Criminal Appeal No 315 of 1974
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 22 5 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Contempt Case No 4373
D Mukherjea RN Sharma Umesh Chand RN Trivedi SP Pathak Hari Nath Tilhari SR Srivastava MN Sharma and OP Lal for the Appellants
Yogeshwar Prasad Miss Rani Arora SK Bagga and Mrs section Bagga for Respondent No 1
OP Rana for Respondents 2 and 3
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 22 May 1974 of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Contempt Case No 43 of 1973
The High Court issued notices to five persons on the ground that they committed contempt of Court
602 The two appellants before us are the President of the Avadh Bar Association and the Chairman Action Committee of the Avadh Bar Association
There were three charges against the appellants
It is not necessary to refer in detail to the same
The gist of the charge against the appellants was that they had met and resolved that the Chief Justice was acting in a most parti san manner under the influence of the Allahabad Bar
The text of the resolution was this The Action Committee is of the opinion that the Chief Justice is acting in the dis charge of administrative power under clause 14 of the UP High Court s Amalgamation Order 1948 in a most partisan manner under the influence of Allahabad Bar quite unbecoming of the office which he holds
The High Court discharged the notices
The High Court yet made certain observations some of which are confusing some of which are conflicting and some of which are vague
If the High Court found that there was any contempt it should have punished the appellants
The High Court however discharged the notices
The High Court held that the Chairman of the Action Committee described as contemner No 2 was actively associ ated with the passing of the resolution which contained disparaging remarks about the Chief Justice and since he also issued that resolution for publication in newspapers he is guilty of Criminal Contempt 
The High Court held that since the resolution was passed under the presidentship of the first appellant described as contemner No 1 he is as much guilty of having committed contempt as contemner No 2 was
The High Court further held that contemners Nos
1  2 are guilty of contumacious conduct and the High Court gave the ground that they were responsible for the passing of the resolution
At another place the High Court used words showing that the conduct of the appellants individually was considered only indiscreet by it
The High Court confused criminal contempt  with contu macious conduct 
The matter becomes clear when the High Court said we do not propose to punish contemners Nos 1  2 for the contumacious conduct of which we have adjudged them guilty though we express
our disapproval of that conduct and hope that the indiscretion will not be repeated
We are unable to find that the High Court found the contemners guilty of criminal contempt
It is true that the High Court referred to the contumacious conduct of the appellants but the High Court did not wish to proceed against the appellants
The High Court said on that aspect as follows 603 It is a matter of regret that the contem ners who are prominent members of the Avadh Bar should have themselves embarked on the path of vilifying the Chief Justice of this Court and that we do not want to be over sensitive in the matter keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances in which the contu macious act was committed by them
and also keeping in view the fact that it was a single act of the Chief Justice for which the attack was made we do not propose to punish contem ners for the contumacious conduct for which we have adjudged them guilty though we express our strong
disapproval of that conduct and hope that the indiscretion will not be repeat ed
Counsel for the appellants did not justify the language of the resolution
There is no gainsaying that the members of the Bar did not act with dignity in regard to the resolu tion
The language used by them was unfortunate
Counsel for the appellants rightly said that was not proper and it should not have been passed in that manner
It is the duty of lawyers to protect the dignity and decorum of the judiciary
If lawyers fail in their duty the faith of the people in the judiciary will be undermined to a large extent
It is said that lawyers are the custodians of civilisation
Lawyers have to discharge their duty with dignity decorum and discipline
In view of the fact that the notices were discharged the appeal is disposed of with the foregoing observations


Summary:
The appellant No 1 is the President of the Oudh Bar and appellant No 2 is the Chairman of Action Committee of the Oudh Bar Association
They met and passed a Resolution that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court was acting in a most partisan manner under the influence of the Allahabad Bar and that it was unbecoming of the office which he holds
The High Court issued notices for contempt inter alia to the appellants
The High Court discharged the notices but made certain observations against the appellants
HELD 1
If the High Court found that there was any contempt it should have punished the appellants
The High Court confused criminal contempt with contumacious con duct
This Court is unable to find that the High Court found contemners guilty of criminal contempt
602 D G H 2
There is no gainsaying that the members of the Bar did not act with dignity in regard to the resolution
The language used by them was unfortunate
It is the duty of lawyers to protect the dignity and decorum of the judici ary
If lawyers fail in their duty the faith of the people in the judiciary would be undermined to a large extent
It is said that lawyers are the custodian of civilization Lawyers have to discharge their duties with dignity decorum and discipline
603 C D