DR. PRODIP KUMAR BISWAS v. SUBRATA DAS AND ORS

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 709

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL, S.B. SINHA

Case summary

DR. PRODIP KUMAR BISWAS v. SUBRATA DAS AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

DR. PRODIP KUMAR BISWAS v. SUBRATA DAS AND ORS. APRIL 2, 2004 [Y. K. SABHARWAL AND S. B. SINHA, JJ. ] } ..... Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Ss. 15 and 17-Proceedings for contempt of court-Procedure to be followed-Writ petition filed before High Court alleging false representations made by appellant in its advertisements and prospectus using the name ofthe High Court-In appeal Division Bench ofHigh Court noticing a false affidavit having been filed by appellant before it-High Court restraining the appellant from using the name of the High Court in its future advertisements and publications as also holding him guilty ofcriminal contempt ofcourt-Later on a contempt petition filed .

against appellant for disobeying Court's order, High Court directing appellant to be taken into custody and subsequently releasing him on bail-Held, appellant was not granted reasonable opportunity before passing the two orders-Neither any notice of contempt issued to appellant nor any hearing took place in the contempt matter-Orders ofHigh Court set aside-On an undertaking given by appellant, contempt case disposed of-Contempt of Courts Calcutta High Court Rules,1975-Rr. 19 and 20. Appellant was running institutions of alternative medicines. A writ petition was filed in Calcutta High Court by respondent alleging false claims to have been made by the appellant in the publications and advertisements issued in connection with admission to his institutions including that his institution was also approved by the High Court of Calcutta. Another writ petition was filed by a different person against another institution and its proprietor.

The earlier writ petition filed against the appellant was disposed of by a Single Judge in terms of the order passed in the subsequent writ petition. This order was challenged by the respondent in appeal before Division Bench on the ground that the writ petition filed by him was not disposed of on merits. The High Court.. noticed that the appellant had also filed an affidavit making a false statement therein that the Chief Justice of the High Court along with other Judges attended a party along with the respondent in the second writ petition who was facing forgery charge. The Division Bench by judgment and order dated 11. 5. 1998 restrained the appellant and his institutions from using the name of the High Court or giving reference to any case decided by the said Court either in prospectus or in any advertisement. It also held the appellant guilty of criminal contempt of court and imposed upon him a fine of Rs. 2000. Later, respondent No.

I also filed a contempt petition before the :,... , Division Bench alleging that the appellant was still using the name of the High Court in the Website and as such continued to violate the orders of the Court. The Division Bench by order dated 10. 7. 1998 held that a case of gross and deliberate disobedience of the direction of the Court was made out; and directed the appellant to be taken into custody. Later the appellant was released on bail. The appellant filed the present appeals against both the decisions holding him guilty of contempt of court. It was contended for the appellant that he was directed to be taken into custody without following the procedure envisaged by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Contempt of Courts Calcutta High Court Rules, 1975 and without affording any opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: I. I.

On facts, the appellant was not granted reasonable opportunity before passing of the impugned judgment and order dated I Ith May, 1998 or the impugned order dated 10th July, 1998. On the Division Bench of the High Court not being satisfied about the contents and tenor of the affidavit dated 29th April, 1998, counsel for the appellant sought an opportunity to file an affidavit tendering apology. That affidavit was tendered by the appellant on 5th May, 1998. Thereafter, no hearing took place. In fact, it seems that no hearing took place after 30th April, 1998. When respondent No. I again moved the Court by the impugned order dated 10th July, 1998, the appellant was taken into custody, and later released on bail. Thereafter time was granted to file reply to contempt application. At no stage was the appellant noticed of the contempt, as provided in Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in particular under ss. 15 and 17 thereof; nor was the rule nisi drawn up as envisaged under rr.

19 and 20 of the Conten:pt of Courts Calcutta High Court Rules, 1975. [715-F-G; 716-C, E-GI DR. P. K. 131SWAS v. SUBRATA DAS 711 1. 2. The contempt proceedings should not be initiated lightly. The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act ad\•ersely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. (712-B-CI Supreme Court Bar Association v. U11io11 of India and Anr. , (1998( 4 sec 409, relied on. 1. 3.

Since, in the instant case, in the· face of the infirmities, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, one course that can be adopted is to remand the contempt case for a fresh decision by the High Court, in accordance with I. aw and the other course that can be adopted is to dispose of the contempt case as also these appeals on the basis of an affidavit dated 25th March, 2004 that has been filed by the appellant in this Court. It would be expedient to adopt the later course which would meet the ends of justice. In the affidavit dated 25th March, 2004 the appellant has undertaken not to mention the name of the High Court in any advertisement or publicity in connection with his institution in future. In the light of this affidavit, on the facts of the case, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the contempt proceedings against the appellant. The contempt"case is disposed of by accepting the undertaking as contained in the affidavit of the appellant.

(717-C-F( CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 11. 5. 98 of the Calcutta High Court in M. A. T. No. 462 of 1998. WITH Crl. A. No. 795 of 1998. . ' '" A. K. Ganguly, Kailash Yasdev. S. C. Ghosh and Brij Bhushan for the Appellant. Himanshu Sekhar, G. S. Chatte1jee, Angad Mirdha, Maninder Singh, Pratihha M. Singh. Kritiman Singh, Ms. A Subhashini and Tara Chandra Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered ty Y. K. SABHARWAL, J. These two appeds have been filed under Section 19 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act'). In one of the appeals, the challenge is to the impugned . udgrnent and order of the High Court whereby the appellant ha~ been held guilty of criminal contempt of court and fine of Rs. 2,000 has been imposed uprn him.

The main grievance that has been urged by learned counsel in suppo1t of the appeal is that the High Court before holding the appellant guilty md imposing fine neither issued any notice nor afforded any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In the second appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order of the High Court whereby the appellant was directed to be taken into custody forthwith though later on the same date, he was ordered tc be released on bail. Both the appeals are offshoot of the same litigation pe 1ding in the High Court in respect whereof we may make a brief reference. Respondent No. I filed Writ Application (WI' No.

20305(W) of 1997) in the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, praying that the State-respondents be directed to take appropriate action against the arpellant and the institutions run by him and he be stopped from deceiving put lie by issue of publications and advertisements in different newspapers making false claims giving an impression that only his institution on alternative medicines was recognized by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal and approved by Medical Council of India as ilso by the High Court of Calcutta. It was claimed that by such false representations, the writ petitioner (respondent No. I herein) had been duped; made payment of the requisite fee and took admission in the Medical College of A ternative Medicines run by the appellant. In another Writ Application (WP No. 1437/97) filed by one Mr. Bidyut Kumar Guha Roy, allegations had been made against one Dr. S. K. Agarwal and his institution on alternative medicines viz.

Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and Open International University for Alternative Medicines. In the said writ petition neither the arpellant or his institution nor respondent No. I were parties. The writ application of Respondent No. I was disposed of by learned )f • Single Judge of the High Court in terms of the c·rder passed in Writ Petition No. 1437 of 1997. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in appeal (MAT No. 462 of 1998) filed by respondrnt No. I. One of the grounds urged in the appeal was that the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1437 of \ .. DR. P. K. Bl SWAS v. SUBRATA DAS [SABHARWAL. J. ] 713 1997 was different from the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 20305(W) of 1997 and the learned Single Judge committed serious illegality in not going into the merits and merely disposing ofthe writ petition in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 143 7 of 1997.

By the impugned judgment, the learned Division Bench held that it was the duty of the learned Single Judge to dispose of the Writ Petition No. 20305(W) of 1997 on merits. The Bench further held that instead of remanding the matter, Writ Petition No. 20305(W) of 1997 can be disposed of by restraining the appellant herein and his institutions from using the name of the court or giving reference to any case decided by the Calcutta High Court either in the prospectus or in any advertisement so that no impression is created in the mind of the public that High Court has approved the said institutions or recognized those as having authority to impart knowledge about the system of alternative medicine. The issue in these appeals is not about the correctness of the judgment ofthe High Court in disposing ofthe appeal and the writ petition of Respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid manner.

However, by the same judgment and order, the Division Bench held the appellant guilty of criminal contempt of court and imposed fine on him, as earlier noticed. We are concerned only with the part of the order that deals with the contempt aspect. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court shows that during hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant submitted before the Division Bench that his client in future either in the prospectus or in any ad~ertisement would not make reference to any case decided by the High Court. But no sooner the counsel after making the submission left the court after taking leave of the court, attention of the court was drawn to a supplementary affidavit that had been filCd by the appellant in the appeal without leave of the court. It was filed on the same date when the counsel concluded the argument and left the court, namely, 29th April, 1998.

It was, inter alia, stated in that affidavit that Hon'ble the Chief Justice along with some other judges of the Calcutta High Court attended the 5th International Conference of Alternative Medicines held at Park Hotel, Calcutta on Ist December, 1997 along with Dr. S. K. Agarwal, President, Indian Board ofAlternative Medicines who was facing forgery charge for forging the seal and signature of the learned 5th Assistant District Judge, Alipore. The newspapers carrying photographs were annexed to the said affidavit. The impugned order further records that on the next date of hearing, i. e. , 30th April, 1998 the appellant was personally present in cuurt and his counsel prayed for time till 5th May, 1998 to file unqualified apology for affirming false statement in the affidavit 714 SUPREME COURT REPORT'i [2004) 3 S. C. R. that had been earlier filed by the appellant as notiC•! d by the Court on 29th April, 1998.

One of the false averments in that affid2vit that has been noticed by the Division Bench is about the photograph of ChiefJustice of the Calcutta High Court being along with Dr. S. K. Agarwal. He impugned order, inter a/ia, records that the person standing next to the Chief Justice was not Dr. S. K. Agarwal but was another Hon'ble Judge of the High Court and the persons not recognizing the Chief Justice and the sad learned Judge may get confused and believe that Dr. S. K. Agarwal was stmding next to the Chief 1 Justice. The said photograph shows that between t 1e Chief Justice and Dr. S. K. Agarwal, another learned Judge of the High Ccurt was standing, though Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, points out that strictly speaking in the photograph, learned Chief Justice may not be standing along with Dr. S. K. Agarwal as another le - ' May. 1998 by which he was held to be guilty of co~tempt. When respondent No.

I again moved the Court, by the impugned ordff dated 10th July, 1998, the appellant was taken into custody, then released o 1 bail and thereafter time was granted to file reply to contempt application. The procedure to initiate contempt proceedinp has been laid down in the Act. Section 14 lays down the procedure when tte contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. The case ir hand is not covered by Section 14 of the Act. It is not a case of contempt in the face of the Court. That was also not the submission urged on behalf or Respondent No. I Jn the ... ' case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14 of the Act, the procedure to take cognizance has been laid down in Section I5 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 15, inter 1/ia, provides that every motion or reference made under the Section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

The procedure to be followed after taking cognizance has been provided for in Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 provides that notice of every proceedin~ under Section 15 shall be served personally on the person charged, unless the court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise. It also sets out the docl ments which are required to be accompanied with the notice. The Calcutta High Court, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 23 ofthe Act and Artie e 215 of the Constitution of India has made rules to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a court subordinate to it under the Act being the Contempt of Courts Calcutta High Court Rules, 1975. Rule 19, inter alia, provides that the Court may issue rule nisi. It further provides that the rul1: nisi shall be drawn up, as far as may be, in the model form in Form No. I, Appendix I.

Rule 20, inter a/ia, provides that where a rule is issued by the Court on its own motion under Rule 15, the rule nisi shall be drawn up, as fa· as may be, in the model form in Form No. 2, Appendix I. Rule 29 provides that the respondent or the contemnor may file an affidavit showing cause and the petitioner may file a reply thereto within such time as may be directed by the Court. The court DR. P. K. BISWAS r. SUBRATA DAS [SABHARWAL. J. ) 717 may, however, in a contempt proceeding take such evidence as may be considered necessary. Admittedly, rule nisi was not drawn up. In fact, it seems that neither any notice of contempt was issued to the appellant nor any hearing took place except what has been noticed hereinbefore. The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions.

This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. {See Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr. , [1998] 4 SCC 409}. The contempt proceedings should not be initiated lightly. Since, in the present case, in the face of the infirmities abovenoticed, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained, one course that can be adopted is to remand the contempt case for its fresh decision by the Hig~ Court, after due observance of the rules and affording opportunity to the appellant and the other course that can be adopted is to dispose of the contempt case as also these appeals on the basis of an affidavit dated 25th March, 2004 that has been filed by the appellant in this Court. We are of the view that it would be expedient to adopt the later course which would meet the ends of justice.

In the affidavit dated 25th March, 2004 the appellant has undertaken not to mention the name of the High Court in any advertisement or publicity in connection with his institution in future. In the light of this affidavit, on the facts of the present case, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served in continuing with the contempt proceedings against the appellant. In the light of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 11th May, 1998 and also the impugned order dated I0th July, 1998 and dispose of the contempt case by accepting the undertaking of the appellant as contained in his affidavit filed in this Court. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. R. P. Appeals disposed of.