AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Yog, J.—Applicant is an Advocate practicing at Lucknow before Lucknow Bench of "The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad''.
Opposite party No. 1 and Opposite party No. 2 are said to be working at the relevant time as Registrar and ''Senior Most'' Private Secretary at Lucknow Bench of the High Court.
Petitioner has filed his own affidavit sworn on 19.10.2005, in support of the above noted contempt application. Relevant paras of the said affidavit for convenience are reproduced :
"01. That the applicant is practicing Advocate in this Hon''ble Court. He feels that as an Advocate he is duty bound to see that the majesty of the Court is maintained and no obstruction or interference is made by any person or authority in the administration of justice in any manner.
That no Stenographer/P.A./P.S. was present in Court from 11.50 a.m. to 12.50 p.m. in Court No. 20 before the said Bench. The Hpn''ble Bench also showed its displeasure thrice.
That since no Stenographer/P.A./P.S. was attending the Court the work came to a stand still for one hour.
That the two cases of the applicant were listed in the supplementary list viz., W.P. No. 6365 (M/B) (Crl.) of 2005, Parasnath v. State and W.P. No. 6367 (M/B) (Crl.) of 2005, Akhilesh Pandey v. State, at SI. Nos.''5 and 9 respectively.
That due to nonavailability of Stenographer/P.A./P.S. for one hour the work of the Court could not be performed, the Hon''ble Bench could only finish fresh cases and supplementary list could not be taken up.
That opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 failed to perform their mandatory duties in making supervision and ensuring the presence of Stenographer/P.A./P.S. in Court No. 20 on 7.10.2005.
That opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of interfering the due course of judicial proceeding and obstructing the administration of justice."
Applicant appeared in person and orally submitted that primary object of filing present contempt case is to draw attention of all the concerned to remind them of their duty to provide adequate ''staff to the Court and make sure of smooth functioning of the Court.
It is alleged that opposite parties failed to provide requisite staff (steno/judgment writer) in Court No. 20 during 11.50 a.m. to 12.50 p.m. on 7.10.2005 which was last working day before the start of Dashehra Vacations and consequently unusual pressure of work upon the Court.
We have heard the applicant and carefully perused the record. Section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which is relevant in the context of the present case, reads :
"2. Definition. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires
(a) "Contempt of Court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b) "civil contempt" means...............................................
(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication, whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or
(ii) prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
(d) "High Court" means........................................"
(Italics by us to lay emphasis)
For the sake of argument, even if the facts pleaded are taken to be correct on their face, no contempt is made out for following reasons :
One : Howsoever ''pious'' and ''purposeful'' be the object behind filing of the present contempt petition, this Court cannot take cognizance of alleged ''act''/''omission'' as constituting contempt unless it was pleaded and also proved that such act/omission on the part of opposite parties was intended to ''interfere'' or the same was with knowledge that it shall ''tend to interfere'' with ''judicial proceeding'' or ''the administration of justice in any other manner''. It is no where stated that alleged ''act'' or ''omission'' of the opposite parties was ''deliberate'' or ''willful'' or ''intentional'' or within their knowledge to obstruct/disrupt functioning of the Court. A categorical pleading on ''fact'' on the above aspect was particularly necessary when, according to the applicant, there was abnormal rush of work i.e., the Court had much more cases listed before it as compared to any other day because of ensuing Dashehra Vacations starting from next day.
Essential pleadings on the vital aspectnecessary to hold ''one'' guilty of committing contempt are conspicuously absent. There is no allegation that ''steno'' was not provided in spite of availability in the Registry. In absence of requisite pleadings, as noted above, no ''contempt'' can be said to be committed by the opposite parties.
Two : It is not pleaded that opposite parties failed to discharge their duty, if any, in the matter of assignment or posting of approved strength of staff or in the matter of appointment/engagement of PSs/PAs to cope with work in Court. Inadequacy of staff, wherein no role of opposite parties has been alleged, even if, the act/omission on their part ''interferes'' or tends to interfere with ''administration of justice'', cannot be constructed as an ''act''/''omission'' amounting to contempt as defined in Section 2, Contempt of Courts Act.
Three : It is not the case of the applicant that no PA/PS was deputed to take down ''dictation'' at 10.15 a.m. to 11.50 a.m. when Court resumed its functioning on the relevant day. Applicant, though impliedly, admits that PAs/PSs (as are normally attached/deputed with Hon''ble Judge/s) were present in Court at the relevant time. It is also admitted that there was unexpected rush of work (being last day before Dashehra Vacations) as compared to the work on other normal days. This shows an unusual and unexpected situation. It is not the case of the applicant that spare staff was availablein the ''pool''; of PS/PA or in the Registry which could be requisitioned to meet ''abnormal'' rush of work in the Court. Inconvenience, even if caused due to shortage of staff, therefore, was apparently due to reasons ''beyond control'' of the opposite parties such an act/omission or failure to provide additional hand cannot be equated with an act which tends to interfere with administration of justice and hence such an act/omission was beyond the control of opposite parties. No criminal contempt can be said to have been committed under Contempt of Courts Act. There is no pleading that opposite parties were aware of the ''situation'' alleged in contempt petition and even though they could provide ''steno'' but did not do so.
Four : State of U.P. (which is the authority to sanction/create posts and grant financial approval) and which alone could be held responsible for the shortcoming pointed out by the applicant, does not amount to willful obstruction in ''Administration of Justice'' and moreover State of U.P. or officers/authority have not been impleaded as opposite party in present contempt petition to explain their conduct in defence.
Apparently, applicant appears to have been irked by the ''inconveniences'' and liability of Court to take up more cases due to nonavailability of sufficient number of Private Secretaries/Personal Assistants in the Court, as a consequence of which there was interference with ''administration of justice''. In short, according to him, failure to take desired steps to eradicate avoidable causes, for no good reason, are like irritable ''speedbrakers'' hampering smooth flow on busy HighWays.
No doubt, lack of adequate infrastructure precipitates hurdles in smooth functioning of Court and consequent result is nondisposal of more ''cases'' by Court. In our opinion, there is nothing otherwise to doubt ''bonafide'' of the applicant who has genuinely endeavoured to emphasis upon a genuine cause, namely obstruction in functioning of the Court due to nonavailability of adequate staff in the High Court (as well as its Subordinate Courts in the State of U.P.).
P.Ss/P.As are the arms of Court. One cannot expect an institution (the Courts in the instant case) to function without desired infrastructure. Grim situation, arising out of poor facilities and adequate infrastructure in particular, looking at the everincreasing litigation and workload of Courts at all levels, should not be ignored too long and allow the institution to die out of suffocation. The ''grievance'' made in the petition deserves to be received with all seriousness and positive approach on the parts of the concerned without delay.
Sufficient Courts with appropriate infrastructure are must to preserve ''Rule of Law'' and ensure survival of healthy Democracy which shall otherwise soon become a myth.
"No case for contempt under Section 2, Contempt of Courts Act is made out against opposite parties for the reasons given above.
Contempt petition fails on merit.
In the result, contempt petition is rejected in limine.
No order as to costs. Contempt petition dismissed.