Case: SEEMA SAPRA Vs. COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 assailing the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 17 th December, 2015 holding the appellant guilty of having committed contempt of Court and imposing punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to be deposited within a period of three months from the date of the order, failing which undergo a further term of imprisonment of one month with a further direction restraining the appellant to argue as an advocate or in-person, except in her defence, before any Bench of the High Court of Delhi or any Court or Tribunal subordinate to the High Court of Delhi for a period of two years from the date of passing of the impugned judgment dated 17 th December, 2015. 2. The appellant had been exempted from surrendering vide order of the Chamber Judge dated 9 th October, 2017. Notice was issued on the applications as well as on the appeal vide order dated 26 th March, 2018, which has been duly served. 3. We have heard the parties. During the course of hearing, the appellant-in-person made an oral request that this Bench ought to recuse from hearing the matter which fact has been noted in our order dated 11 th April, 2019 while reserving the order. The same reads thus: We have heard the petitioner in-person. She is at liberty to file additional documents, which were referred to during the course of argument or any further document(s) which she intends to file. She prays for four weeks time to do so. Appropriate order will be passed after the additional document(s) are filed. After hearing the petitioner in-person for almost two hours and this order being dictated, the petitioner submits that this Bench should not hear these matters. Even this submission will be considered in the order that we may pass after considering the document(s). Orders reserved. 4. Instead of filing additional documents in terms of the liberty given to the appellant in the aforementioned order, she moved an I.A. No.62789 of 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018 on 12 th April, 2019. We will take it up for consideration while dealing with the main writ petition in which the same has been filed. For the present, suffice to point out that one of the reliefs claimed in the said application is that the cases be listed before a Bench not comprising of one of us (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.). The appellant, however, mentioned the matter on 6 th May, 2019 to inform the Court about filing of the said application. Since the mentioning was done before a different Bench, the application could not be taken up for hearing and was directed to be listed on 2 nd July, 2019. Again, on 2 nd July, 2019, the cases were listed before a different Bench and not the same combination which had heard the matters on 11 th April, 2019. It was, therefore, ordered that the cases be listed before the same Bench which had heard the matter on 11 th April, 2019 and reserved order therein. Accordingly, the cases were listed on 12 th July, 2019 before the specially constituted Bench. After hearing the appellant-in- person, the Court passed the following order: We have heard the petitioner-in-person on the applications for issue of appropriate directions/order and for modification of previous Court order, for over one hour. After hearing the petitioner-in-person for quite some time, we asked her to confine her arguments to the issues which may require our consideration. She submitted that one of us (A. M. Khanwilkar, J.) should recuse. For that, she invited our attention to the averment made in I.A. No.62789 of 2019 in particular. Such request cannot be accepted merely for asking by the petitioner-in-person. Reasons for not accepting that prayer will be elaborated in the order to be passed as noted in our previous order dated 11.04.2019. It is open to the petitioner to file list of dates and/or any other relevant document(s), if she so desires. That be filed within two weeks. We reiterate that all aspects will be considered and appropriate orders passed on the concerned proceedings, to be pronounced later. 5. We must, at the outset, deal with the gravamen of the apprehension of the appellant as to why she has insisted for recusal of one of us (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.). Even on a liberal reading of the averments in the stated application, the apprehension of the appellant is founded on the allegation that she may not get justice from the Bench as Justice A.M. Khanwilkar is well acquainted with the Advocates who incidentally are members of the Supreme Court Bar Association against whom personal allegations have been made by her in the accompanying writ petition. 6. We must usefully refer to Court On Its Own Motion Vs. State (paragraph 28), in which it has been observed as follows: The path of recluse is very often a convenient and a soft option. This is especially so since a Judge really has no vested interest in doing a particular matter. However, the oath of office taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India enjoins the Judge to duly and faithfully and to the best of his knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of office without fear or favor affection or ill will while upholding the constitution and the laws. In a case, where unfounded and motivated allegations of bias are sought to be made with a view of forum hunting/Bench preference or brow-beating the Court, then, succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not fulfilling the oath of office. It is also pertinent to remind ourselves of the dictum of Lord Denning who observed in R. Vs. Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex p. Blackburn (1968) 2 AII ER 319 as under: All we would ask is that that those who criticize us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticism. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication. Exposed as we are to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us from doing what we believe is right; nor, I would add, from saying what the occasion requires provided that it is pertinent to the matter in hand. Silence is not an option when things are ill done. 7. Reverting to the present cases, it is noticed from the impugned judgment that around 28 Judges of the High Court of Delhi, who had heard the writ petition filed by the appellant, had to recuse by the time the writ petition was finally decided on 2 nd March, 2015. Even after filing of the instant criminal appeal at least three Judges of this Court have recused themselves, for one reason or the other. Not only that, the appellant had moved a formal application being I.A. No.30030 of 2018 in the present appeal to recall the order passed on 7 th February, 2018 appointing Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Singh as Amicus Curiae, as she had strong objection to his appointment. Similarly, the appellant had filed I.A. No.111244 of 2017 for recall of order dated 27 th October, 2017 appointing Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. That application was also allowed by this Court vide order dated 4 th December, 2017. 8. Be that as it may, after the matter was assigned to this Bench during the hearing, which lasted for more than two hours on 11 th April, 2019, the appellant had orally suggested that this Bench should not hear the cases as has been noted in the said order. On that day, the Court reserved its order giving liberty to the appellant to file additional documents to reinforce her arguments on the merits of the contempt proceedings, as insisted by her during the oral submission. Instead of availing of that liberty, the appellant chose to file I.A. No.62789 of 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018 praying for recusal of one of us (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.). However, keeping in mind the totality of the situation, the Court declined her prayer as recorded in the order dated 12 th July, 2019. 9. Indubitably, it is always open for a Judge to recuse at his own volition from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice. But, that may be a matter of his own choosing. Recusal, at the asking of the litigating party, cannot be countenanced unless it deserves due consideration and is justified. We draw support from the exposition of the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Another Vs. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 808. It must never be forgotten that an impartial Judge is the quintessence for a fair trial and one should not hesitate to recuse if there are just and reasonable grounds. At the same time, one cannot be oblivious of the duty of a Judge which is to discharge his responsibility with absolute earnestness, sincerity and being true to the oath of his/her office. After perusal of the assertions made in the stated I.A.s, we have no hesitation in observing that the same are devoid of merit and without any substance. To observe sobriety, however, we say no more. 10. Reverting to the criminal appeal, after hearing the parties and the same being a statutory appeal preferred by the appellant against the finding of guilt and punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the same requires due consideration although there is a delay of 32 days as stated in I.A. No.128666 of 2017.

Decision:
1[ds]5. We must, at the outset, deal with the gravamen of the apprehension of the appellant as to why she has insisted for recusal of one of us (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.). Even on a liberal reading of the averments in the stated application, the apprehension of the appellant is founded on the allegation that she may not get justice from the Bench as Justice A.M. Khanwilkar is well acquainted with the Advocates who incidentally are members of the Supreme Court Bar Association against whom personal allegations have been made by her in the accompanying writ petition9. Indubitably, it is always open for a Judge to recuse at his own volition from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice. But, that may be a matter of his own choosing. Recusal, at the asking of the litigating party, cannot be countenanced unless it deserves due consideration and is justified. We draw support from the exposition of the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Another Vs. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 808. It must never be forgotten that an impartial Judge is the quintessence for a fair trial and one should not hesitate to recuse if there are just and reasonable grounds. At the same time, one cannot be oblivious of the duty of a Judge which is to discharge his responsibility with absolute earnestness, sincerity and being true to the oath of his/her office. After perusal of the assertions made in the stated I.A.s, we have no hesitation in observing that the same are devoid of merit and without any substance. To observe sobriety, however, we say no more10. Reverting to the criminal appeal, after hearing the parties and the same being a statutory appeal preferred by the appellant against the finding of guilt and punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the same requires due consideration although there is a delay of 32 days as stated in I.A. No.128666 of 201714. By this application, appellant has prayed that the order dated 7 th February, 2018 appointing Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Singh be. That prayer has been granted in terms of order dated 30 th July, 2018 passed by the Court. The other relief claimed in the application is to issue notice to the office of the Attorney General for India, which is similar to one made in another application filed by the appellant. As the criminal appeal has been admitted, the Registry shall proceed in the matter as per the Rules. Hence, no further orders are required in that regard15. The appellant has then prayed for giving a qualified lawyer; to give appellant a full and fair hearing in the matter. The record shows that fair hearing has been given to the appellant thus far; and it would be extended even after admission of the appeal. No formal order is required in that regardThis prayer, to say the least, is premature. For, so long as the Court does not take up the appeal for final hearing, the question of referring the matter to a Five Judge Constitution Bench that too before the appeal is admitted cannot be countenancedThe grievance in this application is founded on some clerical error in the order passed by this Court in the past. It is seen that the same has been rectified20. We are of the view that no general direction to the Registry as prayed is warranted. Inasmuch as, the Registry is required to maintain and secure the record of all cases as per the Rules and if there is some error in the records, it is always open to the parties to bring it to the notice of the Court. As and when such occasion arises in future, appropriate direction can be given by the CourtThe same were filed before the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.1280 of 2012 on behalf of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited22. As regards the contempt proceedings, in relation to which the instant criminal appeal arises, the question is limited to the utterances made by the appellant before the High Court on 6 th May, 2014; and as to whether the same would constitute criminal contempt in the face of the Court. No other issue is required to be considered. Suffice it to observe that the stated documents have no relevance to the question required to be answered in the present criminal appeal regarding the alleged utterances made by the appellant before the Delhi High CourtWrit Petition (C) No.13 ofr Article 32 of the Constitution of India)Pursuant to the aforementioned order the petitioner was free to approach the office of the concerned Commissioner of Police and seek police protection if she apprehended danger to her life. If the authorities had failed to take necessary action despite such request made by her, it was and will be open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy in that regard. During the course of hearing, we were informed by the petitioner that she has filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. In that case, the petitioner may pursue that remedy to its logical end. If the relief claimed in the said writ petition is insufficient, it will be open to the petitioner to amend the said writ petition and/or to file a substantive writ petition if fresh cause of action has arisenAs regards the prayer to direct that the cases be not listed before a Bench comprising of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, the same has already been rejected in the earlier part of this order. The prayer for recall of order dated 11 th April, 2019 and for hearing of cases in open Court also stands redressed as the matters were heard in open Court on 12 th July, 2019Writ Petition (C) No.1027 of 201832. As noted while disposing of the accompanying writ petition, we deem it appropriate to dispose of even this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedy before the Delhi High Court, already filed by the petitioner. In our opinion, it may not be appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach different forums for overlapping issues concerning her security or her grievance regarding inaction of the Authorities to process her complaint regarding sexual harassment.