N Criminal Appeals Nos
39 40 of 1976
From the Judgment and Order dated 1 12 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Original Nos
13 Crl of 1975 and 14 Crl of 1975
D Mookherjee and Harbans Singh and VM Jain for the appellants
Deven Chetan Das Advocate General Haryana and RN Sachthey for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by RAY CJ These are appeals under section 191b of the against the judgment and order dated 1 December 1975 of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
243 The appellants wrote a letter on 20 February 1975 to the President with copies to the Prime Minister Chief Justice of India the Chief Minister of Haryana and the Chief Jus tice of Punjab and Haryana High Court
The letter was signed by 15 members of the Bar belonging to the District Bar Association Bhiwani
In that letter they brought to the notice of the President that Justice DS Tewatia of the Punjab and Haryana High Court visited the session division of Bhiwani and inspected the Courts from 14 February 1975 to 19 February 1975
In that letter they further stated as follows The learned Judge met the members of the Bar on 15 February 1975 in the Bar Room Bhiwani
During the course of the meeting the learned Judge criticised the Government s policy in regard to its attitude towards the judiciary
Besides the learned Judge was openly attacking the Govern ment in its political as well as administrative decision
On the  whole he gave an impression that he was not a Judge but a politician who had come to Bar Room
When the members of the Bar who had gone to meet the learned Judge in the PWD Rest House Bhiwani he discussed politics with them and criticised the present executive in general and the Congress Party in particular
He suggested the members of the Bar to revolt against the present Government as it has suppressed the civil liberation sic of the individuals and has also failed miserably in all fields
The Judge further said that the prevailing system of Government is not good in this country and we must adopt the communist form of Govern ment which can save the nation
Later on he had some pri vate political discussion with the local CPM leaders
He also accepted the hospitality of the Technological Institute of Textiles Mills people who also took him for a sight seeing from Dadri to Pilani
The members of the District Bar Association highly regret the attitude of Justice DS Tewatia and urge the Government to take appropriate action in this regard
Five members of the Bar Association at Charkhi Dadri sent a letter addressed to the President
with copies to the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court the Chief Minister of Haryana the Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister
In that letter they said that Justice DS Tewatia visited the Bar and inspected the court at Charkhi Dadri on 17 February 1975
Thereafter they stated as follows While talking with the members of the Bar he pointed out that the library of this Bar seems to be very poor
Then Shri Virender Kumar Single a member of the Bar requested the honourable Judge to help the Bar either by supplying books or by allocating the grant by the High Court so that the needy Bar may be able to purchase necessary books for the library
Then the Honourable Judge turned down the request and replied that it is never possible in the present system of Government of India
If you want this kind of help then you should prepare yourself for the commu nist Government in India by creating such atmosphere in the country
At another stage also during the course of his discussion with the members of the Bar over the matter of Rajasthan Law students demands in which they demanded a grant 244 of Rs 5000 from the Government for the library of each fresh law graduate and Rs 200 per month for a period of two years the initial stage of their legal practice he strongly emphasised the need for the communist system of Society and Government in India to fulfil these demands
The learned Judge also met Smt
Chandrawati separately and discussed with her the political affairs of the State
He also expressed his desire to see Comrade Dharam Singh a member of the Marxist Communist Party at his residence before Smt
Chandrawati
During his stay in the rest house he also discussed the teachers agitation and individual position of various political leaders in the State
He also enquired all about Shri Sohan Lal a leader of the teacher s movement in the State
The letter concluded by saying that the Hon ble Judge during his entire stay in his tour deliberately showed the bent of his mind towards commu nism while exchanging view on various matters
The appellants took a copy of their letter to the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana
The appellants could not see the Chief Justice and left the letter with the Registrar in a closed cover
The Registrar told them that the closed cover could reach the Hon ble Chief Justice A notice was issued by the High Court on 12 March 1975 as follows Letter dated 20th February 1975 a copy of an application dated 20 February 1975 signed by 15 members of the District Bar Association Bhiwani has been placed for the consideration of this Bench
On a perusal of the con tents thereof a prima facie case of criminal contempt is made out
We therefore direct that the contempt of Court Punjab and Haryana Rules 1974 be issued to each of the signatories of the above said application returnable for the 1st of April 1975
The High Court did not take any action against two persons on the letter written by five members of the Bar Association of Charkhi Dadri
Each of the appellants affirmed an affidavit in this pattern
It is an article of faith with the deponent that dignity and respect of all Courts and of all Judges and particularly of the High Court must be maintained for amongst other reasons on that depends the orderly function ing of the society as also prestige of the profession to which the deponent has the honour to belong
The deponent has been taught to believe that a Judge ought always to steer clear of all avoidable controversial matters
The deponent most respectfully submits that the contents of the letter which he and others addressed to the President of India cannot be construed as scandalising the Hon ble Judge or the Court in any manner to weaken people s faith in the administration of justice
The letter in question was addressed by the deponent to the President of India with copies to others with the sole object of conveying the opinion that the public expression by the Hon ble Judge of his personal views on controversial political matters con cerning the merits and demerits of the present system of the Government was not in keeping with the well accepted role of proverbial aloofness of a Judge
The letter was addressed bona fide in good faith and without 245 any ill will and no publicity was given to it
It was intended to be a privileged communication made solely with a view to uphold the dignity of the Court
In order to prevent unwanted disclosure of its contents the communica tion in question was brought personally by two members of the Bar Association Bhiwani to Chandigarh in a closed cover addressed to the Chief Justice for being handed over to him for his personal attention
The deponent submits that the contents of the letter
have no relevance or relation to the functioning of the learned Judge of the High Court
The letter does not interfere much less substantial ly with due course of justice or proper administration of law by the courts
The deponent submits that there was no intention whatsoever on his part to scandalise the Hon ble Judge or this Hon ble Court or to lower the authority or undermine the prestige of the learned Judge or of the Hon  ble Court or to weaken in any way the confidence of the people in the administration of justice
The deponent respectfully submits that the communication does not bear out any foundation for an action for criminal contempt
In any case if in view of this Hon ble Court the action of the deponent in addressing the letter in question constitut ed for any reason contempt of court one would be more sorry than the deponent himself
Therefore the deponent tenders his apology to this Hon ble Court for the same and prays for its acceptance
 The Full Bench of the High Court consisting of Justice Surjit Singh Sandhawalia Justice Prem Chand Jain and Jus tice Bhupinder Singh Dhillon extracted portions from the affidavit of the appellants to which references has been made
The Full Bench thereafter referred to paragraph 9 of the affidavit where the deponents said that if in view of this Hon ble Court the action of the deponent in addressing the letter in question constituted for any reason contempt of court no one would be more sorry than the deponent himself
Therefore the deponent tender his apology to this Hon ble Court for the same and prays for its acceptance
After the recital of paragraph 9 the judgment of the Full Bench said as follows In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in rely and in particular in paragraph 9 thereof we accept the apology tendered on behalf of the respondents and discharge the rule issued against them
In our view the judgment is utterly unsound and unsus tainable
The elementary basis of acceptance of apology is that there is to be a finding of committal of contempt
The deponents stated that if the Court is of the view that the letter of the deponents constitute for any reason contempt of court the deponents tender apology
It is a conditional apology
The condition is that if there is contempt the deponents tender apology
In the absence of any finding by the High Court that the appellants committed any contempt of court there was never any occasion for acceptance of apology
It appears before us that the allegations in the letter were not disputed and challenged
The High Court proceeded on the basis that the letters written by the appellants were correct
It is indeed curious 246 that the High Court in the notice referred to the letter of the appellant and said on a perusal of the contents thereof a prima facie case contempt is made out
The High Court did not mention which particular portion of the letter constituted contempt of court
It is necessary to state here that if any Judge address es on political problems or controversies the Judge exposes himself to discussion by public
The reason is that the Judge travels from his judicial work and descends into the arena of politics and parties
The Judge cannot in such a case take shelter behind his office if the public discusses and criticises the views expressed by him
The reason is obvious
It is no part of the duty of a Judge nor is it a duty in discharge of office of a Judge to go and address a meeting on political matters to redress grievances of the people
However if the speech of any Judge is criticised and if it becomes a disputed question of fact as to whether any Judge did speak or not as is alleged by the writer the matter would have to be ascertained by the court on facts whether the Judge concerned did speak on the matters ascribed to him before the court would take any action against the persons who would criticise the Judge s speech
We wish to make it clear that if on facts it appears that the Judge did say things or matters about politics such utterances or views or observations will be the personal opinions expressed by the Judge and therefore the protec tive umbrella of the court cannot be used by way of bringing the critics on the charge of contempt of court
It also appears in the letter that there is an allega tion that the Judge accepted hospitality of some organisa tion
To say that will not by itself be a contempt
All we need say is that it will not be correct and proper for any Judge to accept the invitation and hospitality of any busi ness or commercial organisation or of any political party or of any club or organisation run on sectarian communal or parochial lines
Invitations by the Bar Associ ation or social invitations naturally Stand on a different footing and no one will find an exception to any Judge attending a social function
Judges are by reason of their office and nature of work expected not to get involved in controversial matters or to concern themselves with political issues or policies under taken by political parties as a part of their political programme
We are of opinion that the Full Bench fell into the error of accepting the apology without finding that the appellants committed any contempt
In the absence of such a finding no question arises for acceptance of apology
In view of the fact that the High Court proceeded on the basis that the allegations in the letter were unchallenged we are of opinion that the matters did not constitute any contempt
The High
Court should have dropped the proceed ings and not pursued the matter
247 The judgment is set aside
The contempt proceedings are dropped
We should state here that the Advocate General of Haryana quite fairly stated that the letter did not consti tute any contempt
MR Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellants wrote a letter to the President of India with copies to some others including the Chief Jus tice of Punjab and Haryana High Court criticising the behaviour of a High Court Judge who during his visit to the Sessions Division of Bhivani spoke against the Govern ment s policies and canvassed for a communist system
The High Court issued a notice against the appellants making out a case of criminal contempt of court
The appellants tendered a conditional apology contingent on the courts finding their action to be contempt of court
The apology was accepted
Allowing the appeals and dropping the contempt proceedings the Court
HELD 1 The elementary basis of acceptance of apology is that there is to be a finding of committal of contempt
The Full Bench fell into the error of accepting the apology without finding that the appellants committed any contempt In the absence of such a finding no question arises for acceptance of apology
F G 2 Judges are by reason of their office and nature of work expected not to get involved in controversial matters or to concern themselves with political issues or policies undertaken by political parties
If any Judge addresses on political problems or controversies the Judge exposes himself to discussion by public
He cannot in such a case take shelter behind his office if the public discusses and criticises the views expressed by him and the protective umbrella of the court cannot be used by way of bringing the critics on the charge of contempt of Court
246 A D F G