Case: ANAND SWARUP MISRA Vs. B.N. NIGAM

2. The facts which give rise to the principal petition, No. 391 of 68, may be briefly stated. Petitioner is an Advocate of the Allahabad High Court and is practising before the Lucknow Bench. On January 20,1967 he presented a writ petition before a Division Bench of Mr. Justice B. N. Nigam and Mr. Justice G. D. Sehgal claiming certain reliefs in respect of a public servant who was under suspension and against whom a departmental enquiry had been held. The petition was admitted by the Court to its file, but the Court declined to grant stay of the order of dismissal which it was apprehended may be passed against Surendra Nath Mathur the petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner, who was appearing as the Advocate in the case, was on his own statement in the petition somewhat persistent. The Court, however, thought that it was a case in which stay should not be granted When the petitioner persisted in his argument, it is said that Mr. Justice Nigam observed "Dont waste the time of the Court". The petitioner still persisted and wanted to refer to the grounds in the petition which was filed by him on behalf of his client. The learned judge, it is said, observed that the petitioner might amend the writ petition. Thereafter, there was some more argument and the learned judge, it is said, observed that the petitioner was going beyond the writ petition. The petitioner then represented that he had taken the point which he was arguing in the petition whereupon Mr. Justice Nigam asked the petitioner to point out the paragraph in which the particular point was taken. It appears that further discussion was carried on between the Bar and the Bench. The petitioner then read out some grounds. He also referred to what he called a synopsis of the authorities in support of the said petition. On that the judge protested and said that the list of authorities should have been given to the Reader. But according to the petitioner the "Readers of the Court sometimes liked it and sometimes did not like it". On that it is said that Mr. Justice Nigam again observed that the petitioner was wasting the time of the Court. The petitioner then broke out into a peroration and the learned judge was moved into saying "Do not give us a sermon". Then it is said that Mr. Justice Nigam again said after some time "Dont waste time. Go away".3. It seems that the appellant took umbrage when Mr. Justice Nigam said, according to the petitioner, "Go away, I say". The petitioner says that he protested and persisted in his argument. Thereafter the petitioner sought to present a memorandum of a petition seeking to make written submissions to the Court which had heard the writ petition. But his petition was not accepted, because the time for entertaining petitions was over. There was a further hearing and Mr. Justice Nigam, the petitioner says, said several times "Go on, go on, go on". The petitioner being of the view, that the statements made by Mr. Justice Nigam amounted to contempt of his own Court by him in that he had insulted the petitioner when the petitioner was performing his duties as an Advocate moved a petition before the Chief Justice of the High Court requesting him to take appropriate action. The learned Chief Justice rejected the petition and against the order rejecting the petition an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed as incompetent. An application for a certificate to move this Court was also rejected.

Reasoning:
4. From the statements which have been made in Para.8 to 33 under the heading "Narrative" in S. L P. (Cr) No. 381 of 1968, it appears clear that by his persistence and aggressive advocacy in a case of little importance the petitioner had sorely tried the patience of the judge and if in the heat of the moment as the petitioner contends the judge used some expressions like "Go away" or that "You are wasting the time of the Court" (on the truth of that statement we express no opinion), we do not think that any case is made out for taking proceedings for contempt against the judge for contempt of the High Court. From the way in which the proceedings were commenced before the High Court and the way in which they have been persisted throughout and, if we can guess, from the manner in which the argument was presented in this Court for more than one and three quarters of an hour we have no doubt that a trifling incident in Court was magnified out of all proportions by the petitioner and he filed a petition in the High Court and an appeal before the Division Bench and a special leave petition in this Court. We have no doubt that Mr. Justice Nigam never intended to insult the petitioner. The petitioner has been unduly sensitive. We do not feel called upon in this case to express an opinion on the question whether a judge of a court of record may be held guilty of contempt when presiding in Court.5. We think that no case is made out for taking proceedings in contempt. We do not propose to decide the question whether against the order issued by the learned Chief Justice an appeal lay to the Division Bench, nor do we think it necessary to go into the question whether the learned Chief Justice in disposing of the application acted improperly in rejecting the petition without a speaking order and not making his order in open court.