Case: T.C. Gupta and Anr Vs. Hari Om Prakash and Ors

You are, therefore, directed to supply this information in following format in respect of those who had filed objections under Section 5-A……..? 12. A reading of the above extract would seem to indicate that on the very day of the order i.e. 17.01.2011 the first appellant understood the said order to be requiring him to lay before the High Court information as to whether the land owners in favour of whom land has been released had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act or not. This is how the first appellant understood the order of the High Court. At that point of time the order of the Court was not available to the first appellant. On such understanding of the order dated 17.01.2011 the first appellant directed the concerned subordinate official to furnish information in the prescribed format in respect of the land owners who had filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act so that the same could be placed before the Court on the date fixed. While it may be correct that the first appellant ought to have sought information not only in respect of land owners who had filed their objections but also as regards the land owners who had not filed their objections, the question that arises is whether the said lapse, by itself, will make the first appellant liable in contempt? 13. The e-mail dated 17.01.2011, extracted above, partially bears out the stand taken by the first appellant that he understood the order of the Court as requiring him to furnish information in respect of land owners who had filed their objections. Admittedly, a copy of the order of the court dated 17.01.2011 became available to the first appellant only at 6.00 p.m. on 18.01.2011. In his affidavit the first appellant had also stated that it would have been better if, on 19.01.2011, he had sought more time to furnish the requisite information against query No.1. However, he did not do so as the information in respect of other queries were available. The circumstances in which the events have unfolded, in our considered view, does not lead to the sole conclusion that there was a deliberate or willful attempt on the part of the first appellant not to furnish the requisite information or to furnish wrong information to the Court. Rather, it appears probable that the failure to furnish the requisite information to the Court may have been occasioned by a momentary error of judgment on the part of the first appellant. For the said lapse he had tendered his unqualified apology in the affidavit dated 28.01.2011 along with which he had also furnished the requisite information i.e. name and particulars of the land owners who had not filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act. The above situation, in our considered view, called for a broad and magnanimous view of the matter and the acceptance of the unconditional apology tendered. Such a course of action, according to us, would have better served the dignity and majesty of the institution. In fact, under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Explanation thereto an apology ought not to be rejected merely on the ground that it is accompanied by an explanation for the lapse that had occurred. 14. Before parting, we consider it apt to quote hereunder certain observations of this Court in its opinion rendered in the Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 [AIR 1965 SC 745 ] (under Article 143(1) of the Constitution) made to this Court in the matter arising out of notice of breach of privilege of the State Legislature issued to two Hon?ble Judges of the Allahabad High Court as, according to us it is in the aforesaid spirit that the contempt jurisdiction ought to be viewed and exercised. ?142. Before we part with this topic, we would like to refer to one aspect of the question relating to the exercise of power to punish for contempt. So far as the courts are concerned, Judges always keep in mind the warning addressed to them by Lord Atkin in Andre Paul v. Attorney-General of Trinidad, AIR 1936 PC 141. Said Lord Atkin, ?Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though out- spoken comments of ordinary men.? We ought never to forget that the power to punish for contempt large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the dignity or status of the court, but may sometimes affect it adversely. Wise Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct. ……….? 15. That the power to punish for contempt is a rare specie of judicial power which by the very nature calls for exercise with great care and caution had been reiterated by this Court in Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra [AIR 1971 SC 221 ] whereas in In Re: S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339] , Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer while noticing the principles of the exercise of power of contempt had outlined the first of such principles to be ?wise economy of the use of the contempt power by the court?. Reiteration of the aforesaid principle has been made in several subsequent pronouncements of this Court, reference to which would not be necessary in view of the unanimity of opinion on the issue that the power to punish for contempt ought to be exercised only where ?silence is no longer an option.? 16. For the aforesaid reasons we are unable to sustain the conclusion reached by the High Court in its order dated 31.01.2011.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The material facts indicating the unfolding of the relevant events leading to the eventual decision of the High Court has been narrated in seriatim in the preceding paragraphs. The information sought for by the High Court; the response of the appellants and their explanation with regard to the answers provided in the first instance and the reasons which had occasioned the errors therein have all been set out in detail. Notwithstanding the above, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the explanation provided by the appellants is a mere eyewash and wrong information was deliberately furnished and correct information was withheld by the appellants which make them liable in contempt. The basis for the above conclusion reached by the High Court is the contents of annexure A2 and A3 to the affidavit dated 28.01.2011 filed by the first appellant, namely, the email dated 17.01.2011 alongwith attachment sent by the first appellant to his subordinate officialsThat the power to punish for contempt is a rare specie of judicial power which by the very nature calls for exercise with great care and caution had been reiterated by this Court in Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra [AIR 1971 SC 221 ] whereas in In Re: S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339] , Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer while noticing the principles of the exercise of power of contempt had outlined the first of such principles to be ?wise economy of the use of the contempt power by the court?. Reiteration of the aforesaid principle has been made in several subsequent pronouncements of this Court, reference to which would not be necessary in view of the unanimity of opinion on the issue that the power to punish for contempt ought to be exercised only where ?silence is no longer an option.?we are unable to sustain the conclusion reached by the High Court in its order dated 31.01.2011.