「 ✦ Content ✦ 」

Facts of the Case

The appellant in this case, Gulshan Bajwa, is an advocate in practice and a former army personnel who was charged under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the Delhi High Court for passing threatening remarks to a lady counsel and for conduct to lower the authority of the Court. However, the High Court also imposed three months of civil imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in each of the two contempt cases.

Legal Issues

Whether the threatening remarks made by the appellant to the opposing counsel in a courtroom and applications filed making baseless allegations against the judges could be contemptuous?

Whether the appellant repeated failure to appear in court despite multiple notices and warrants, could be viewed as deliberate disobedience?

Legal Provisions

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The Act in question defines and limits the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of court and regulates their procedure in relation thereto.

No other specific provisions were dealt with in the matter.

Arguments by Appellant

It was urged on behalf of the appellant, Gulshan Bajwa, that the actions on his part did not constitute contempt because he was merely exercising his Fundamental Right under Article 19 of the Constitution to freedom of speech and expression. The allegations he made were as a result of his bonafide grievances and at no point in time aimed at defaming the Court or the Judiciary. His non-appearance before the court was on account of bona fide health problems and not as an act of defiance.

Arguments by Respondents

It was submitted by the Registrar, High Court of Delhi and the other respondents that the conduct of the appellant was deliberate and was intended to intimidate and obstruct the process of the court. Repeated failure to appear in the court having knowledge of the proceedings was a clear act of contempt. Baseless allegations against the judges were malicious and intended to undermine public confidence in the Judiciary.

Analysis and Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court of India has gone into minute detail with regard to the appellant's conduct and has noted that it was found by the court that the appellant's threatening remarks against the lady counsel were in open court and in the presence of other members of the Bar, and thus there was direct interference with the administration of justice. In the case at hand, it was clear that with repeated failures to appear and a history of transfer petitions and applications with reckless allegations against judges, it was a course of conduct intended to browbeat and undermine the judiciary. Despite multiple opportunities, the Appellant has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation of his conduct that would justify initiation of contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court, in the present appeal, confirmed the judgment and order of the High Court convicting the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and ended with the finding that the acts of the appellant were a deliberate attempt to interfere with the process of the judicial course and the stringent punishment was needed to maintain the dignity and authority of the judiciary. The court order condemned the appellant to three months of civil imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 in each contempt case, reiterating that the decorum and respect for the judicial process ought not to be compromised.

Conclusion

It is a reiteration of the judiciary's commitment to not letting anyone or anything dent its dignity and authority. The strong message the court sent out in its order is that contempt is treated seriously, for if the rule of law has to be upheld, then such cases have to be suitably punished.

OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.

WRITTEN BY: MARIA THERESE SYRIAC

GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK