-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 4 OF 2010 High Court on its own motion ... Petitioner vs. Subhash Jha ...Respondent Smt. A.S. Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Petitioner. Mr. R.V. Bhasin with Mr. Bharat Vaishnawa and Mr. Atul Dubey for the respondent. Respondent present in person. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2010. P.C. In this Suo Motu Contempt Petition placed before us for hearing, this Court is required to consider as to whether the letter written by the respondent, who is a practicing Advocate of this Court, to the Acting Chief Justice amounts to contempt of this Court. 2. The respondent is a practicing advocate of this Court. The respondent, who is present before this Court along with his Advocate -2- Mr. Bhasin, has pointed out that he is practicing since last 23 years and he has appeared in various cases i.e. Civil, criminal and Constitutional matters before this Court. These proceedings arise out of a letter written by the respondent to the then Acting Chief Justice of this Court on January 11, 2010. In the said letter, he has stated that no doubt, the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster and it is purely his prerogative to assign judicial work to the puisne judges of the High Court. As a member of the legal procession, he is certainly concerned with assignment of judicial work to the Judges of this Court. In the said letter, he has voiced his grievance in connection with the judicial work assigned to the Judges especially on the criminal side. He has stated in the said letter that the judicial work is assigned to the Judges who have neither worked on the criminal side while practicing as a lawyer nor they have any requisite knowledge/acumen to understand and appreciate the criminal law which needs a different approach and mindset. He has suggested in his letter to the Acting Chief Justice that criminal matters may be assigned only to those judges who have some background of dealing with the criminal matters in the past. In the said letter he has stated that his letter may not be construed that the members of the Bar are seeking to choose the forum but the request is only to the extent of assigning judicial work on the criminal side to those judges who have proficiency in handling criminal matters. -3- 3. Since the contents of the said letter having been found to be contemptuous, suo motu proceedings have been initiated against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. At the time of hearing of this petition, the respondent is assisted by Advocate Shri Bhasin. An affidavit has been tendered by the respondent. In paragraph 2 of the said affidavit it is stated that the impugned letter dated January 11, 2010 was written to the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice sincerely believing that the respondent is entitled to do so in the best interest of the cause of justice. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the reply, he has stated as under. “5. I say that I would like to assure this Court my unshaken respect for the Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court. I would respectfully submit that the matter may kindly be closed in the best interest of co-operation between the Bench and the Bar. 6. I say that there was no intention, not even remotely, to bring disrepute either this institution and/or any Hon’ble Judge of this Hon’ble Court and that if an appointment would have been accorded to me by the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice in the matter, I would have certainly apprised of the reason for having caused issuance of the impugned letter. I say that the impugned letter was never written with any oblique or ulterior motive. I say that the impugned letter may not be construed and/or inferred to mean that the same was addressed concerning all the Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court who have not practiced on the criminal side and/or that all of them do not have the requisite acumen and/or expertise or handling criminal matters. I say that I shall be making a request to the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice to accord me an opportunity of personal hearing along with few members of the bar very shortly on the subject and in view thereof, the impugned letter be treated to have been withdrawn by me and the same be -4- permitted to be withdrawn accordingly.” 5. During the course of hearing, on behalf of the respondent it was pointed out that in one particular case even though he had succeeded he was of the opinion that the decision of the concerned Judge was against the settled principles of law. It is submitted that it is not a case where a letter was written with a view to see that matters should be assigned to a particular Judge who may be liberal in approach or that a particular Judge is strict that tempted him to write the letter. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent had written letter to the Acting Chief Justice, though in a given case he had succeeded, in his view the decision was contrary to the provisions of law and, therefore, he wanted to point out the Acting Chief Justice that a Judge who has dealt with a particular subject is assigned the said work, it may improve the efficiency and judgments can be more qualitative. He submitted that except pointing out this aspect, there was no other intention in his mind. He submitted that he had decided not to pinpoint any particular case and, therefore, a letter, as stated above, was written with a bona fide manner. It is submitted that the letter was written not due to one particular solitary judgment but there are few other judgments given by the Court and he was of the opinion that such judgments are contrary to the well established principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is submitted by the respondent that only with a view to see that if there is a proper assignment, it may be beneficial to the system as a -5- whole. During the course of hearing, respondent wanted to pinpoint some orders before us but we have not permitted him to do so as this Court is not required to express any opinion in any manner regarding the judicial orders passed by the Court. 6. The respondent submitted that by writing the letter as stated above, there was no intention to lower down the image of the judiciary in any manner and that there was no intention on his part in any manner to scandalise or tend to lower the authority of any Court or prejudice or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings. It is submitted that the letter is not written in connection with any pending judicial matter but was written only with an intention to see that the glory of the Court is maintained. The respondent has also submitted that he has high regard for the judiciary and as an Advocate of 23 years standing, he has never tried to remotely commit contempt of any Court in any manner. It is submitted that if this Court is of the opinion that by writing such letter, an attempt has been made by him to lower the authority of this Court, he expressed his regrets and tendered oral apology for the same. 7. During the course of hearing it was submitted that as an advocate of about 23 years standing, his intention for writing such letter was bona fide and beyond that he has no other intention. The respondent also submitted that he was of the opinion that perhaps he would be called by the Acting Chief Justice -6- for personal discussion so that during such discussion he could have pointed out certain orders to justify his say. It is submitted that this letter was not written with any oblique motive. According to the respondent, he wanted to bring it to the notice of the Chief Justice certain orders so that the same can be taken into account while preparing the roster regarding assignment of a particular subject to a particular judge. 8. In the affidavit, respondent has stated that the impugned letter be treated to have been withdrawn by him. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that since the respondent had expressed his regret and tendered oral apology, it is now for the Court to pass appropriate order as it may deem fit. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent as well as the respondent at some length and also examined the issue involved in the matter. It is no doubt true that in a given case the members of the Bar, if they have any genuine grievance in connection with administration of justice, can point out their legitimate grievance to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. It is equally true that in a given case if an Advocate has any point to be placed before the Chief Justice, he can request the Chief Justice to allow him to express his views and it is for the Chief Justice whether audience is required to be given to the particular advocate or not. It is required to be noted that the respondent has not written -7- this letter stating it to be confidential. It would have been better if the respondent had asked for appointment of the Acting Chief Justice and pointed out his grievance by showing the judgments on the basis of which he was prompted to write the said letter. However, the contents of the letter, in our view, are not in good taste as it gives an impression as if the Judges taking criminal matters are not competent. Even if an advocate has any grievance, he can ventilate his grievance in a proper and decent manner. In our view, even if the respondent had any such object in his mind, without writing a letter, he should have pointed out this fact orally to the Acting Chief Justice. Even while writing a letter or even while making any complaint or by ventilating grievance, decency is required to be maintained. In our view, the averments made in the letter, which we have discussed above, can be said to be nearer to lowering down the image of the Court. It may be true that in a given case addressing a letter to the Acting Chief Justice in his individual capacity may not amount to publication but since the respondent has already tendered oral apology that there was no intention on his part to lower down the image of the judiciary or of any Judge, we accept the said oral apology and regret expressed by the respondent but we caution the respondent to be more careful in future. We may, however, clarify that our present order should not be construed as if we have expressed any opinion to the fact that an Advocate has no right to ventilate his genuine grievance before the Chief Justice. Care is required to be taken to see that such writing should not be such that it may amount either -8- contempt or amount to lower down the image of the judiciary. The respondent in the present case could have taken appointment of Chief Justice and aired his grievance instead of making very wide and wild averments regarding the assignment of criminal work in such a manner. 10. It is the bounden duty of every member of the Bar to maintain the dignity of the institution wherein the lawyers have also a pivotal role. Unless there is coordination between the Bar and the Bench and co-operation from the members of the Bar, it will be difficult for the institution to function in an effective manner. The members of the Bar are also part and parcel of this system. It is also expected of the members of the Bar also to see that the reputation of the institution is enhanced. Even if either an advocate or a party is of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the Court is not correct, the remedy available in law is to challenge the order before the higher forum. We hope and trust that if any member of the Bar wants to ventilate his grievance, the same should be done in a dignified manner without showing disrespect to any of the Judges or towards the Institution. With this, we terminate this proceeding after accepting the oral apology tendered by the respondent. Since the respondent has requested for withdrawing the letter, the said letter be treated as withdrawn and accordingly we put an end to this suo motu contempt proceeding. The Respondent at this stage submitted that he may now try to meet the Chief Justice and ventilate the grievance voiced in the letter. On this -9- point, we are not expressing any opinion. If the respondent is desirous of adopting the said course, it is for him to do that. The proceeding accordingly stands terminated in view of what is stated above . P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.G. KETKAR, J.