N Criminal Appeal No 611 of 1982
From the Judgment and order dated the 5th November 1982 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Contempt Case No 14481
NN Sharma Mrs Pankaj Verma  Mrs Vijay Gupta for the Appellant
Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 835 THAKKAR J
We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the slap say sorry and forget  school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence Saying sorry  does not make the slapper poorer
Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction
An Advocate whose client had been convicted by the learned Special Judge Dehradun was required to appear before the learned Judge to make his submissions on the question of sentence  to be imposed on the accused upon his being found guilty of an offence under Section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Court The learned Advocate appeared in a shirt and trouser outfit in disregard of the rule requiring him to appear only in Court attire when appearing in his professional capacity The learned Judge asked him to appear in the prescribed formal attire for being heard in his professional capacity
The learned Advocate apparently took umbrage and left the Court
Some other Advocate appeared on behalf of accused who had been found guilty of a charge of corruption
The learned Judge imposed a sentence of 4 years  RI which may have been considered to be on the high side
The matter in that case could have been carried to the High Court by way of an appeal both on the question of conviction as also on the question of sentence
But so far as the Court of the Special Judge was concerned as the judgment had been pronounced and nothing more remained to be done by that Court the matter should have rested there
The appellant a senior Advocate of long standing not an immature inexperienced junior however made a written application to the learned Special Judge couched in scurrilous
language making the imputation that the Judge was a corrupt Judge and adding that he was  contaminating the seat of justice
A threat was also held out that a complaint was being lodged to higher authorities that he was corrupt and did not deserve to be retained in service
The offending portion may better be quoted I am making a complaint against you to the highest authorities in the country that you are corrupt and do not deserve to be retained in service
The earlier people like you are bundled out the better for us all
As for quantum of sentence I will never bow down before you
You may award the maximum sentence
Any 836 way you should feel ashamed of yourself that you are contaminating the seat of justice  There is no known provision for making such an application after a matter is disposed of by a Judge
Nor was any legal purpose to be served by making such an application
Obviously application was made to terrorize and harass the Judge for imposing a sentence which perhaps be considered to be on the high side whether or not it was really so was for the higher Court to decide
As pointed out earlier it was however not permissible to adopt a course of intimidation in order to frighten the Judge
His malicious purpose in making the application is established by another tell tale circumstance by forwarding copy of this application without any occasion or need for it to several authorities and dignitaries
Administrative Judge Allahabad for favour of requisitioning case file ST No 2 from Dehradun and scanning through the fasts
Chief Secretary Uttar Pradesh Government Lucknow
Director Vigilance Commission UP Lucknow
Prime Minister Secretariat Delhi
State Counsel Shri Pooran Singh Court of Shri VK Agarwal Dehradun
Shri D Vira ICS Chairman Indian Police Commission Delhi
President Bar Association Dehradun 8
The Hon ble Chief Justice of Bharat
The High Court of Allahabad initiated contempt proceedings found the appellant guilty of having committed criminal contempt under Section 2c1 of the  after affording him full opportunity of hearing and imposed a sentence of SI for 1 week and a fine of Rs 500 in default to undergo a further term of SI for 1 week
Hence this appeal
Before the High Court the appellant sought to justify his conduct on the ground of the treatment alleged to have been meted 837 out to him by the learned Judge
No remorse was felt
No sorrow was expressed
No apology was offered
Only when the appellant approached this Court he expressed his sorrow before this Court saying that he had lost his mental balance
Upon finding that this Court was reluctant to hear him even on the question of sentence as he had not even tendered his apology to the learned Judge who was scandalized he prayed for three weeks  time to give him an opportunity to do so
His request was granted
He appeared before the learned Judge and tendered a written apology wherein he stated that he was doing so as directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court
 This circumstance in a way shows that it was a paper  apology and the expression of sorrow came from his pen not from his heart
For it is one thing to say sorry it is another to feel sorry
It is in this context that we have been obliged to make the opening remarks at the commencement of this judgment
We do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished
Otherwise all that a person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest imputations against him has to do is to go ahead and scandalize him and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs him practically nothing
If such an apology were to be accepted as a rule and not as an exception it would in virtually be tantamount to issuing a licence  to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with impunity
It will be rather difficult to persuade members of the Bar who care for their self respect to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay such a price for it
And no sitting Judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of the fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an Advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes
If this situation were to be countenanced advocates who can cow down the Judges make them fall in line with their wishes by threats of character assassination and persecution will be preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of Courts
No Judge can take a decision which does not displease one side or the other
By the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against one or other of the parties
If the fact that he 838 renders a decision which is resented to by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk it will sound the death knell of the institution line has therefore to be drawn somewhere some day by some one
That is why the Court is impelled to act rather than merely sermonize much as the Court dislikes imposing punishment whilst exercising the contempt jurisdiction which no doubt has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection
We do not think that we can adopt an attitude of unmerited leniency at the cost of principle and at the expense of the Judge who has been scandalized
We are fully aware that it is not very difficult to show magnanimity when some one else is the victim rather than when oneself is the victim
To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence is not very difficult in fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so rather than to adhere to the nail studded path of duty
Institutional perspective demands that considerations of populism are not allowed to obstruct the path of duty
We therefore cannot take a lenient or indulgent view of this matter
the day must be dreaded when a Judge cannot work with independence by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with impunity if any of his orders or the decision rendered by him displeases any of the Advocates appearing in the matter
We firmly believe that considerations regarding maintenance of the independence of the judiciary and the morale of the Judges demand that we do not allow the appellant to escape with impunity on the mere tendering of an apology which in any case does not wipe out the mischief
We are of the opinion that the High Court was therefore justified in imposing a substantive sentence
And the sentence imposed cannot be said to be excessive or out of proportion
Appeal is accordingly dismissed
NVK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was a senior
advocate
He was required to appear before the Special Judge to make his submission on the question of sentence to be imposed upon his client who was convicted for an offence under s52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
As he appeared in a shirt and trouser outfit and not in Court attire the Judge asked him to appear in the prescribed formal attire for being heard in his professional capacity
The appellant took umbrage and left the Court
Some other advocate appeared in the matter and the accused having being found guilty of the charge of corruption the Judge imposed a sentence of four years RI
The appellant made a written application to the Judge couched in scurrilous language making the imputation that the Judge was a corrupt Judge  and added that he was contaminating the seat of justice  and forwarded copies of the application without occasion or need to the Administrative Judge Chief Secretary and other authorities
The High Court initiated contempt proceedings found the appellant guilty of having committed criminal contempt under section 2c1 of the and after affording full opportunity of hearing imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for one week and a fine of Rs 500
Dismissing the Appeal  HELD 1
Considerations regarding maintenance of the independence of the judiciary and the morale of the Judges demand that the appellant should not escape with impunity on the mere tendering of an apology which in any case
does not wipe out the mischief
If such a apology were to be accepted as a rule and not as an exception it would virtually be tantamount to issuing a licence  to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with impunity
The High Court was justified in imposing a substantive sentence and the said sentence cannot be said to be excessive or out of proportion838E 837E 838F 834 No Judge can take a decision which does not displease one side or the other
By the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against one or other of the parties
If the fact that he renders a decision which is resented to by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such a risk it will sound the death knell of the institution
The day must be dreaded when a Judge cannot work with independence by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly humiliate him and heap disagree on him with impunity if any of his orders or the decision rendered by him displeases any of the Advocates appearing in the matter
A line has therefore to be drawn some where some day by some one
That is why the Court is impelled to act rather than merely sermonise much as the Court dislikes imposing punishment whilst exercising the contempt jurisdiction which no doubt has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection
837H 838A B 2
An attitude of unmerited leniency cannot be adopted at the cost of principle and at the expense of the Judge who has been scandalized
To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence is not very difficult in fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so rather than to adhere to the mail studded path of duty
Institutional perspective demands that considerations of populism are not allowed to obstruct the path of duty
338C In the instant case the appellant sought to justify his conduct before the High Court on the ground of the treatment alleged to have been meted out to him by the Special Judge
No remorse was felt
No sorrow was expressed
No apology was offered He expressed his sorrow only before this Court saying that he had lost his mental balance and was granted an opportunity to tender an apology
He appeared before the Special Judge and tendered a written apology indicating that he was doing so as directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court
 This circumstance shows it was a paper  apology and that the expression of sorrow came from his pen not from his heart
It is one thing to say sorry it is another to feel sorry
This Court cannot subscribe to the slap say sorry and forget  school of thought in administration of contempt jurisdiction
886H 837A C