iminal Appeal No 65 of 1966 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 20 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc
Contempt Application No 76 of 1964
R K Garg and section C Agarwal for the appellants
The respondent did not appear
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court
dated September 20 1965 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Contempt Application No 76 of 1964 finding the appellant 177 guilty of having committed contempt of Court and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs 5001 
They have also been directed to pay the costs in the contempt proceedings
The first appellant died during the pendency of this appeal
As a fine has been imposed against him in addition to the liability to pay costs his widow has been brought on record as his legal representative and allowed to continue these proceedings
The circumstances under which the contempt proceedings came to be initiated in the High Court may be briefly indicated
The second respondent herein Sri V P Singh is an advocate practising at Azamgarh and he was a member of the Congress Organisation at the material time
He stood for election for membership of the Prarambhik primary Congress Committee of Tarwa in the District of Azamgarh held on April 10 1964
His opponent was one Badri Singh
In that election
Badri Singh was declared elected
The second respondent filed on April 16 1964 a suit No 132 of 1964 in the Court of the City Munsif
Azamgarh for having the election of Badri Singh declared void and inoperative
He had alleged various irregularities regarding the conduct of the said election
Along with the suit he had also filed an application for injunction restraining the District Election Officer and other Officers from holding elections for membership of the District Congress Committee
He had also asked for an injunction restraining Badri Singh from taking part in the elections for membership of the District Congress Committee
The City Munsif had granted the interim injunction on April 18 1964
Badri Singh on being served with this interim order filed an application dated April 21 1964 before the City Munsif praying for vacating the order of interim injunction
At the time when the election that was challenged by the 2nd respondent took place Sri Ajit Prasad Jain was the President of the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee Shri Govind Sahai was the General Secretary of the said Committee and Sri Rameshwar Narain Singh was the General Secretary of the District Congress Committee Azamgarh
It appears that the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress bad passed a resolution
dated December 45 1960 the substance of which was that any member of the Congress having any grievance in respect of any action taken or decision given by a Congress Organization
should take advantage of the tribunals provided to seek redress by way of appeal or reference and that such matters should not be taken to law Courts
That resolution further provided that initiating of such litigation and securing of ex parte interlocutory orders against the Congress Committee and Congress authorities
178 was highly detrimental to the discipline of the Organisation and its smooth working
The resolution wound up by saying that the Working Committee resolved that any member who instituted a suit or other proceeding in law Courts against any Congress Committee or Official did so at the risk of being considered guility of gross indiscipline and of being summarily and without any further notice removed from membership of the Congress by order of the Provincial Congress Committees concerned or the Working Committee
In view of this resolution Sri Gulzari Lal Nanda who is stated to have been delegated the authority of the Working Committee in respect of organisational elections in Uttar Pradesh issued a directive dated April 20 1964 to the President Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee Sri Ajit Prasad Jain to take immediate action against those members who had gone to Courts in regard to Congress organisational elections anywhere in Uttar Pradesh
Accordingly Sri Jain on April 21 1964 sent out circular letters to all the District Returning Officers in Uttar Pradesh expelling those Congressmen from membership of the Congress who had filed suits in Courts concerning organizational elections
Sri Govind Sahai and Sri Rameshwar Narain Singh the appellants herein also sent each of them a letter to the District Returning Officer expelling the second respondent and removing his name from the membership of the Congress
This decision was duly com municated to the second respondent
To resume the narrative regarding the proceedings connect ed with the suit the application for vacating the injunction filed by Badri Singh came up for final hearing before the City Munsif on April 25 1964 when the second appellant filed an affidavit mentioning the fact that the second respondent herein who was the plaintiff in the suit had been expelled from the Congress Organisation
In view of the fact that the very foundation for initiating action vanished the City Munsif dismissed the injunction application on April 27 1964 on the ground that the second respondent was no longer a member of the Congress Organisation
The second respondent moved an application before the City Munsif on May 9 1964 for taking proceedings in contempt against the appellant and Sri Ajit Prasad Jain but that application was dismissed on May 30 1964 on the ground that the present appellants were not parties to the suit
The second respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Contempt Application No 76 of 1964 in the High Court
After setting out the circumstances under which he filed the suit and the order of expulsion passed against him the second respondent alleged that the act of the appellants along with Sri Ajit Prasad Jain had directly interfered with the normal course of justice by hampering the progress of the suit
179 Sri Ajit Prasad Jain and the appellants filed written statements containing identical pleas
Their contention was that the second respondent was bound by the rules and regulations of the Indian National Congress and that they had full right and justification for expelling him and removing his name from the membership of the Congress
That action expelling the second respondent they contended had been taken on the strength of the resolution of the Congress Working Committee referred to earlier
They had further contended that their object in enforcing the Circular dated December 45 1950 was only to enforce discipline in the Congress and not with a view to render the second respondent s suit infructuous or interfere with the Court s proceedings
They ultimately pleaded that none of them were guility of any contempt of Court
So far as Sri Ajit Prasad Jain is concerned it is seen that
after filing his written statement he was appointed Governor of Kerala
The High Court in view of article 361 clauses 2 and 3 held that the proceedings could not be continued against that party and hence discharged the rule
Regarding the appellants the High Court held that their conduct directly tended to interfere with the suit proceedings pending in Court initiated by the second respondent and as such amounted to contempt of Court of the City Munsif Azamgarh
In view of the fact that no expression of regret was made by them the High Court sentenced each of the appellants to pay a fine of Rs 5001 and also pay costs of the State as well as the second respondent herein
Mr R K Garg learned counsel for the appellants urged that the second respondent was a member of the Congress Organisation and he was bound by the Resolutions passed by the same
The appellants had only acted in accordance with the directions given by the appropriate officers of the Congress organisation and they were bound to obey the instructions given to them
When in the course of the discharge of their duties they had been directed to enforce the resolution of the Congress dated December 415 1950 they issued the Circulars expelling the second respondent from the Congress
Their object in expelling the second respondent was not in any manner intended to interfere with the proceedings pending in the suit
The fact that the injunction application was dismissed because it became infructuous by the second respondent having ceased to be a member of the Congress Organisation was certainly not a circumstance which could be put against the appellants in the matter of issuing the circular concerned
There has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents
After giving due consideration to the contentious urged by the 180 learned counsel for the appellants we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly found the appellants guilty of contempt of Court
The original first appellant Sri Govind Sahai and the second appellant had each sent letters to the District Returning Officer expelling the second respondent and removing his name from the membership of the Congress
There is no dispute about this fact
It is also not disputed that the second appellant filed an affidavit in Suit No 132 of 1964 drawing the attention of the Court to the order of expulsion from membership passed as against the second respondent and it is substantially in view of this that the application for temporary injunction was dismissed
We are of opinion  that these acts are of each a nature as to interfere with or prejudice the second respondent in the proceedings connected with this suit
Oswald in his book Contempt of Court  Third Edition says at p 6 To speak generally Contempt of Court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of
the law into disrespect or disregard or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during the litigation
 This statement has been quoted with approval by Das J who delivered the majority judgment in the decision reported as Pratap Singh vs Gurbaksh Singh1
More or less under similar circumstances this Court in the said decision has held that certain actions taken by the officers therein amounted to contempt of Court
From the facts noted in that decision it emerges that an Officer of the Forest Department against whom an order for recovery of certain amounts had been made had instituted a suit for having that order declared null and void
When the summons in the suit was served on the State Government the Under Secretary to the Government in the concerned Department sent a memorandum to the Chief Conservator of Forests drawing his attention to a Circular letter issued by the Government on January 25 1953
In that Circular letter the Government had indicated that any attempt by a Government servant to seek decision in a Court of law in respect of matters arising out of employment or conditions of service without exhausting the normal official channels of redress was considered to be contrary to official propriety and subversive of discipline and such conduct would justify the initiation of disciplinary action against the government servant
The Under Secretary in his communication to the Chief Conservator of Forests had stated that the 1 1962 Supp2 SCR838 848
181 officer who had instituted the suit had not exhausted his departmental remedies and therefore he had rendered himself liable to disciplinary action as per the Government Circular letter of January 25 1953
The Under Secretary further added that the Chief Conservator should intimate what action he proposed to take against the particular officer
On receipt of this letter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the officer who had filed the suit
Promptly that officer filed an application before the High Court for taking action for contempt against the officers mentioned therein
The defence was that the action taken was perfectly competent and it did not amount to contempt of Court
The High Court negatived the defence contention and held that the officers who had initiated disciplinary proceedings were guilty of contempt of Court
This Court on appeal approved of the decision of the High Court
In that decision Das J and Subba Rao J as he then was took the view that the action of the officers who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the person who had filed a suit amounted to contempt whereas Raghubar Dayal J held to the contrary on facts
But Raghubar Dayal J also agreed with the proposition that if any pressure is put on a party in order to make it act in a particular manner with respect to a pending action that would amount to contempt of Court in which the matter be pending
But the learned Judge was of the view that inasmuch as disciplinary proceedings had been initiated in view of the Government Circular letter dated January 25 1953 there was no question of contempt
With respect we are in agreement with the majority view in the above decision
In the instant case the passing of the orders of expulsion by the two appellants against the second respondent and the filing of a supporting affidavit in the suit by the second appellant clearly indicate that it was a deliberate attempt by the appellants to interfere with or prejudice the second respondent in the conduct of the litigation instituted by him
It is no answer that the action by way of expulsion was taken on the basis of the Resolution of the All India Congress Working Committee and to enforce discipline in the Congress Organization
As emphasized by Das J in Pratap Singh s Case any conduct which interferes with or prejudices parties litigant during the litigation is undoubtedly Contempt of Court 
The High Court in this case was justified in holding the appellants guilty of contempt
We agree with the said conclusion
Before closing the discussion on this matter we may state that Mr Garg referred us to the decision in Webster V Bake 1 1962 Supp 2 SCR 838 2 182 well Rural Council1 and urged that on the principles laid down therein the appellants were not guilty of contempt
The consideration of this English decision need not detain us much because it has been adverted to  by Das J in Pratap Singh s Case1 and distinguished
Therefore Websters Case2 does not apply to the facts of the instant case
The result s that this appeal fails and is dismissed
YP Appeal dismissed
1 1962 Supp 2 SCR 838


Summary:
The second respondent a member of a political party filed a suit challenging the election of his opponent to a committee of the party
He also obtained an interim injunction restraining his opponent from taking part in certain elections
The appellants office bearers of  the party
issued letters expelling the second respondent from the Organisation in pursuance of an earlier resolution of the party which barred reference of such dispute to law courts and provided for summary removal of an member who initiated a suit
The opponent of the second respondent moved the court for vacating the injunction in which the second appellant filed an affidavit stating the expulsion of the second respondent
The second respondent moved the Munsif for taking proceedings in contempt against the appellant 
which was dismissed
Thereupon he filed con tempt application in the High Court and the High Court held the appellants guilty of contempt court
In appeal this Court  HELD  The appellants were guilty of contempt of court
The passing of the orders of expulsion by the two appellants against the second respondent and the filing of a supporting affidavit in the suit by the second appellant clearly indicated that it was a deliberate attempt by the appellants to interfere with instituted by second respondent in the conduct of the litigation instituted by him
It was no answer that the action by way of expulsion was taken on the basis of the resolution of the party and to enforce discipline in the Organisation
181 F G Pratap Singh vs Gurbaksh Singh 1962 Supp 2 SCR 838 followed
Webster vs Bakewell Rural Council distinguished