Pritam Pal VS High Court of Madhya Pradesh

● CASE DETAILS:
Petitioner: Pritam Pal
Respondent: High Court of Madhya Pradesh through Registrar
Date of judgement : 19/02/1992
Bench: S.R. Pandian, K. Jayachandra Reddy

● FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant, a High Court advocate, had previously been employed by the
Defence Accounts Department as a rehire after leaving the army. He had
submitted a writ petition to the High Court seeking a number of benefits
related to his time spent serving in the army and the Defence Accounts
Department, including a pension, gratuity, salary, and allowances. The Writ
Petition was dismissed by the High Court. Additionally, it denied the
appellant's request for a review. His Special Leave Petition challenging the
High Court's ruling was similarly denied by this court.

Following the dismissal of his Writ Petition and Review Petition, the appellant
filed a Contempt Petition under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, levelling some serious accusations against the two High Court
Judges.He accused the court that the writ petition was dismissed without
hearing the petitioner. The contempt petition was summarily dismissed by a
Division Bench of the High Court.

In the meantime, the High Court Registry looked into the claims stated in the
affidavit submitted by the appellant regarding the contempt charges set forth
by the High Court. The appellant stated in his reply that the notice was
improper as there was no specific reference made to the section of the
Contempt of Court, 1971 under which cognizance had been taken.

The High Court overruled the appellant's objections after reviewing the
comments he made in his petition for contempt, concluding that the
contemner had engaged in criminal contempt by scandalising the Court,
diminishing its stature, and materially obstructing the administration of justice.
The High Court condemned the appellant to two months of simple
imprisonment after noting the contemner's stubborn attitude, which included
his lack of desire to apologise and attempt to defend the accusations.
 In the appeal before this Court, the defendant argued that the order of the
High Court should be set aside due to procedural irregularities in that
(1) the offending remarks had not been communicated to him in accordance
with Rules 5 and 9 formulated by the High Court
(2) the cognizance of the criminal contempt had not been taken in accordance
with Section 15 of the Act
(3) the procedure, after cognizance, had not been followed in accordance with
Section 15 of the Act.

Additionally, he argued that he hadn't had a fair and thorough hearing, that the
judges had unfairly tried him and ignored the well-established rule that
everyone has the fundamental right to voice their criticism, and that the order
in question was preconceived and prejudged. In an effort to defend his
actions, which had resulted in the High Court opening a case for contempt of
court, he made some comments against the judges of the High Court in his
written statement as well.

● ISSUES OF THE CASE:

1) Is the contempt petition by the appellant against the High Court valid?
2) Can the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 overtake the power granted to HC &
SC by the constitution ?

● JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court and the High Court, which are Courts of Record under
Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution are each granted a particular
jurisdiction that is derived directly from those two Constitutional
Articles.Therefore, the constitutionally guaranteed right cannot be either
revoked or diminished by any law, including the Contempt of Courts Act.
By stating this, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. In addition to that,
the Supreme Court agreed with the punishment of 2 months of imprisonment
for the appellant by the High Court as scandalising the court is a serious
offence.

● CASE ANALYSIS:

According to Section 2(a)(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, "contempt

of court" refers to either civil or criminal contempt. While "civil contempt" is
defined under Section 2(b) as the willful disobedience of any judgement
decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court or the willful breach of
an undertaking given to court.
On the other hand, Section 2(c) defines "criminal contempt" as the publication
of any matter or the performance of any other act, whether by words, spoken
or written, signs, visible representations, or any other means, and includes the
following acts:

1.Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority

of, any court; or

2.Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any

judicial proceeding; or

3.Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the

administration of justice in any other manner.

In this case, the contemnor scandalises the court and demeans the judge with
false accusation after failing to secure an order in his favour. Scandalising
here means an attack on a judge or the whole Court by casting derogatory
allegations on the ability of the judge. Such conduct is punished as criminal
contempt according to Section 20 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as it tends
to create distrust in the mind of common people and reduces trust of people in
the judiciary.

The contemner was punished with 2 months of imprisonment by the High

Court of MP for criminal contempt. When the Contemner filed an appeal at the
apex court, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and agreed with the
decision of the High Court.The Supreme Court further observed that the
summary procedure is to be followed. The punishment for this type of criminal
contempt cannot be avoided with an apology as the act done by the
contenner affected the dignity of the court in front of the common people.
Court is a place where justice is served. As an officer of the court, an
advocate should not act in a way that lowers the confidence of the court.
Punishing a contemnor for doing such a grievous act will reduce such
happenings in the future.

Ajaykumar Pandey contempt case, Rama Dayal v State of Madhya Pradesh

are similar cases that scandalised the court after failing to secure an order in
his favour. The contemnors are punished in these cases also.