was closed with recovery directions preserved. Final sentence was deferred to a further hearing despite the composite notice already covering sentence.
Issues
- Whether persistent scandalising allegations and purported apologies constituted contempt.
- Whether costs recovery should continue and whether final sentence should be imposed immediately.
Provisions considered
- Articles 129 and 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court reaffirmed its constitutional contempt power, distinguishing Article 129’s status from the express qualification in Article 142(2) concerning parliamentary law. (¶¶ 30, 31)
Held
- The existing costs order remained enforceable; earlier refusal to modify it had not terminated recovery. The State was to commence recovery as arrears of land revenue and remit recoveries to the designated beneficiary. Recovery naturally depended on resources available to the Trust and its chairman. The miscellaneous application was closed on that basis. (¶¶ 14, 18, 21, 22, 23)
- Appearing in person did not license repeated aspersions against the judiciary. Fair, good-faith criticism remained permissible, but calculated efforts to discredit the institution or impair administration of justice attracted contempt jurisdiction. The litigant could not secure a different Bench by intimidating allegations. (¶¶ 1, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31)
- The persistent scandalising conduct established guilt. The apologies were attempts to escape consequences, followed by further allegations, and the final purported apology lacked genuine remorse. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 32, 33)
- The notice covered both contempt liability and sentence. Although the Court considered a further sentencing hearing unnecessary in these circumstances, it granted another opportunity and directed listing for final sentence. No sentence was imposed by this judgment. (¶¶ 32, 34)
Result
Miscellaneous Application No.1630/2020 closed with existing costs-recovery directions preserved. Chairman found guilty of contempt; matter to be listed for hearing on final sentence.