mpt notices does not absolve the officers of their misconduct
The State Govern ment is directed to proceed with the disciplinary proceed ings for taking appropriate action
1000B  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition CRL No 517 of 1989 etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
J Sorabjee Attorney General Ashok H Desai Addl
Solicitor General RK Garg G Ramaswamy FS Nariman Dr LM Singhvi GA Shah TU Mehta VM Tarkunde BK Mehta SS Ray AK Gupta SK Dhingra TC Sharma Kishan Dutt RJ Trivedi Manoj Swarup MN Shroff Sudarsh Menon Sushil Kumar Jain Bahl Singh Malik Gopala Subramanium Ms Binu Tamta Shahid Rizi
DK Singh T Ray Pramod Swarup Praveen Swarup 955 PH Parekh Sunil Dogra CL Sahu GL Gupta Brij Bhu shan NS Das Bahl Mrs H Wahi Harish Javeri and section Ganesh
TC Sharma for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KN SINGH J
On 25th September 1989 a horrendus incident took place in the town of Nadiad District Kheda in the State of Gujarat which exhibited the berserk behaviour of Police undermining the dignity and independence of judi ciary
SR Sharma Inspector of Police with 25 years of service posted at the Police Station Nadiad arrested assaulted and handcuffed NL Patel Chief Judicial Magis trate Nadiad and tied him with a thick rope like an animal and made a public exhibition of it by sending him in the same condition to the Hospital for medical examination on an alleged charge of having consumed liquor in breach of the prohibition law enforced in the State of Gujarat
The In spector SR Sharma got the Chief Judicial Magistrate photo graphed in handcuffs with rope tied around his body along with the constables which were published in the news papers all over the country
This led to tremors in the Bench and the Bar throughout the whole country
The incident undermined the dignity of courts in the country Judicial Officers Judges and Magistrates all over the country were in a state of shock they felt insecure and humiliated and it appeared that instead of Rule of Law there was Police Raj in Gujarat
A number of Bar Associations passed Resolutions and went on strike
The Delhi Judicial Service Association the All India Judges Association Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service of Gujarat and many others approached the Apex Court by means of telegrams and petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for Saving the dignity and honour of the judiciary
On 2991989 this Court took cognizance of the matter by issuing notices to the State of Gujarat and other Police Officers
The Court appealed to the Members of the Bar and Judiciary to resume work to avoid inconvenience to the litigant public
Subsequently a number of petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for taking action against the Police Officers and also for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the Police against NL Patel Chief Judicial Magistrate
A number of Bar Associations Bar Councils and individuals appeared as interveners condemning the action of the police and urging the Court for taking action against the Police Officers
956 In Petition No 5 18 of 1989 alongwith Contempt Petition No 6 of 1989 filed by the President All India Judges Association notices for contempt were issued by this Court on 4101989 to seven Police Officials DK Dhagal DSP AM Waghela Dy
SP SR Sharma Police Inspector Kuldeep Singh Lowchab Police Inspector Crime KH Sadia Sub Inspector of Police Valjibhai Kalabhai Head Constable and Pratap Singh Constable
NL Patel CJM Nadiad also filed an application in WP No 517 of 1989 with a prayer to quash the two FIRs lodged against him to direct the trial of the complaint filed by him as State case and to award compensation
On 1321990 notices from contempt were issued to
K Dadabhoy exhibit DGP Gujarat Dr Bhavsar Senior Medical Officer of Govt
Hospital Nadiad and MB Savant Mamlatdar Nadiad
The Court during the proceedings also issued notices to R Bala Krishnan Additional Chief Secretary Home Government of Gujarat and SS Subhalkar District Judge Nadiad to show cause why action be not taken against them in view of the Report of Justice Sahai
NL Patel was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nadiad in October 1988
He soon found that the local Police was not cooperating with the courts in effecting service of summons warrants an notices on accused persons as a result of which the trials of cases were delayed
He made complaint against the local Police to the District Superintendent of Police and forwarded a copy of the same to the Director General of Police but nothing concrete happened
On account of these complaints SR Sharma Police Inspector Nadiad was annoyed with the Chief Judicial Magistrate he withdrew constables posted in the CJM Court
In April 1989 Patel filed two complaints with the Police against Sharma and other Police Officials Nadiad for delaying the process of the court
On 25 July 1989 Patel directed the Police to register a criminal case against 14 persons who had caused obstruction in judicial proceedings but subsequently since they tendered unqualified apology the CJM directed the Police Inspector to drop the cases against those persons
Sharma reacted strongly to Patel s direction and he made complaint against the CJM to the Registrar of the High Court through District Superintendent of Police
These facts show that there was hostility between the Police of Nadiad and the CJM
On 259
1989 SR Sharma met Patel CJM in his Chambers to discuss the case of one Jitu Sport where the Police had failed to submit charge sheet within 90 days
During discussion Sharma invited the CJM to visit the Police Station to see the papers and further his visit would mollify the sentiments of the Police Officials
It is al leged that at 957 835 pm Sharma sent a Police Jeep at Patel s residence and on that vehicle Patel went to the Police Station
What actual happened at the Police Station is a matter of serious dispute between the parties
According to the CJM he ar rived in the Chamber of Sharma in the Police Station he was forced to consume liquor and on his refusal he was assault ed handcuffed and tied with rope by Sharma Police Inspec tor Sadia Sub Inspector Valjibhai Kalajibhai Head Consta ble and Pratap Singh Constable
It is further alleged that Patal was sent to Hospital for Medical examination under handcuffs where he was made to sit on a bench in the varanda exposing him to the public gaze
Sharma Police Inspector and other Police Officers have disputed these allegations
According to Sharma Patel entered his chamber at the Police Station at 845 pm on 259
1989 in a drunken state shouting and abusing him he caught hold of Sharma and slapped him since he was violent he was arrested hand cuffed and sent to Hospital for medical examination
Patel himself wanted to be photographed while he was handcuffed and tied with ropes a photographer was arranged to take his photograph which was published in the newspapers
Since there was serious dispute between the parties with regard to the entire incident the Court appointed Justice RM Sahai senior puisne Judge of the Allahabad High Court as he then was to inquire into the incident and to submit report to the Court
Justice Sahai was appointed to hold the inquiry on behalf of this Court and not under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act
Justice Sahai visited Nadiad and held sittings there
The learned Commis sionerJudge invited affidavitsstatements and examined witnesses including SR Sharma the Police Inspector DK Dhagal DSP and other Police Officers lawyers NL Patel CJM and Doctors and other witnesses
Justice Sahai afforded full opportunity to all the concerned persons including the State Government Police Officers and lawyers to lead evidence and to cross examine witnesses
He submit ted a detailed Report dated 28111989 to this Court on 1121989
On receipt of the Report this Court directed copies to be delivered to concerned parties and permitted the parties and the contemners to file their objections if any before this Court
The objections were filed by the Police Officers and the contemners disputing the findings recorded by the Commissioner On 12121989 when the matter came up for final dispos al the Court issued notices to the Attorney General and Advocate General of the State of Gujarat
On 1011990 the Court directed the State of Gujarat to file affidavit stat ing as to what action it had taken or pro 958 posed to take against the officers in the light of the Report of Justice Sahai
The Court further issued notices to R Bala Krishnan Additional Chief Secretary Home Govern ment of Gujarat K Dadabhoy Director General of Police SS Sudhalkar District Judge to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them in view of the Report of Justice Sahai
The State Government was further directed to explain as to why action against DK Dhagal DSP SR Sharma Police Inspector and other police officers had not been taken
On 132
1990 a notice for contempt of this Court was issued to K Dadabhoy on the same date in view of the findings recorded by Justice Sahai notices for contempt of court were issued to Dr Bhavsar and MB Sa vant Mamlatdar Nadiad also
in his affidavit SR Sharma Police Inspector has raised a number of objections to the findings recorded by the Commissioner
The objections are technical in nature chal lenging the authority and jurisdiction of the Commissioner in collecting evidence and recording findings against him
Sharma has further stated in his objections that the Commis sioner acted as if he was sitting in judgment over the case
Other Police Officers have also raised similar objections
We find no merit in the objections raised on behalf of Sharma Police Inspector and other contemners
The Commis sioner had been appointed by this Court to hold inquiry and submit his report to the Court
Justice Sahai was acting on behalf of this Court and he had full authority to record evidence and cross examine witnesses and to collect evidence on behalf of this Court
Since the main incident of Chief Judicial Magistrate s arrest assault handcuffing and roping was connected with several other incidents which led to the confrontation between the Magistracy and local po lice the learned Commissioner was justified in recording his findings on the background and genesis of the entire episode
The Police Inspector Sharma raised a grievance that he was denied opportunity of cross examination of Patel CJM and he was not permitted to produce Dr Jhala as a witness Sharma s application for the recall of CJM for further cross examination and for permission to produce Dr Jhala retired Deputy Director Medical and Health Services Guja rat was rejected by a well reasoned order of the Commis sioner dated 9111989
We have gone through the order and we find that the Commissioner has given good reasons for rejecting the recall of CJM for further cross examination as he had been crossexamined by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Police officials including Sharma
The Police Officers and the State Government and CJM were represented by counsel before the Commissioner and every opportunity was afforded to them for cross examining the witnesses
959 Dr Jhala s evidence was not necessary the Commissioner rightly refused Sharma s prayer
On behalf of the contemners it was urged that in the absence of any independent testimony the Commission was not justified in accepting interested version of the incident as given by the CJM with regard to his visit to the Police Station and the incident which took place inside the Police Station
There was oath against oath and in the absence of any independent testimony the Commission was not justified in accepting the sole interested testimony of Patel CJM
We find no merit in this objection
The learned Commissioner has considered the evidence as well as the circumstances in support of his findings that Patel had been invited by Sharma to visit the Police Station and he had sent a Police jeep on which Patel went to the Police Station
This fact is supported by independent witnesses as discussed by the Commissioner
If Patel had gone on the invitation of Sharma on Police jeep and not in the manner as alleged by Sharma Patel could not be drunk and there appears no reason as to why he would have assaulted Sharma as alleged by the Police
The circumstances as pointed out by the Commissioner fully justify the findings recorded against the Police Officers
It is settled law that even in a criminal trial accused is convicted on circumstantial evidence in the absence of an eye witness Learned Commissioner acted judicially in a fair and objective manner in holding the inquiry he afforded opportunity to the affected Police Officers and other per sons and submitted his Report based on good reasons in respect of his findings which are amply supported by the material on record
The Commissioner did a commendable job in a record time
After hearing arguments at length and on perusal of the statements recorded by the Commissioner and the documentary evidence submitted by the parties and a careful scrutiny of the affidavits and objections filed in this Court we find no valid ground to reject the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Commissioner
The Commissioner s Report runs into 140 pages which is on record
The contemners and other respondents have failed to place any convincing material before the Court to take a different view
We accordingly accept the same
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavits objections applications and the Report of the Commissioner we hold that the following facts and circumstances are fully proved 1 NL Patel Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the Police of 960 Nadiad was not effective in service of summons and it had adopted an attitude of indifference to court orders
He tried to obtain the assistance of the District Superintend ent of Police in February 1989 and addressed a letter to the Director General  of Police but no response came from the Police Authorities even though the Government had reminded DK Dhagal DSP Kheda to do the needful
Patel the CJM filed two complaints against Police Officers of Nadiad Police Station and the Inspectors and forwarded it to the District Superintendent of Police on 19th and 24th July 1989 for taking action against them
Sharma the Police Inspector who had by then been posted at Nadiad reacted to the CJM s conduct by withdrawing constables working in the courts of Magistrates on the alleged pretext of utilising their services for service of summons
This led to confrontation between the local Police and the Magistracy commenced
2 On 25th July 1989 the CJM had directed the regis tration of a case against 14 accused persons for misbeha viour and causing obstruction in the judicial proceedings
Since the accused persons had later expressed regret and tendered unqualified apology to the court the CJM sent a letter to the Police Inspector Sharma to drop proceedings
Sharma went out of his way to send a complaint to the High Court through the DSP saying that Patel was functioning in an illegal manner in the judicial discharge of his du ties
The action of Sharma Police Inspector was highly irresponsible and Dhagal DSP should not have acted in a casual manner in forwarding Sharma s letter to the Registrar of the High Court directly
3 Remand period of Jitu Sport was to expire on 27th September 1989 the CJM directed the Police Inspector to produce complete papers before the expiry of the period of remand but he applied for the extension of the judicial remand
The CJM directed the Police Inspector to produce papers on 2291989 Sharma did not appear before the CJM as directed on the contrary he interpolated the order sent to him indicating that he was required to appear before the CJM on 2391989 which was admittedly a holiday
4 On 25th September 1989 Sharma met the CJM in his Chamber and as a pretext requested him to come to the Police Station to see the papers which could not be brought to the Court as that could satisfy him that the Police was doing the needful for complying with the orders of the Court
Sharma pleaded with CJM that his visit to Police Station will remove the feeling of confrontation between the Police and Magistracy
The CJM agreed to visit the Police Station and 961 Sharma offered to send police jeep to CJM s house for bring ing him to the Police Station
5 On 25989 after the Court hours the CJM went to the officers  club where he remained in the company of Sudhal kar District Judge and Pande Civil Judge till 830 pm
Thereafter he went to his residence
A Police jeep came to his residence at about 840 pm in the Officers Colony he went on that Police jeep to the Police Station situated at a distance of about 2 kms
Patel had not consumed liquor before he went to the Police Station
6 The Police version that Patel had consumed liquor before coming to the Police Station and that he assaulted the Police Inspector Sharma and misbehaved with him at the Police Station is a cooked up story
Patel did not go to the Police Station on foot as alleged by Sharma instead he went to the Police Station in a Police jeep on Sharma s invitation
Patel was handcuffed and tied with rope and he received injuries at the Police Station he was assaulted and forced to consume liquor after he was tied to the chair on which he was sitting Police Inspector Sharma Sub In spector Sadia Head Constable Valjibhai Kalabhai and Consta ble Pratap Singh took active part in this episode
They actively participated in the assualt on Patel and in forcing liquor in his mouth
They acted in collusion with Sharma to humiliate and teach a lesson to Patel
7 On the direction of Sharma Police Inspector Patel was handcuffed at the Police Station and he was further tied up with a thick rope by the Police Inspector Sharma Sadia Sub Inspector Valjibhai Kalabhai Head Constable and Pratap Singh Constable
This was deliberately done in defiance of Police Regulations and Circulars issued by the Gujarat Government and the law declared by this Court in Prern Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration
  Patel had not committed any offence nor he was violent and yet he was handcuffed and tied up with rope without there being any justification for the same
There were seven police personnel present at the Police Station and most of them were fully armed while Patel was empty handed there was absolutely no chance of Patel escaping from the custody or making any attempt to commit suicide or attacking the Police Officers and yet he was handcuffed and tied up with a thick rope like an animal with a view to humiliate and teach him a lesson
For this wanton act there was absolutely no justification and pleas raised by Sharma that Patel was violent or that he would have escaped from the custody are figment of imagination made for the purpose of the case
962 8 The panchnama showing the drunken state of Patel prepared on the dictation of Sharma Police Inspector and signed by Sharma as well as by two panches MB Savant Mamlatdar and PD Barot Fire Brigade Officer Nadiad did not represent the correct facts instead it was manufac tured for the purpose of preparing a false case against CJM PateI justifying his arrest and detention
9 On examination at the Civil Hospital Patel s body was found to have a number of injuries
The injury on the left eye was very clear which appeared to have been caused by external force
His body had bruises and abrasions which could be caused by fists and blows
While in the casualty ward of the Civil Hospital Patel requested the Doctors to contact the District Judge and inform him about the inci dent
Dr Parashar tried  to ring up the District Judge but he was prevented from doing so by Sharma and other Police Officers who were present there
Dr Parashar and Dr Bhav sar found the speech of Patel normal gait steady he was neither violent nor he misbehaved
His blood was taken for chemical examination but the Forms used were not according to the rules and the blood was not taken in accordance with procedure prescribed by the Rules and the Circulars issued by the Director of Medical Services Gujarat
The chemical examination of the blood sample taken in the Civil Hospital was not correctly done
The blood sample was analysed by a teenager who was not a testing officer within the Bombay Prohibition Act and necessary precautions at the time of analysis were not taken
The phial in which the blood sample had been sent to the Chemical Examiner did not contain the seal on phial and the seal was not fully legible
The Chemi cal Examiner who submitted the report holding that the blood sample of Patel contained alcohol on the basis of the calcu lation made by him in the report clearly admitted before the Commission that he had never determined the quantity of liquor by making calculation in any other case and Patel s case was his first case
10 When Patel was taken to Civil Hospital handcuffed and tied with thick rope he was deliberately made to sit outside in the Varanda on bench for half an hour in public gaze to enable the public to have a full view of the CJM in that condition
A Press photographer was brought on the scene and the Policemen posed with Patel for the press photograph
The photographs were taken by the Press Reporter without any objection by the Police although a belated justification was pleaded by the Police that Patel desired to have himself photographed in that condition
This plea is totally false
The photographs taken by the Press Reporter were published in Jan Satta  and Lokmat  on 26th 963 September
1989 showing Patel handcuffing and tied with rope and the Policemen standing beside him
This was deliberately arranged by Sharma to show to the public that Police weilded real power and if the CJM took confrontation with Police he will not be spared
11 At the initial stage one case was registered against Patel by the Police under the Bombay Prohibition Act
Two Advocates Kantawala and Brahmbhatt met Sharma at 1130 pm for securing Patel s release on bail as offences under the Prohibition Act were bailable
The lawyers re quested Sharma to allow them to meet the CJM who was in the police lock up but Sharma did not allow them to do so
With a view to frustrate lawyers  attempt to get Patel released on bail
Sharma registered another case against Patel under Sections 332 and 506 of Indian Penal Code as offence under Section 332 is non bailable
12 DK Dhagal the then District Superintendent of Police Kheda exhibited total indifference to CJM s com plaint regarding the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the matter of execution of court processes
Dhagal identified himself with Sharma Police Inspector who appeared to be his favourite
Instead of taking corrective measures in the service of processes he became party along with Sharma in forwarding his complaint to the High Court against Patel s order in a judicial matter
The incident which took place in the night of 2526 September 1989 had the blessing of Dhagal
He did not take any immediate action in the matter instead he created an alibi for himself alleging that he had gone to Lasundara and then to Balasinor Police Station and stayed there in a Government Rest House
The register at the Rest House indicating the entry regarding his stay was manipulated subsequently by making interpolation
On the direction of Additional Chief Secretary Home Dhagal sub mitted his report on 279
1989 but in that report he did not make any reference of handcuffing and roping of the CJM although it was a matter of common knowledge and there was a great resentment among the judicial officers and the local public
Dhagal s complicity in the sordid episode is further fortified by the fact that he permitted Sharma the main culprit of the entire episode to carry on investigation against Patel in the case registered against him by Sharma and also in the case registered by Patel against Sharma
13 Police Inspector Sharma had pre planned the entire incident and he had even arranged witnesses in advance for preparing false case against NL Patel CJM as MB Sa vant Mamlatdar in the 964 Police Station immediately on the arrival of PateI CJM and they acted in complicity with Sharma in preparing the panchnama which falsely stated that Patel was drunk
MB Sawant and PD Barot both were hand in glove with Sharma to flasely implicate Patel in Prohibition Case
Learned Commissioner has adversely commented upon the conduct of various officers including K Dadabhoy the then Director General of Police Gujarat Kuldip Singh Lowchab CID Inspector Dr Bhavsar Senior Medical Officer Nadiad MB Savant Mamlatdar PD Barot Fire Brigade Officer and AN Patel Chemical
Examiner Nadiad
After considering the material on record we agree with the view taken by the Commissioner that their conduct was not above board as expected from responsible officers
We do not consider it necessary to burden the judgment by referring to the details of the findings as the same are contained in the Commis sioner s Report
Mr Nariman contended on behalf of the Po1ice Officers that the findings recorded by the Commission cannot be taken into account as those findings are hit by Article 203 of the Constitution
Inspector Sharma and other Police Officers against whom criminal cases have been registered were com pelled to be witnesses against themselves by filing affida vits and by subjecting them to cross examination before the Commissioner
Any finding recorded on the basis of their evidence is violative of Article 203 of the Constitution
Article 203 of the Constitution declares that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself
In order to avail the protection of Article 203 three conditions must be satisfied
Firstly the person must be accused of an offence
Secondly the element of compulsion to be a witness should be there and thirdly it must be against himself
All the three ingredients must necessarily exist before protection of Article 203 is available
If any of these ingredients do not exist Article 203 cannot be invoked see Balkishan Devidayal vs State of Maharashtra  In the instant case this Court had issued notices for contempt to Sharma Police Inspector and other contemners
Mere issue of notice or pendency of contempt proceedings do not attract article 203 of the Constitution as the contemners against whom notices were issued were not accused of any offence
A criminal contempt is punishable by the superior courts by fine or imprisonment but it has many characteristics which distin guishes it from ordinary offence
An offence under the criminal jurisdiction is tried by a Magistrate or a Judge and the procedure of trial is regulated by the  Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which provides as elaborate 965 procedure for flaming of charges recording of evidence crossexamination argument and the judgment
But  charge of contempt is tried on summary process without any fixed procedure as the court is free to evolve its own procedure consistent with fair play and natural justice
In contempt proceedings unlike the trial for a criminal offence no oral evidence is ordinarily recorded and the usual practice is to give evidence by affidavits
Under the English Law a crimi nal offence is tried by criminal courts with the aid of Jury but a criminal contempt is tried by courts summarily without the aid and assistance of Jury
Ordinarily process of trial for contempt is summary
A summary form of trial is held in the case of civil contempt and also in the case of criminal contempt where the act is committed in the actual view of the court or by an officer of justice
The summary procedure is applicable by immemorial usage when criminal contempt was committed out of court by a stranger
The practice of pro ceeding summarily for the punishment of contempt out of court has been the subject of comment and protest but the practice is founded upon immemorial usage it has since the eighteenth century been generally assumed
We do not con sider it necessary to refer to decisions from English Courts which have been discussed in detail in the History of Con tempt of Court by Fox JC 1927
Proceedings for contempt of Court are not taken in the exercise of original criminal jurisdiction
Proceedings for contempt of Court are of a peculiar nature though it may be that in certain aspects they are quasi criminal but in any view they are not exer cised as part of the original criminal jurisdiction of the Court as was held in re Tushar Kanti Ghosh and Another
AIR 1935 Calcutta 419
The High Court held that since the proceedings for contempt of Court do not fall within the original criminal jurisdiction of the Court no leave could be granted for appeal to Privy Council under Clause 41 of the Letters Patent of that Court
In Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs The Chief Justice and Judges of the PEPSU High Court  Sukhdev Singh Sodhi approached this Court for transfer of contempt proceedings from PEPSU High Court to any other High Court under Section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898
This Court
re jected the application holding that Section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply to the contempt pro ceedings as the contempt jurisdiction is a special jurisdic tion which is inherent in all courts of record and the Cr
PC excludes such a special jurisdiction from the Code
The Court further held that notwithstanding the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act 1926 making an offence of contempt punishable the Act does not confer any jurisdiction or create the offence it merely limits the 966 amount of the punishment which could be awarded and it removes a certain doubt
The jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and take seisin of the contempt is inherent in a court of record and the procedures of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to contempt proceedings
Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that nothing contained in this Code shall in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary affect any special or local law for the time being in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force
The power to take proceedings for the contempt of Court is an inherent power of a Court of record the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to such proceedings
Since the contempt proceedings are not in the nature of criminal proceedings for an of fence the pendency of contempt proceedings cannot be re garded as criminal proceedings merely because it may end in imposing punishment on the contemner
A contemner is not in the position of an accused it is open to the Court to cross examine the contemner and even if the contemner is found to be guilty of contempt the Court may accept apology and discharge the notice of contempt whereas tendering of apology is no defence to the trial of a criminal offence
This peculiar feature distinguishes contempt proceedings from criminal proceedings
In a criminal trial where a person is accused of an offence there is a public prosecutor who prosecutes the case on behalf of the prsecution against the accused but in contempt proceedings the court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation as ob served by Hidayatullah CJ in Debabrata Bandopadhyaya s case AIR 1969 SC I89
Contempt proceeding is sui generis it has peculiar features which are not found in criminal pro ceedings
In this view the contemners do not stand in the position of a person accused of an offence merely on ac count of issue of notice of contempt by this Court and the Commission which was acting on behalf of this Court had full authority to reord the testimony of the contemners
Commis sion issued notice and directed Sharma Police Inspector and other Police Officials to place their version of the inci dent before it and there was no element of compulsion
In this view there has been no violation of Article 203 of the Constitution and Commission s findings are not vitiated
Mr FS Nariman contended that this Court has no jurisdiction or power to indict the Police Officers even if they are found to be guilty as their conduct does not amount to contempt of this Court
He urged that Article 129 and 215 demarcate the respective areas of jurisdiction of the Su preme Court and the High Courts respectively
967 This COurt s Jurisdiction under Article 129 is confined to the contempt of itself only and it has no jurisdiction to intict a person for contempt of an inferior court subordi nate to the High Court
The Parliament in exercise of its legislative power under Entry 77 of List 1 read with Entry 14 of List III has enacted Contempt of
Courts Act 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act  and that Act does not confer any jurisdiction on this Court for taking action for contempt of subordinate courts
Instead the original juris diction of High Courts in respect of contempt of subordinate courts is specificially preserved by Sections 11 and 152 of the Act
The Supreme Court has only appellate powers under Section 19 of the Act read with Articles 1341c and 136 of the Constitution
The Constitutional and statutory provisions confer exclusive power on the High Court for taking action with regard to contempt of inferior or subor dinate court and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the matter
Shri Nariman further urged that in our country there is no court of universal jurisdiction and the juris diction of all courts including Supreme Court is limited and this Court can not enlarge its jurisdiction
Shri Soli J Sorabji learned Attorney General as he then was urged that power to punish contempt is a special jurisdiction which is inherent in a court of record
A superior court of record has inherent power to punish for contempt of itself and it necessarily includes and carries with it the power to punish for contempt committed in respect of subordinate or inferior courts
A superior court of record having power to correct the order of inferior court has power to protect that court by punishing those who interfere with the due administration of justice of the court
Articles 129 and 2 15 do not confer any additional jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and the High Court
The constitutional provisions as well as the legislative enactment The Contempt of Courts Act recognise and preserve the existing contempt jurisdiction and power of the court of record for punishing for contempt of subordi nate or inferior courts
The Act has not affected or re stricted the suo moto inherent power of the Supreme Court being a court of record which has received constitutional sanction under Article 129
Mr Sorabji further urged that even otherwise the Act does not restrict or affect the suo moto exercise of power by the Supreme Court as a court of record in view of Section 151 of the Act
The Supreme Court as the Apex Court is the protector and guardian of justice throughout the land therefore it has a right and also a duty to protect the courts whose orders and judgments are amenable to correction form commission of contempt against them
This right and duty of the Apex Court is not abrogated merely because the High Court also has this right and duty of protection of the subordinate courts
The juris dictions are concurrent and not exclusive or antagonistic
968 The rival contentions raise the basic question whether the Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt of subordinate or inferior courts under Article 129 of the Constitution and whether the inherent jurisdiction and power of this Court is restricted by the Act
The answer to the first question depends upon the nature and the scope of the power of this Court as a court of record in the background of the original and appellate jurisdiction exercised by this Court under the various provisions of the Constitution
It is necessary to have a look at the constitutional provisions relating to the origi nal and appellate jurisdiction of this Court
Article 124 lays down that there shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of Chief Justice of Indiaand other Judges
Article 32 confers original jurisdiction on this Court for enforcement of fundamental rights of the citizens
This jurisdiction can be invoked by an aggrieved person even without exhausting his remedy before other courts
Article 129 provides that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court includ ing the power to punish for contempt of itself
Article 13 1 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in cer tain matters
Article 132 confers appellate jurisdiction on this Court against any judgment decree or final order of the High Courts in India
Articles 133 134 and 134A confer appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil and criminal matters respec tively on certificate to be issued by the High Court
Arti cle 136 provides for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 132 133 134 and 134A Article 136 vests this Court with wide powers to grant special leave to appeal from any judg ment decree determination sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the terri tory of India except a court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces
The Court s appellate power under Article 136 is plenary it may enter tain any appeal by granting special leave against any order made by any Magistrate
Tribunal or any other subordinate court
The width and amplitude of the power is not affected by the practice and procedure followed by this Court in insisting that before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution the aggrieved party must exhaust remedy available under the law before the appellate authority or the High Court
Self imposed restric tions by this Court do not divest it of its wide powers to entertain any appeal against any order or judgment passed by any court or Tribunal in the country without exhausting alternative remedy before the appellate authority or the High Court
The power of this Court under Article 136 is unaffected by Article 132 133 134 and 134A in view of the expression 969 notwithstanding anything in this Chapter occurring in Article 136
This Court considered the scope and amplitude of plenary power under Article 136 of the Constitution in Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh  Ors 1955 1 SCR 267
Mukherjee J speaking for the Court observed The powers given by Article 136 of the Con stitution however are in the nature of special or residuary powers which are exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law in cases where the needs of justice demand interference by the Supreme Court of the land
The article itself is worded in the widest terms possible
It vests in the Supreme Court a plenary juris diction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals by granting of special leave against any kind of judgment or order made by a court or Tribunal in any cause or matter and the powers could be exercised in spite of the specific provisions for appeal contained in the Constitution or other laws
The Constitu tion for the best of reasons did not choose to fetter or circumscribe the powers exercisable under this Article in any way
 In Arunachalam vPSR Sadhanantham  Anr  this Court entertained an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by special leave at the in stance of a complainant against the judgment and the order of acquittal in a murder case and on appraisal of evidence it set aside the order of acquittal
Objections raised on behalf of the accused relating to the maintainability of the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitu tion was rejected
Chinnappa Reddy J speaking for the Court held as under Article 136 of the Constitution of India invests the Supreme Court with a plentitude of plenary appellate power over all courts and Tribunals in India
The power is plenary in the sense that there are no words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power
But the very nature of the power has led the court to set limits to itself within which to exercise such power
It is now the well established practice of this Court to permit the invoca tion of the power under ArtiCle 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court
But within the restrictions im posed by itself this Court has the 970 undoubted power to interfere even with find ings of fact making no distinction between judgments of acquittal and conviction if the High Court in arriving at those findings has acted perversely or otherwise improperly
 With regard to the competence of a private party distin guished from the State to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution the Court observed Appellate power vested in the Supreme Court under Article136 of the Constitution is not to be confused with ordinary appellate power exercised by appellate courts and appellate tribunals under specific statutes
As we said earlier it is a plenary power exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law  to meet the pressing demands of justice vide Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh
Article 136 of the Constitution neither con fers on anyone the right to invoke the juris diction of the Supreme Court nor inhibits anyone from invoking the Court s jurisdiction
The power is vested in the Supreme Court but the right to invoke the Court s jurisdiction is vested in no one
The exercise of the power of the Supreme Court is not circumscribed by any limitation as to who may invoke it
 There is therefore no room for any doubt that this Court has wide power to interfere and correct the Judgment and orders passed by any court or Tribunal in the country
In addition to the appellate power the Court has special residuary power to entertain appeal against any order of any court in the country
The plenary jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave and hear appeals against any order of a court or Tribunal confers power of judicial superintendence over all the courts and Tribunals in the territory of India including subordinate courts of Magistrate and District Judge
This Court has therefore supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in India
Article 129 provides that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself
Article 215 contains similar provision in respect of High Court
Both the Supreme Court as well as High Courts are courts of record having powers to punish for contempt in cluding the power to punish for contempt of itself
The Constitution does not define Court of Record
This expres sion is well recognised in jurisdical world
In Jowitt s Dictionary of English Law Court of Record is defined as 971 A court whereof the acts and judicial pro ceedings are enrolled for a perpetual memorial and testimony and which has power to fine and imprison for contempt of its authority
 In Wharton s Law Lexicon Court of Record is defined as Courts are either of record where their acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled for a perpetual memorial and testimony and they have power to fine and imprison or not of record being courts of inferior dignity and in a less proper sense the King s Courts and these are not entrusted by law with any power to fine or imprison the subject of the realm unless by the express provision of some Act of Parliament
These proceedings are not enrolled or recorded
 In Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Vol
10 page 429 Court of Record is defined as under Court of Record is a court where acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled in parchment for a perpetual memorial and testimony which rolls are called the record of the court and are of such high and supereminent authori ty that their truth is not to be questioned
 Halsbury s Laws of England Vol
10 page 319 states Another manner of division is into courts of record and courts not of record
Certain Courts are expressly declared by statute to be courts of record
In the case of courts not expressly declared to be courts of record the answer to the question whether a court is a court of record seems to depend in general upon whether it has power to fine or imprison by statute or otherwise for contempt of itself or other substantive offences if it has such power it seems that it is a court of record  proceedings of a Court of record preserved in its archives are called records and are conclusive evidence of that which is recorded therein In England a superior court of record has been exercised power to indict a person for the contempt of its authority and also for the contempt of its subordinate and inferior courts in a summary manner 972 without the aid and assistance of Jury
This power was conceded as a necessary attribute of a superior court of record under Anglo Saxon System of Jurisprudence
The con cept of inherent power of the superior court of record to indict a person by summary procedure was considered in detail in Rex vs Almon  commonly known as Aimon s case
In that case King s Bench initiated proceedings for contempt against John Almon a book seller for publishing a libel on the Chief Justice Lord Mansfied
On behalf of the contemner objection was taken to the summary procedure followed by the Court
After lengthy arguments judgment was prepared by Chief Justice Wilmot holding that a libel on a Judge was punishable by the process of attachment without the intervention of a Jury as the summary form of procedure was founded upon immemorial usage
The judgment prepared with great learning and erudition could not be delivered as the proceedings were dropped following the change of Govern ment
After long interval Wilmot s judgment was published in 1802
The judgment proceeded on the assumption that the superior Common Law Courts did have the power to indict a person for contempt of court by following a summary proce dure on the principle that this power was a necessary incident to every court of justice 
Undelivered judgment of Wilmot J has been subject of great controversy in England  and Sir John Fox has severely criticised Almon s case in his celebrated book The History of Contempt of Court  The Form of Trial and Mode of Punishment In spite of serious criticism of the judgment of Wilmot J the opinion ex pressed by him has all along been followed by the English and Commonwealth Courts
In Rainy vs The Justices of Seirra Leone 8 Moors PC 47 at 54 on an application for leave to appeal against the order of the Court of Seirra Leone for contempt of court the Privy Council upheld the order on the ground that the court of Seirra Leone being a Court of Record was the sole and exclusive judge of what amounted to contempt of court
In India the courts have followed the English practice in holding that a court of record has power of summarily punishing contempt of itself as well as of subordinate courts
In Surendra Nath Banerjee vs The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal ILR to Calcutta 109 the High Court of Calcutta in 1883 convicted Surendra Nath Banerjee who was Editor and Proprietor of Weekly newspaper for contempt of court and sentenced him to imprisonment for two months for publishing libel reflecting upon a Judge in his judicial capacity
On appeal the Privy Council upheld the order of the High Court and observed that the High Courts in Indian Presidencies were superior courts of record and the powers of the High 973 Court as superior courts in India are the same as in Eng land
The Privy Council further held that by common law every court of record was the sole and exclusive judge of what amounts to a contempt of court
In Sukhdev Singh Sodhi s case this Court considered the origin history and development of the concept of inherent jurisdiction of a court of record in India
The Court after considering Privy Council and High Courts decisions held that the High Court being a court of record has inherent power to punish for contempt of subordinate courts
The Court further held that even after the codification of the law of contempt in India the High Court s jurisdiction as a court of record to initi ate proceedings and take seisin of the matter remained uneffected by the Contempt of Courts Act 1926
Mr Nariman contended that even if the Supreme Court is a court of record it has no power to take action for the contempt of a Chief Judicial Magistrate s court as neither the Constitution nor any statutory provision confer any such jurisdiction or power on this Court
He further urged that so far as the High Court is concerned it has power of judicial and administrative superintendence over the subor dinate courts and further Section 15 of the Act expressly confers power of the High Court to take action for the contempt of subordinate courts
This Court being a court of record has limited jurisdiction to take action for contempt of itself under Article 129 of the Constitution it has no jurisdiction to indict a person for the contempt of subordi nate or inferior courts
The question whether in the absence of any express provision a Court of Record has inherent power in respect of contempt of subordinate or inferior courts has been consid ered by English and Indian Courts
We would briefly refer to some of those decisions
In the leading case of Rex vs Parke at 442
Wills J observed This Court exercises a vigilant watch over the proceedings of inferior courts and suc cessfully prevents them from usurping powers which they do not possess or otherwise acting contrary to law
It would seem almost a natu ral corollary that it should possess correla tive powers of guarding them against unlawful attacks and interferences with their independ ence on the part of others In King vs Davies Wills J further held that the Kings Bench being a court of record must protect the inferior courts 974 from unauthorised interference and this could only be secured by action of the Kings Bench as the inferior courts have no power to protect themselves and for that purpose this power is vested in superior court of record
Since the Kings Bench is the custos morum of the kingdom it must apply to it with the necessary adaptations to the altered circumstances of the present day to uphold the independence of the judiciary
The principle laid down in Rex vs Davies was followed in King vs Editor of the Daily Mail where it was held that the High Court as a court of record has inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt of a court martial which was an inferior court
Avory J observed The result of that judgment Rex vs Davies  is to show that wherever this Court has power to correct an inferior court it also has power to protect that court by punishing those who interfere with Due administration of justice in their court In Attorney General vs BBC  1 the House of Lords proceeded on the assumption that a court of record possesses protective jurisdiction to indict a person for interference with the administration of justice in the inferior courts but it refused to indict as it held that this protection is available to a court exercising judicial power of the State and not to a Tribunal even though the same may be inferior to the court of record
These authori ties show that in England the power of the High Court to deal with the contempt of inferior court was based not so much on its historical foundation but on the High Court s inherent jurisdiction being a court of record having juris diction to correct the orders of those courts
In India prior to the enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act 1926 High Court s jurisdiction in respect of contempt of subordinate and inferior courts was regulated by the principles of Common Law of England
The High Courts in the absence of statutory provision exercised power of con tempt to protect the subordinate courts on the premise of inherent power of a Court of Record
Madras High Court in the case of Venkat Rao held that it being a court of record had the power to deal with the contempt of subordinate courts
The Bombay High Court in Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi s 1920 22 Bombay Law Reporter 368 case held that the High Court possessed the same powers to punish the contempt of subordinate courts as the Court of the King s Bench Division had by virtue of the Common Law of England
Similar view was expressed by the 975 Allahabad High Court in Abdul Hassan Jauhar s case AIR 1926 Allahabad 623 and Shantha Nand Gir vs Basudevanand AIR 1930 Allahabad 225 FB
In Abdul Hassan Jauhar s case supra a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court after considering the question in detail held The High Court as a court of record and as the protector of public justice through out its jurisdiction has power to deal with con tempts  directed against the administration of justice whether those contempts are committed in face of the court or outside it and inde pendently or whether the particular court is sitting or not sitting and whether those contempts relate to proceedings directly concerning itself or whether they relate to proceedings concerning an inferior court and in the latter case whether those proceedings might or might not at some stage come before the High Court
 Similar view was taken by the Nagpur and Lahore High Courts in Mr Hirabai vs Mangal Chand AIR 1935 Nagpur 16 Harki shan Lal vs Emperor AIR 1937 Lahore 197 and the Oudh Chief Court took the same view in Mohammad Yusuf vs Imtiaz Ahmad Khan AIR 1939 Oudh 13 1
But the Calcutta High Court took a contrary view in Legal Remembrancer vs Motilal Ghosh ILR holding that there was no such inherent power with the High Court
Judicial conflict with regard to High Court s power with regard to the contempt of subordinate court was set at rest by the Contempt of Courts Act 1926
The Act resolved the doubt by recognising to the power of High Courts in regard to contempt of subordinate courts by enacting Section 2 which expressly stated that the High Courts will continue to have jurisdiction and power with regard to contempt of subordinate courts as they exercised with regard to their own contempt
Thus the Act reiterated and recognised the High Court s power as a court of record for taking action for contempt of courts subordinate to them
The only excep tion to this power was made in subsection 3 of Section 2 which provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code
Section 3 of the Act restricted the punishment which could be passed by the High Court
Since doubt was raised whether the High Court as a court of record could punish contempt of itself and of courts subordinate to it if contempt was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction the Parliament enacted the Con 976 tempt of Courts Act 1952 removing the doubt
Section 3 of the 1952 Act again reiterated and reaffirmed the power authority and jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it existed prior to the enactment
It provided that every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction power and authority in accordance with the same procedure and prac tice in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercise in respect of contempt of itself
Sec tion 5 further expanded the jurisdiction of the High Court for indicting a person in respect of contempt committed outside the local limits of its jurisdiction
The Parliamen tary legislation did not confer any new or fresh power or jurisdiction on the High Courts in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it instead it reaffirmed the inherent power of a Court of Record having same jurisdiction power and authority as it has been exercising prior to the enact ments
The effect of these statutory provisions was consid ered by this Court in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi s case and the Court held that contempt jurisdiction was a special one inherent in the very nature of a court of record and that jurisdiction and power remained unaffected even after the enactment of 1926 Act as it did not confer any new jurisdic tion or create any offence it merely limited the amount of punishment which could be awarded to a contemner
The juris diction of the High Court to initiate proceedings or taking action for contempt of its subordinate courts remained as it was prior to the 1926 Act
In RL Kapur vs State of Tamil Nadu  the Court again emphasised that in view of Article 215 of the Constitution the High Court as a court of record possesses inherent power and jurisdiction which is a special one not arising or derived from Contempt of Courts Act and the provisions of Section 3 of 1926 Act do not affect that power or confer a new power or jurisdic tion
The Court further held that in view of Article 215 of the Constitution no law made by a Legislature could take away the Jurisdiction conferred on the High Court nor it could confer it afresh by virtue of its own authority
The English and the Indian authorities are based on the basic foundation of inherent power of a Court of Record having jurisdiction to correct the judicial orders of subor dinate courts
The Kings Bench in England and High Courts in India being superior Court of Record and having judicial power to correct orders of subordinate courts enjoyed the inherent power of contempt to protect the subordinate courts
The Supreme Court being a Court of Record under Article 129 and having wide power of judicial supervision over all the courts in the country must possess and exer cise similar jurisdiction and power as the High Courts had prior to Contempt Legislation in 1926
Inherent 977 powers of a superior Court of Record have remained unaffect ed even after Codification of Contempt Law
The was enacted to define and limit the powers of courts in punishing contempts of courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto
Section 2 of the Act defines contempt of court including criminal contempt
Sections 5 6 7 8 and 9 specify matters which do not amount to contempt and the defence which may be taken
Section 10 which relates to the power of High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate courts
Section 10 like Section 2 of 1926 Act and Section 3 of 1952 Act reiterates and reaffirms the jurisdiction and power of a High Court in respect of its own contempt and of subordinate courts
The Act does not confer any new jurisdiction instead it reaf firms the High Courts power and jurisdiction for taking action for the contempt of itself as well as of its subordi nate courts
We have scanned the provisions of the 1971 Act but we find no provision therein curtailing the Supreme Court s power with regard to contempt of subordinate courts Section 15 on the other hand expressly refers to this Court s power for taking action for contempt of subordinate courts
Mr Nariman contended that under Section 15 Parlia ment has exclusively conferred power on the High Court to punish for the contempt of subordinate courts
The legisla tive intent being clear this Court has no power under its inherent jurisdiction or as a court of record under Article 129 of the Constitution with regard to contempt of subordi nate courts
Section 15 of the Act reads as under 15
Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases 1 In the case of a criminal contempt other than a contempt referred to in Section 14 the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or a motion made by a the Advocate General or b any other person with the con sent in writing of the Advocate General or c in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi such Law Officer as the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette specify in this behalf or any other person with the consent in writing of such Law Officer
2 In the case of any criminal contempt of subordinate 978 court the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate General or in relation to a Union Territory by such Law Officer as the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette specify in this behalf
3 Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty
Explanation In this section the expression Advocate General means a in relation to the Supreme Court the Attorney General or the Solicitor General b in relation to the High Court the Advocate General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established c in relation to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner such Law Officer as the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette specify in this behalf
Under sub section 1 the Supreme Court and High Court both have power to take cognizance of criminal contempt and it provides three modes for taking cognizance
The Supreme Court and the High Court both may take cognizance on its own motion or on the motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General
Sub section 2 provides that in case of any crimi nal contempt of subordinate court the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate General and in relation to a Union Territory on a motion made by any officer as may be specified by the Government
Thus Section 15 prescribes modes for taking cognizance of criminal contempt by the High Court and Supreme Court it is not a substantive provision conferring power or jurisdiction on the High Court or on the Supreme Court for taking action for the contempt of its subordinate courts
The whole object of prescribing proce dural modes of taking cognizance in Section 15 is to safe guard the valuable time of the  High Court and the Supreme Court being wasted by frivolous complaints of contempt of court
Section 152 does not restrict the power of the High Court to take cognizance of the 979 contempt of itself or of a subordinate court on its own motion although apparently the Section does not say so
In SK Sarkar Member Board of Revenue UP Lucknow vs Vinay Chandra Misra  this Court held that Section 15 prescribed procedure for taking cognizance and it does not affect the High Court s suo moto power to take cogni zance and punish for contempt of subordinate courts
Mr Nariman urged that under Entry 77 of List I of the VIIth Schedule the Parliament has legislative competence to make law curtailing the jurisdiction of Supreme Court
He further urged that Section 15 curtails the inherent power of this Court with regard to contempt of subordinate courts
Entry 77 of List 1 states Constitution organisation jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court including contempt of such Court and the fees taken therein persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court This Entry
read with Article 246 confers power on the Parliament to enact law with respect to the constitution organisation jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court including the contempt of this court
The Parliament is thus competent to enact a law relating to the powers of Supreme Court with regard to contempt of itself  such a law may prescribe procedure to be followed and it may also prescribe the maximum punishment which could be awarded and it may provide for appeal and for other matters
But the Central Legisla ture has no legislative competence to abridge or extinguish the jurisdiction or power conferred on this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution
The Parliament s power to legislate in relation to law of contempt relating to Supreme Court is limited therefore the Act does not impinge upon this Court s power with regard to the contempt of subordi nate courts under Article 129 of the Constitution
Article 129 declares the Supreme Court a court of record and it further provides that the Supreme Court shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself emphasis supplied
The expression used in Article 129 is not restrictive instead it is exten sive in nature
If the Framers of the Constitution intended that the Supreme Court shall have power to punish for con  tempt of itself only there was no necessity for inserting the expression including the power to punish for contempt of itself 
The Article confers power on the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself and in addition it confers some additional power relating to contempt as would appear from the expression including
The expression including has been interpreted by courts to extend and widen the 980 scope of power
The plain language of Article clearly indi cates that this Court as a court of record has power to punish for contempt of itself and also something else which could fall within the inherent jurisdiction of a court of record
In interpreting the Constitution it is not permis sible to adopt a construction which would render any expres sion superfluous or redundant
The courts ought not accept any such construction
While construing Article 129 it is not permissible to ignore the significance and impact of the inclusive power conferred on the Supreme Court
Since the Supreme Court is designed by the Constitution as a court of record and as the Founding Fathers were aware that a superi or court of record had inherent power to indict a person for the contempt of itself as well as of courts inferior to it the expression including was deliberately inserted in the Article
Article 129 recognised the existing inherent power of a court of record in its full plenitude including the power to punish for the contempt of inferior courts
If Article 129 is susceptible to two interpretations we would prefer to accept the interpretation which would preserve the inherent jurisdiction of this Court being the superior court of record to safeguard and protect the subordinate judici ary which forms the very back bone of administration of justice
The subordinate courts administer justice at the grass root level their protection is necessary to preserve the confidence of people in the efficacy of Courts and to ensure unsullied flow of justice at its base level
Disputing the inherent power of this Court with regard to the contempt of subordinate courts Mr Nariman contended that inherent powers are always preserved but they do not authorise a court to invest itself with jurisdiction when that jurisdiction is not conferred by law
He urged that the status of an appellate court like High Court does not enable the High Court to claim original jurisdiction not vested by law
Similarly the Supreme Court having appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the  cannot invest itself with original jurisdiction for contempt of subordinate courts
He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Raja Soap Factory  Ors
vs SP Shantharaj  Ors  We are unable to accept the contention
In Raja Soap Factory s case supra High Court had entertained an original suit and issued injunction under the although under the Act the suit was required to be instituted in the District Court
In appeal before this Court order of the High Court was sought to be justified on the ground of High Court s power of transfer under Section 24 read with its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Proce dure
This Court rejected the submission on the ground that exercise 981 of jurisdiction under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure was conditioned by lawful institution of the proceeding in a subordinate court of competent jurisdiction and transfer thereof to the High Court
The Court observed that power to try and dispose of proceedings after transfer from a court lawfully seized of it does not involve a power to entertain a proceeding which is not otherwise within the cognizance of the High Court
Referring to the claim of inherent powers under Section 151 to justify entertainment of the suit grant of injunction order the Court observed that the inherent power could be exercised where there is a proceeding lawful ly before the High Court it does not however authorise the High Court to invest itself with jurisdiction where it is not conferred by law
The facts and circumstances as available in the Raja Soap Factory s case were quite dif ferent and the view expressed in that case do not have any bearing on the inherent power of this Court
In Rata Soap Factory s case there was no issue before the Court regarding the inherent power of a superior court of record instead the entire case related to the interpretation of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction on the High Court
Where jurisdiction is conferred on a court by a statute the extent of jurisdiction is limited to the extent prescribed under the statute But there is no such limitation on a superior court of record in matters relating to the exercise of constitutional powers
No doubt this Court has appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act but that does not divest it of its inherent power under Article 129 of the Constitution The conferment of appellate power on the court by a statute does not and cannot affect the width and ampli tude of inherent powers of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution
We have already discussed a number of decisions holding that the High Court being a court of record has inherent power in respect of contempt of itself as well as of its subordinate courts even in the absence of any express provi sion in any Act
A fortiori the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country and superior court of record should possess the same inherent jurisdiction and power for taking action for contempt of itself as well as for the contempt of subordinate and inferior courts
It was contended that since High Court has power of superintendence over the subordinate courts under Article 227 of the Constitution therefore High Court has power to punish for the contempt of subordinate courts
Since the Supreme Court has no super visory jurisdiction over the High Court or other subordinate courts it does not possess powers which High Courts have under Article 215
This submission is misconceived
Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court and in exercise of that 982 power High Court may correct judicial orders of subordinate courts in addition to that the High Court has administra tive control over the subordinate courts
Supreme Court s power to correct judicial orders of the subordinate courts under Article 136 is much wider and more effective than that contained under Article 227
Absence of administrative power of superintendence over the High Court and subordinate court does not affect this Court s wide power of judicial superintendence of all courts in India
Once there is power of judicial superintendence all the Courts whose orders are amenable to correction by this Court would be subordinate courts and therefore this Court also possesses similar inherent power as the High Court has under Article 215 with regard to the contempt of subordinate courts
The jurisdic tion and power of a superior Court of Record to punish contempt of subordinate courts was not founded on the court s administrative power of superintendence instead the inherent jurisdiction was conceded to superior Court of Record on the premise of its judicial power to correct the errors of subordinate Courts
Mr Nariman urged that assumption of contempt jurisdic tion with regard to contempt of subordinate and inferior courts on the interpretation of Article 129 of the Constitu tion is foreclosed by the decisions of Federal Court he placed reliance on the decisions of Federal Court in KL Gauba vs The Hon ble the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore  Anr AIR 1942 FC 1 and Purshottam Lal Jaitly vs The King Emperor He urged that this Court being successor to Federal Court was bound by the decisions of the Federal Court under Arti cle 3742 of the Constitution
Mr Sorabji learned Attor ney General seriously contested the proposition he contend ed that there is a marked difference between the Federal Court and this Court former being established by a statute with limited jurisdiction while this Court is the Apex constitutional court with unlimited jurisdiction therefore the Federal Court decisions are not binding on this Court
He urged that Article 3742 does not bind this Court with the decisions of the Federal Court instead it provides for meeting particular situation during transitory period
In the alternative learned Attorney General urged that the aforesaid two decisions of Federal Court in Gauba s case and Jaitly s case do not affect the jurisdiction and power of this Court with regard to contempt of subordinate and infe rior courts as the Federal Court had no occasion to inter pret any provision like Article 129 of the Constitution in the aforesaid decisions
Article 374 made provision for the continuance of Federal Court Judges as the Judges of the Supreme Court on the commencement of the Constitution and it also made 983 provisions for transfer of the proceedings pending in the Federal Court to the Supreme Court
Clause 2 of Article 374 is as under All suits appeals and proceedings civil or criminal pending in the Federal Court at the commencement of this Constitution shall stand removed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the same and the judgments and orders of the Federal Court delivered or made before the commencement of this Constitution shall have the same force and effect as if they had been delivered or made by the Supreme Court
 On the promulgation of the Constitution Federal Court ceased to exist and the Supreme Court was set up and with a view to meet the changed situation provisions had to be made with regard to the matters pending before the Federal Court
Article 3742 made provision for two things firstly it directed the transfer of all suits appeals and proceed ings civil or criminal pending before the Federal Court to the Supreme Court
Secondly it provided that any orders and judgments delivered or made by the Federal Court before the commencement of the Constitution shall have the same force and effect as if those orders or judgments had been deliv ered or made by the Supreme Court
This was necessary for the continuance of the proceedings before the Supreme Court
The Federal Court may have passed interlocutory orders it may have delivered judgments in the matters pending before it and in order to maintain the continuance of validity of orders or judgments of Federal Court a legal fiction was created stating that those judgments and orders shall be treated as of Supreme Court
Article 3742 is in the nature of transitory provision to meet the exigency of the situa tion on the abolition of the Federal Court and setting of the Supreme Court
There is no provision in the aforesaid Article to the effect that the decisions of the Federal Court shall be binding on the Supreme Court
Similar view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in Om Prakash Gupta vs The United Provinces AIR 195 1 Allahabad 205 para 43 and Bombay High Court in State of Bombay vs Gajanan Mahadev Badley AIR 1954 Bombay 352 para 14
The decisions of Federal Court and the Privy Council made before the com mencement of the Constitution are entitled to great respect but those decisions are not binding on this Court and it is always open to this Court to take a different view
In The State of Bihar vs Abdul Majid  at 795 and Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango and Ors  at 24 and 25
Federal 984 Court decisions were not followed by this Court
There is therefore no merit in the contention that this Court is bound by the decisions of the Federal Court
But even otherwise the decisions of Federal Court in KL Gauba s case and Purshottam Lal Jaitly s case have no bearing on the interpretation of Article 129 of the Consti tution
In KL Gauba s case the facts were that KL Gauba an Advocate of Lahore High Court was involved in litigation of various kinds including a case connected with his insol vency
A Special Bench of the High Court of Lahore was constituted to decide his matters
His objection against the sitting of a particular Judge on the Special Bench was rejected
His application for the grant of certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act to file appeal against the order of the High Court before the Federal Court was refused
Gauba filed a petition before the Federal Court for the issue of direction for the transfer of his case to Federal Court from High Court
The Federal Court held that appeal against the order of the High Court refusing to grant certificate was not maintainable
Gauba argued that the High Court was guilty of contempt of Federal Court as it had deliberately and maliciously deprived the Federal Court s jurisdiction to hear the appeal against its orders
Gwyer CJ rejected the contention in the following words We have had occasion more than once to con strue the provisions of Section 205 and we repeat what we have already said that no appeal lies to this Court in the absence of the certificate prescribed by that Section a certificate is the necessary condition prece dent to every appeal
We cannot question the refusal of a High Court to grant a certificate or investigate the reasons which have prompted the refusal we cannot even inquire what those reasons were if the High Court has given none
The matter is one exclusively for the High Court and as this Court observed in an earlier case it is not for us to speculate whether Parliament omitted per incuriam to give a right of appeal against the refusal to grant a certificate or trusted the High Courts to act with reasonableness and impartiality at page 16
The jurisdiction of the Court being thus limited by the statute in this way how could it be extended by a High Court acting even perversely or maliciously in withholding the certificate
 In Purshottam Lal Jaitly s case an application purporting to 985 invoke extraordinary original jurisdiction of the Federal Court under Section 2 102 of the Government of India Act 1935 was made with a prayer that the Federal Court should itself deal directly with an alleged contempt of a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court
By a short order the Court rejected the application placing reliance on its decision in KL Gauba s case
The Court observed as under The expression any contempt of court in that provision must be held to mean any act amounting to contempt of this Court
This was the view expressed in Gauba s case and we have been shown no reason for departing from that view
Under the Indian Law the High Courts have power to deal with contempt of any Court subordinate to them as well as with contempt of the High Courts
It could not have been intended to confer on the Federal Court a concurrent jurisdiction in such matters
The wider construction may conceivably lead to conflicting judgments and to other anomalous con sequences
 In the case of KL Gauba the Federal Court found itself helpless in the matter as the Government of India Act 1935 did not confer any power on it to entertain an appeal against the order of High Court refusing to grant certifi cate
The decision has no bearing on the question which we are concerned
In Purshottam Lal Jaitly s case the decision turned on the interpretation of Section 2102 of the 1935 Act
Section 2 10 made provisions for the enforcement of decrees and orders of Federal Court
Sub section 2 provid ed that Federal Court shall have power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person the discovery or production of any documents or the investiga tion or punishment of any contempt of court which any High Court has power to make as respects the territory within its jurisdiction and further the Federal Court shall have power to award costs and its orders shall be enforce able by all courts
While interpreting Section 2 102 the Federal Court held that it had no power to deal with con tempt of any court subordinate to High Court and it further observed that the wider constructions may lead to conflict ing judgments and to other anomalous consequences
It is not necessary for us to consider the correctness of the opinion expressed by the Federal Court as in our view the Federal Court was a court of limited jurisdiction it was not the Apex Court like this Court as against the judgment order and decree of the Federal Court appeals lay to the Privy Council
The Federal Court exercised limited jurisdiction as conferred on it by the 1935 Act
The question regarding the inherent power of the 986 Superior Court of Record in respect of the Contempt of Subordinate court was neither raised nor discussed in afore said decisions
The Federal Court observed that if the High Court and the Federal Court both have concurrent jurisdic tion in contempt matters it could lead to conflicting judg ments and anomalous consequences that may be so under the Government of India Act as the High Court and the Federal Court did not have concurrent jurisdiction but under the Constitution High Court and the Supreme Court both have concurrent jurisdiction in several matters yet no anomalous consequences follow
While considering the decision of Federal Court it is necessary to bear in mind that the Federal Court did not possess wide powers as this Court has under the Constitu tion
There are marked differences in the constitution and jurisdiction and the amplitude of powers exercised by the two courts
In addition to civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction this Court has wide powers under Article 136 over all the courts and Tribunals in the country
The Feder al Court had no such power instead it had appellate power but that too could be exercised only on a certificate issued by the High Court
The Federal Court was a court of record under Section 203 but it did not possess any plenary or residuary appellate power over all the courts functioning in the territory of India like the power conferred on this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution therefore the Federal Court had no judicial control or superintendence over subordinate courts
Advent of freedom and promulgation of Constitution have made drastic changes in the administration of justice neces sitating new judicial approach
The Constitution has as signed a new role to the Constitutional Courts to ensure rule of law in the country
These changes have brought new perseptions
In interpreting Constitution we must have regard to the social economic and political changes need of the community and the independence of judiciary
The court cannot be a helpless spectator bound by precedents of colonial days which have lost relevance
Time has come to have a fresh look to the old precedents and to lay down law with the changed perceptions keeping in view the provisions of the Constitution
Law to use the words of Lord Coler idge grows and though the principles of law remain un changed yet their application is to be changed with the changing circumstances of the time
 The considerations which weighed with the Federal Court in rendering its deci sion in Guaba s and Jaitley s case are no more relevant in the context of the constitutional provisions
987 Since this Court has power of judicial superintendence and control over all the courts and Tribunals functioning in the entire territory of the country it has a corresponding duty to protect and safeguard the interest of inferior courts to ensure the flow of the stream of justice in the courts without any interference or attack from any quarter
The subordinate and inferior courts do not have adequate power under the law to protect themselves therefore it is necessary that this court should protect them
Under the constitutional scheme this court has a special role in the administration of justice and the powers conferred on it under Articles 32 136 14 1 and 142 form part of basic structure of the Constitution
The amplitude of the power of this Court under these Articles of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by law made by Central or State Legislature
If the contention raised on behalf of the contemners is accept ed the courts all over India will have no protection from this Court
No doubt High Courts have power to persist for the contempt of subordinate courts but that does not affect or abridge the inherent power of this court under Article 129
The Supreme Court and the High Court both exercise concurrent jurisdiction under the constitutional scheme in matters relating to fundamental rights under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution therefore this Court s jurisdiction and power to take action for contempt of subordinate courts would not be inconsistent to any constitutional scheme
There may be occasions then attack on Judges and Magistrate of subordinate courts may have wide repercussions through out the country in that situation it may not be possible for a High Court to contain the same as a result of which the administration of justice in the country may be paraly sed in that situation the Apex Court must intervene to ensure smooth functioning of courts
The Apex Court is duty bound to take effective steps within the constitutional provisions to ensure a free and fair administration of justice through out the country for that purpose it must wield the requisite power to take action for contempt of subordinate courts
Ordinarily the High Court would protect the subordinate court from any onslaught on their independ ence but in exceptional cases extra ordinary situation may prevail affecting the administration of public justice or where the entire judiciary is affected this Court may directly take cognizance of contempt of subordinate courts
We would like to strike a note of caution that this Court will sparingly excercise its inherent power in taking cogni zance of the contempt of subordinate courts as ordinarily matters relating to contempt of subordinate courts must be dealt with by the High Courts
The instant case is of excep tional nature as the incident created a situation where functioning of the subordinate courts all over the country was adversely affected and the administration of justice was paralysed 988 therefore this Court took cognizance of the matter
Mr Nariman contended that in our country there is no court of universal jurisdiction as the jurisdiction of all courts including the Supreme Court is limited
Article 129 as well as the do not conferany express power to this Court with regard to contempt of the subordinate courts this Court cannot by construing Article 129 assume jurisdiction in the matter which is not entrusted to it by law
He placed reliance on the observations of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar  Ors
vs State of Maha rashtra  Ors
  at 77 1
We have carefully considered the decision but we find nothing therein to support the contention of Mr Nariman
It is true that courts constituted under a law enacted by the Parliament or the State Legislature have limited jurisdiction and they cannot assume jurisdiction in a matter not expressly as signed to them but that is not so in the case of a superior court of record constituted by the Constitution
Such a court does not have a limited jurisdiction instead it has power to determine its own jurisdiction
No matter is beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court of record unless it is expressly shown to be so under the provisions of the Con stitution
In the absence of any express provision in the Constitution the Apex court being a court of record has jurisdiction in every matter and if there be any doubt the Court has power to determine its jurisdiction
If such determination is made by High Court the same would be subject to appeal to this Court but if the jurisdiction is determined by this Court it would be final
Halsbury s Laws of England Vol
10 Para 7 13 states Prima facie no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court
 The above principle of law was approved by this Court in Special Reference No I of 1964  at 499 in holding that the High Court being a superior court of record was entitled to determine its own jurisdiction in granting interim bail to a person against whom warrant of arrest had been issued by the Speaker of a State Legisla ture
In Mirajkar s case supra this Court again reiterated the principles that a superior court of record unlike a court of limited jurisdiction is entitled to determine about its own jurisdiction
In Ganga Bishan vs Jai Narain the Court emphasised that the 989 Constitution has left it to the judicial discretion of Supreme Court to decide for itself the scope and limits of its jurisdiction in order to render substantial justice in matters coming before it
We therefore hold that this Court being the Apex Court and a superior court of record has power to determine its jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution and as discussed earlier it has jurisdiction to initiate or entertain proceedings for contempt of subor dinate courts
This view does not run counter to any provi sion of the Constitution
Constitutional hurdles over now we would revert back to the incident which has given rise to these proceedings
The genesis of the unprecedented attack on the subordinate judiciary arose out of confrontational attitude of the local police against the Magistracy in Kheda
The Chief Judicial Magistrate is head of the Magistracy in the District
Under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Proce dure 1973 he exercises control and supervision over the investigating officer
He is an immediate officer on the spot at the lower rung of the administration of justice of the country to ensure that the Police which is the law enforcing machinery acts according to law m investigation of crimes without indulging into excesses and causing harass ment to citizens
The main objective of Police is to appre hend offenders to investigate crimes and to prosecute them before the courts and also to prevent commission of crime and above all to ensure law and order to protect the citi zens life and property
The law enjoins the Police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracy is to ensure fair investigation and fair trial to an offender
The purpose and object of Magistracy and Police are complemen tary to each other
It is unfortunate that these objectives have remained unfulfilled even after 40 years of our Consti tution
Aberrations of Police officers and Police excesses in dealing with the law and order situation have been the subject of adverse comments from this court as well as from other courts but it has failed to have any corrective effect on it
The Police has power to arrest a person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court
The amplitude of this power casts an obligation on the Police to take maximum care in exercising that power
The Police must bear in mind as held by this Court that if a person is arrested for a crime his constitutional and fundamental rights must not be violated
See Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration  Ors
  In Prem Shankar Shukla s supra case 526 this Court considered the question of placing a prisoner under handcuff by the Police
The Court declared that no prisoner shall be handcuffed or lettered routinely or merely for the convenience of custody or escort
The Court empha sised that the Police did not enjoy any unrestricted or unlimited 990 power to handcuff an arrested person
If having regard to the circumstances including the conduct behaviour and character of a prisoner there is reasonable apprehension of prisoner s escape from custody or disturbance of peace by violence the Police may put the prisoner under handcuff
If a prisoner is handcuffed without there being any justifica tion it would violate prisoner s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution
To be consistent with Articles 14 and 19 handcuffs must be the last refuge as there are other ways for ensuring security of a prisoner
In Prem Shankar Shukla s case Krishna Iyer J observed If today freedom of the ferlorn person fails to the police somewhere tomorrow the freedom of many may fall else where with none to whimper unless the court process invigilates and polices the police before it is too late The prophetic words of Krishna Iyer J have come true as the facts of the present case would show
In the instant case Patel CJM was assaulted arrested and handcuffed by Police Inspector Sharma and other Police Officers
The Police Officers were not content with this they tied him with a thick rope round his arms and body as if NL Patel was a wild animal
As discussed earlier he was taken in that condition to the hospital for medical examination where he was made to sit in varanda exposing him to the public gaze providing opportunity to the members of the public to see that the Police had the power and privi lege to apprehend and deal with a Chief Judicial Magistrate according to its sweet will
What was the purpose of unusual behaviour of the police was it to secure safety and securi ty of NL Patel or was it done to prevent escape or any violent activity on his part justifying the placing of handcuffs and ropes on the body of NL Patel
The Commis sion has recorded detailed findings that the object was to wreck vengeance and to humiliate the CJM who had been polic ing the police by this judicial orders
We agree with the findings recorded by the Commission that there was no justi fication for this extraordinary and unusual behaviour of Police Inspector Sharma and other Police Officers although they made an attempt to justify their unprecedented dehuma nising behaviour on the ground that Patel was drunk and he was behaving in violent manner and if he had not been hand cuffed or tied with ropes he could have snatched Sharma s revolver and killed him
We are 991 amazed at the reasons given by Sharma justifying the hand cuffs and ropes on the body of NL Patel
Patel was un armed he was at the Police Station in a room there were at least seven police officials present in the room who were fully armed yet there was apprehension about Patel s escape or violent behaviour justifying handcuffs and roping
The justification given by them is flimsy and preposterous
SR Sharma acted in utter disregard of this Court s direc tion in Prem Shankar Shukla s case
His explanation that he was not aware of the decision of this Court is a mere pre tence as the Commissioner has recorded findings that Gujarat Government had issued Circular letter to the Police incorpo rating the guide lines laid down by this Court in Prem Shanker Shukla s case with regard to the handcuffing of prisoner
What constitutes contempt of court The Common Law definition of contempt of Court is An act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice  Bowen LJ in Helmore vs Smith 1886 35 Ch
D 436 at 455
The contempt of court as defined by the includes civil and criminal contempt
Criminal contempt as defined by the Act Means the publica tion whether by words spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court or prejudices or interferes or tends or to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner
The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of court
The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice
The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the commu nity in the due administration of justice and so it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury but to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not pervert ed prejudiced obstructed or interfered with
It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law in its active manifesta tion against obstruction and outrage Frank Furter J in Offutt vs US  The object and purpose of punishing contempt for interference with the administration of justice is not to safeguard or protect the dignity of the Judge or 992 the Magistrate but the purpose is to preserve the authority of the courts to ensure an ordered life in society
In AttOrney General vs Times Newspapers at p 302 the necessity for the law of contempt was summarised by Lord Morris as In an ordered community courts are estab lished for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order
In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperilled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference
When such unjustifiable inter ference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of adminis tering justice are concerned for their own dignity it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted and their authority wanes and is supplanted The Chief Judicial Magistrate is head of the Magistracy in the District who administers justice to ensure protect and safeguard the rights of citizens
The subordinate courts at the district level cater to the need of the masses in administering justice at the base level
By and large the majority of the people get their disputes adjudicated in subordinate courts it is in the general interest of the community that the authority of subordinatecourts is pro tected
If the CJM is led into trap by unscrupulous Police Officers and if he is assaulted handcuffed and roped the public is bound to lose faith in courts which would be destrictive of basic structure of an ordered society
If this is permitted Rule of Law shall be supplanted by Police Raj
Viewed in this perspective the incident is not a case of physical assault on an individual judicial officer instead it is an onslaught on the institution of the judici ary itself
The incident is a clear interference with the administration of justice lowering its judicial authority
Its effect was not confined to one District or State it had a tendency to affect the entire judiciary in the country
The incident highlights a dangerous trend that if the Police is annoyed with the orders of a presiding officer of a court he would be arrested on flimsy manufactured charges to humiliate him publicly as has been done in the instant case
The conduct of Police Officers in assaulting and humiliate the CJM brought the authority and administration of justice into disrespect affecting the public confidence in the institution of justice
The summary power of punish ment for contempt has been conferred on the courts to keep a blaze of glory around them to deter people from attempting to render 993 them contemptible in the eyes of the public
These powers are necessary to keep the course of justice free as it is of great importance to society Oswald on Contempt of Court
The power to punish contempt is vested in the Judges not for their personal protection only but for the protec tion of public justice whose interest requires that decen cy and decorum is preserved in Courts of Justice
Those who have to discharge duty in a Court of Justice are protected by the law and shielded in the discharge of their duties any deliberate interference with the discharge of such duties either in court or outside the court by attacking the presiding officers of the court would amount to criminal contempt and the courts must take serious cognizance of such conduct
It takes us to the question against which of  the con temners contempt is made out
On behalf of the petitioners it was urged that the Police Officers  conduct amounts to criminal contempt as their action lowered the authority of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and it further caused inter ference with the administration of justice
Mr Soli Sorab jee learned Attorney General contended that all those who abetted and helped the Police Officers  in their conduct and design are also guilty of contempt of court
On behalf of the contemners it was urged that the incident which took place in the Police Station does not make out any contempt of court
The Chief Judicial Magistrate had consumed liquor and in druken state he went to the Police Station and slapped the Police Inspector Sharma thereby he committed offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act as well as under Section 332 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
Criminal cases have been registered against NL Patel CJM and after investigation charge sheets have been submitted to the court
In this context it was urged that no action could be taken against the contemners as the facts in issue in the present proceedings are the same as involved in the criminal prosecutions pending against NL PateI CJM
The question raised on behalf of the contemners need not detain us long
Proceedings for contempt of court are different than those taken for the prosecution of a person for an offence under the criminal jurisdiction
Contempt proceedings are peculiar in nature although in certain aspects they are quasicriminal in nature but they do not form part of criminal jurisdiction of the court
Criminal prosecution pending against the CJM or against the contemners has no bearing on the contempt proceedings initiated by this Court as the present proceed ings are not for the purpose of punishing the contemners for the offence of wrongful detention and assault on NL Patel Chief Judicial Magistrate instead these proceedings have been taken to protect the interest of the public in the 994 due administration of justice and to preserve the confidence of people in Courts
We accordingly reject the contemner s objection
We have already recorded findings that Sharma Police Inspector Nadiad had preplanned the entire scheme he deliberately invited Patel to visit Police Station where he was forced to consume liquor and on his refusal he was assaulted arrested handcuffed and tied with rope SR Sharma KH Sadia Sub Inspector Valjibhai Kalajibhai Head Constable and Pratap Singh Constable all took active part in this shameful episode with a view to malign and denigrade the CJM on accout of his judicial orders against the Police
We therefore hold SR Sharma Police Inspec tor KH Sadia Sub Inspector Valujibhai Kalajibhai Head Constable and Pratap Singh Constable guilty of contempt of court
MB Savant Mamlatdar had been summoned by Sharma Police Inspector to the Police Station in advance for purposes of being witness to the Panchnama drawn up by Sharma describing drunken condition of Patel CJM
The document was false and deliberately prepared to make out a Case against Patel CJM
MB Sawant was in complicity with Sharma he actively participated in the preparation of the document to malign and humiliate the CJM and to prepare a false case against him he is also therefore guilty of contempt of court
As regards DK Dhagal the then District Superintendent of Police Kheda we have already recorded findings that he was hand in glove with Sharma Police Inspector
The circum stances pointed out by the Commission and as discussed earlier show that though DK Dhagal had not personally participated in the shameful episode but his Conduct act and omission establish his complicity in the incident
It is difficult to believe or imagine that a Police Inspector would arrest humiliate assault and handcuff a CJM and the Police Chief in the District would be indifferent or a mute spectator
The circumstances unequivocally show that Sharma was acting under the protective cover of Dhagal as he did not take any immediate action in the matter instead he created an alibi for himself by interpolating the entries in the register at the Government Rest House Balasinor
In his report submitted to the Addl
Chief Secretary Home on 2791989 Dhagal did not even remotely mention the hand cuffing and roping of CJM
It is unfortunate that Dhagal as the district Superintendent of Police did not discharge his duty like a responsible Police Officer instead he identi fied himself with Sharma Police Inspector and actively abetted the commission of onslaught on the CJM
We accord ingly hold DK Dhagal the then DSP Kheda guilty of contempt of court
995 This takes us to the petition filed by NL Patel for quashing the criminal cases initiated against him on the basis of two First Information Reports made by Police In spector SR Sharma
As noticed earlier Sharma Police Inspector had registered two FIRs on 2591989 against NL Patel for the offences under Section 8513 read with Section 661b and also under Section 110 of Bombay Prohi bition Act on the allegations that Patel had consumed liquor without permit or pass and under the influence of alcohol entered into Sharma s chamber and behaved in an indecent manner
The FIR further alleged that Patel caught hold of PoliCe Inspector Sharma and slapped him
The second FIR was lodged by Sharma against Patel for offences under Sections 332353 186 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the same allegations as contained in the earlier FIR
During the pendency of the contempt proceedings before this Court the Police continued the investigation and submitted charge sheet in both the cases against NL Patel and at present Criminal Cases Nos
199890 and 199990 are pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Nadiad
These proceed ings are sought to be quashed
On behalf of the State and the Police Officers it was urged that since charge sheets have already been submitted to the Court Patel will have full opportunity to defend himself before the court where witnesses would be examined and cross examined therefore this Court should not inter fere with the proceedings
The gravamen of the charge in the two cases registered against NL Patel is that he had consumed liquor without a pass or permit and under the influence of liquor he entered the chamber of Police In spector Sharma at the Police Station and assaulted him
The Police over powered and arrested him and a panchnama was prepared and he was taken to the Hospital for medical exami nation and the report of medical examination indicates that he had consumed liquor
These very facts have been inquired into by the Commissioner and found to be false
We have recorded findings that Police Inspector Sharma and other Police Officers manipulated records and manufactured the case against NL Patel with a view to humiliate and teach him a lesson as the Police was annoyed with his judicial orders
We have already recorded findings holding SR Sharma Police Inspector Sadia Sub Inspector Valjibhai Kalabhai Head Constable Pratap Singh Constable MB Savant Mamlatdar and DK Dhagal DSP guilty of con tempt of court
These very persons are specified as witness es in the two charge sheets
The Commission s as well as our findings clearly demonstrate that the allegations contained in the two FIRs are false
If Police is permitted to prose cute Patel on those allegations merely on the basis 996 that charge sheets have been submitted by it it would amount to gross abuse of the process of the Court
In the circumstances proceedings against NL Patel are liable to be quashed
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat and the Police Officers urged that in the present proceedings this Court has no jurisdiction or power to quash the criminal proceedings pending against NL Patel CJM
Elaborating his contention learned counsel submitted that once a criminal case is registered against a person the law requires that the court should allow the case to proceed to its  normal conclusion and there should be no interference with the process of trial
He further urged that this Court has no power to quash a trial pending before the criminal court either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Constitution therefore the criminal proceedings pend ing against Patel should be permitted to continue
Learned Attorney General submitted that since this Court has taken cognizance of the contempt matter arising out of the inci dent which is the subject matter of trial before the crimi nal court this Court has ample power under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass any order necessary to do justice and to prevent abuse of process of the court
The learned Attorney General elaborated that there is no limitation on the power of this Court under Article 142 in quashing a criminal proceeding pending before a subordinate court
Before we proceed to consider the width and amplitude of this Court s power under Article 142 of the Constitution it is necessary to remind ourselves that though there is no provision like Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code conferring express power on this Court to quash or set aside any criminal proceedings pending before a criminal court to prevent abuse of process of the court but this Court has power to quash any such proceedings in exercise of its plenary and residuary power under Article 136 of the Consti tution if on the admitted facts no charge is made out against the accused or if the proceedings are initiated on concocted facts or if the proceedings are initiated for oblique purposes
Once this Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of court it would quash such proceedings to ensure justice
In State of West Bengal  Ors
vs Swapan Kumar Guha  Ors  this Court quashed First Information Report and issued direction prohibiting investigation into the allegations contained in the FIR as the Court was satisfied that on admitted facts no offence was made out against the persons named in the FIR
In Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia  Ors
vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre  Ors  criminal proceedings were quashed as this Court Was satis fied that the case was founded on false facts and the proceedings 997 for trial had been initiated for oblique purposes
Article 1421 of the Constitution provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete jus tice in any cause  or matter  pending before it
The expression cause  or matter  would include any proceeding pending in court and it would cover almost every kind of proceeding in court including civil or criminal
The inher ent power of this Court under Article 142 coupled with the plenary and residuary powers under Article 32 and 136 em braces power to quash criminal proceedings pending before any court to do complete justice in the matter before this Court
If the court is satisfied that the proceeding in a criminal case are being utilised for oblique purposes or if the same are continued on manufactured and false evidence or ifno case is made out on the admitted facts it would be in the ends of justice to set aside or quash the criminal proceedings
It is idle to suggest that in such a situation this Court should be a helpless spectator
Mr Nariman urged that Article 1421 does not contem plate any order contrary to Statutory provisions
He placed reliance on the Court s observations in Prem Chand Garg vs Excise Commissioner
UP Allahabad 1963 Supp
1 SCR 885 at 899 and AR Antulay vs RS Nayak  Anr  where the Court observed that though the powers con ferred on this Court under Article 1421 are very wide but in exercise of that power the  court cannot make any order plainly inconsistent with the express statutory provisions of substantive law
It may be noticed that in Prem Chand Garg s and Antulay s case Supra observations with regard to the extent of this Court s power under Article 1421 were made in the context of fundamental rights
Those obser vations have no bearing on the question in issue as there is no provision in any substantive law restricting this Court s power to quash proceedings pending before subordinate court
This Court s power under Article 1421 to do complete justice is entirely of different level and of a different quality
Any prohibition or restriction contained in ordi nary laws cannot act as a limitation on the constitutional power of this Court
Once this Court has seisin of a cause or matter before it it has power to issue any order or direction to do complete justice in the matter
This constitutional power of the Apex Court cannot be limited or restricted by provisions contained in statutory law
In Har bans Singh vs UP State  at 243 the Court observed Very wide powers have been conferred on this Court for 998 due and proper administration of justice
Apart from the jurisdiction and powers con ferred on this Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution I am of the opinion that this Court retains and must retain an inher ent power and jurisdiction for dealing with any extra ordinary situation in the largest interests of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done
This power must necessarily be sparingly used only in exceptional circumstances for furthering the ends of justice
 No enactment made by Central or State Legislature can limit or restrict the power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution though while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution the Court must take into considera tion the statutory provisions regulating the matter in dispute
What would be the need of complete justice in a cause or matter would depend upon the facts and circum stances of each case and while exercising that power the Court would take into consideration the express provisions of a substantive statute
Once this Court has taken seisin of a case cause or matter it has power to pass any order or issue direction as may be necessary to do complete jus tice in the matter
This has been the consistent view of this Court as would appear from the decisions of this Court in State of UP vs Poosu  Anr   Ganga Bishan  Ors
vs Jai Narain  Navnit R Kamani  Ors
vs RR Kamani   BN Nagara jan  Ors
vs State of Mysore  Ors Special Reference No I of 1964 supra and Harbans Singh vs State of UP Ors
supra
Since the foundation of the criminal trial of NL Patel is based on the facts which have already been found to be false it would be in the ends of justice and also to do complete justice in the cause to quash the criminal proceedings
We accordingly quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nadiad in Criminal Cases Nos 199890 and 1999 90
The question arises what punishment should be awarded to the contemners found guilty of contempt
In determining the punishment the degree and the extent of part played by each of the contemners has to be kept in mind
Sharma Police Inspector who was the main actor in the entire incident and who had planned the entire episode with a view to humiliate the CJM in the publis eye is the main culprit therefore he deserves maximum punishment
Sadia Sub Inspector took active part in assaulting and tying the CJM at the behest of Sharma Police Inspector
Valijibhai Kalajibhai Head Con stable and Pratap 999 Singh Constable also took active part in handcuffing and tying the CJM with ropes but as subordinate officials they acted under the orders of his superior officer
MB Sawant Mamlatdar was friendly to Sharma Police Inspector he had no axe to grind against the CJM but he acted under the influence of Sharma Police Inspector
So far as DK Dhagal is concerned he actively abetted the commission of on slaught on the CJM
Having regard to the facts and circum stances and individual part played by each of the aforesaid contemner we hold them guilty of contempt and award punish ment as under SR Sharma the then Police Inspector Nadiad shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and he shall pay fine of Rs2000
KH Sadia Sub Inspector Nadiad shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months and will pay a fine of Rs2000 and in default he will undergo one month s simple imprisonment
Valjibhai Kalajibhai Head Constable and Pratap Singh Constable both are convicted and awarded simple imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs500 each in default they would undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days
MB Savant Mamlatdar is convicted and awarded two month s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000 and in default he would undergo one month s simple imprisonment
DK Dhagal the then District Superintendent of Police Kheda is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days
So far as other respondents against whom notices of contempt have been issued by the Court there is no adequate material on record to hold them guilty of contempt of court we accord ingly discharge the notices issued to them
Before we proceed further we would like to express the Court s displeasure on the conduct of K Dadabhoy the then Director General of Police Gujarat
As the head of the Police in the State he was expected to intervene in the matter and to ensure effective action against the erring Police Officers
We are constrained to observe that he was totally indifferent to the news that a CJM was arrested handcuffed roped and assaulted
He took this news as a routine matter without taking any steps to ascertain the correct facts or effective action against the erring Police Officers
If the head of the Police administration in the State exhibits such indifference to a sensitive matter which shook the entire judicial machinery in the State nothing better could be expected from his subordinate officers
K Dadabhoy did not act like a responsible officer
The State Government should 1000 take action against him departmentaly on the basis of the findings recorded by the Commission
The State Government has initiated proceedings against other erring officers in respect of whom the Commission has adversely commented we would make it clear that discharge of contempt notices does not absolve those officers of their misconduct the State Government is directed to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings for taking appropriate action against them
We are constrained to observe that the State Government did not immediately take effective steps against the erring officials
In spite of the direction issued by this Court the erring Police Officers were neither arrested nor placed under suspension
It was only after this Court took serious view of the matter and directed the State Government to suspend the erring Police Officers and arrest them the State Government moved in the matter
The apathy of the State Government in taking effective action against the erring Police Officers leads to an impression that in the State of Gujarat Police appears to have upper hand as the administration was hesitant in taking action against the erring Police Officers
If this practice and tendency is allowed to grow it would result in serious erosion of the Rule of Law in the State
We hope and trust that the State Government will take effective measures to avoid re occur rence of any such instance
The State Government should further take immediate steps for the review and revision of the Police Regulations in the light of findings recorded by the Commission
The facts of the instant case demonstrate that a presid ing officer of a court may be arrested and humiliated on flimsy and manufactured charges which could affect the administration of justice
In order to avoid any such situa tion in future we consider it necessary to lay down guide lines which should be followed in the case of arrest and detention of a Judicial Officer
No person whatever his rank or designation may be is above law and he must face the penal consequences of infraction of criminal law
A Magistrate Judge or any other Judicial Officer is liable to criminal prosecution for an offence like any other citizen but in view of the paramount necessity of preserving the independence of judiciary and at the same time ensuring that infractions of law are properly investigated we think that the following guidelines should be followed
A If a judicial officer is to be arrested for some offence it should be done under intimation to the District Judge or the High Court as the case may be
1001 B If facts and circumstances necessitate the immediate arrest of a judicial officer of the subordinate judiciary a technical or formal arrest may be effected
C The facts of such arrest should be immedi ately communicated to the District and Ses sions Judge of the concerned District and the Chief Justice of the High Court
D The Judicial Officer so arrested shall not be taken to a police station without the prior order or directions of the District  Sessions Judge of the concerned District if available
E Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial Officer to communication with his family members legal advisers and Judicial Officers including the District  Sessions Judge
F No statement of a Judicial Officer who is under arrest be recorded nor any panchnama be drawn up nor any medical tests be conducted except in the presence of the Legal Adviser of the Judicial Officer concerned or another Judicial Office of equal or higher rank it  available
G There should be no handcuffing of a Judi cial Officer
If however violent resistance to arrest is offered or there is imminent need to effect physical arrest in order to avert danger to life and limb the person resisting arrest may be over powered and  handcuffed
In such case immediate report shall be made to the District  Sessions Judge concerned and also to the Chief Justice of the High Court
But the burden would be on the Police to establish necessity for effecting physical arrest and handcuffing the Judicial Officer and if it be established that the physical arrest and handcuffing of the Judicial Officer was unjustified the Police Officers causing or responsible for such arrest and handcuffing would be guilty of misconduct and would also be personally liable for compensation andor damages as may be summarily determined by the High Court
The above guidelines are not exhaustive but these are minimum safeguards which must be observed in case of arrest of a judicial officer
These guidelines should be implement ed by the State Government as well as by the High Courts
We accordingly direct that a copy of the guidelines shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and to all the High Courts with a direction that the 1002 same may be brought to the notice of the concerned officers for compliance
We do not approve NL Patel s conduct in visiting the Police Station on the invitation of Police Inspector Sharma
In our opinion no Judicial Officer should visit a Police Station on his own except in connection with his official and judicial duties and functions
If it is necessary for a Judicial Officer or a Subordinate Judicial Officer to visit the Police Station in connection with his official duties he must do so with prior intimation of his visit to the District  Sessions Judge
Pursuant to this Court s appeal made on September 29 1989 the members of the Bar as well as the members of the Judiciary throughout the country refrained from going on strike as a result of which inconvenience to general public was avoided and the administration of justice continued
The Court is beholden to the members of the Bar and members of the Judiciary for their response to this Court s appeal
We record our appreciation of the able assistance rendered to the Court by the learned counsel for the par ties
We are beholden to Sri Soli Jl
Sorabjee the then Attorney General who at our request ably assisted the Court in resolving complex questions of law
The Writ Petitions Contempt Petitions and Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of accordingly
NVK Petitions disposed of


Summary:
The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench for a declaration that the second proviso to rule 4 of Civil Services Examination Rules was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu tion of India
By an interim order the Tribunal allowed the appellant to appear at the Civil Services Main Examina tion 1990 subject to the result of the final orders in the original application
The said application was transferred to this Court
In a bunch of similar cases the Central Administrative Tribunal Delhi upheld the validity of Rule 4 of Civil Services Examination Rules
In appeal to this Court Civil Appeal Nos 5439 5290 by an interim order dated 7121990 the appellants therein were allowed to appear in Civil Services Main Examination 1990 and while finally disposing of the appeals the judgment of CAT Delhi was affirmed
Dismissing the case of the appellant in view of the judgment in CAs Nos
5439 5290 this Court HELD The appellant was also entitled to the same benefits as granted to the appellants in Civil Appeals No 5439 5290 namely i All those candidates who appeared for the Civil Services Main Examination 1990 pursuant to this Court s order dated 71290 and qualified themselves for the inter view shall be permitted to appear for the interview test and that if those candidates completely and satisfactorily qualify themselves by getting through the written examina tions as well as the interview shall be given proper alloca tion and appointment on the basis of their rank in the merit list notwithstanding the restriction imposed by the second proviso to rule 4 and this Court s judgment 113 upholding the validity of the said proviso since the re spondents have no questioned and challenged the directions given by CAT Principal Bench Delhi in its judgment dated 2081990
ii The un challenged directions given by the CAT in its judgment as well as directions given by this Court in its order dated 71290 were not controlled by any rider in the sense that the said directions were subject to the result of the cases and hence those directions would be confined only to those candidates who appeared for CSE 1990 and no further
The seniority of those successful candidates in CSE 1990 would depend on the service to which they have qualified
The seniority of the left out candidates would be maintained in ease they have joined the service to which they have been allocated on the result of previous CSE and such candidates will not be subjected to suffer loss of seniority as held by the CAT Delhi in its judgment
pp 114 H 115A D Mohan Kumar Singhania  Ors
vs Union of India 1991 Supp 1 SCR 46