Jharkhand High Court Refers Contempt Case Against Advocate General To Larger Bench Amid Claims Of False Affidavits, Procedural Complexities
The Jharkhand High Court has referred a pending contempt case involving the state's Advocate General, accused of filing false affidavits, to a larger bench for further deliberation. The Court emphasised the importance of judicial propriety and the binding nature of decisions from a coordinate bench, stating that differing views should be referred to a larger bench.Justice Sanjay Kumar...
The Jharkhand High Court has referred a pending contempt case involving the state's Advocate General, accused of filing false affidavits, to a larger bench for further deliberation.
The Court emphasised the importance of judicial propriety and the binding nature of decisions from a coordinate bench, stating that differing views should be referred to a larger bench.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the matter, observed “When a decision of a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to be notice of the Bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the Bench of such co-equal strength to take a different view and refer the question to the larger Bench, it is the only course of action open to a Bench of a co-equal strength and faced with previous decision taken by a Bench with same action.”
“This Court does not want to proceed in the present matter distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in view of principle of judicial propriety demand as this Court is of the view that the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment is per inquirium which is not binding effect, however, due to judicial propriety, it will not be proper for this Court to proceed ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Contempt Case (Crl.) No.3 of 2021,” Justice Dwivedi added.
Background
The case background involves a criminal miscellaneous petition where the State was directed on March 6, 2024, to provide investigation instructions and file a supplementary counter affidavit within two weeks.
The court then directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Jharkhand, Ranchi, to intervene and file the supplementary counter affidavit within two weeks. The DGP complied, revealing discrepancies in the supplementary counter affidavit. According to the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, a supplementary chargesheet had been submitted on January 19, 2016, against the petitioner and Md. Shane Raja, who was shown as an absconder. The chargesheet stated that the petitioner was on bail, but the counter affidavit claimed the petitioner was absconding. Additionally, the chargesheet lacked witness information supporting the prosecution's case.
On April 29, 2024, the court observed, “It appears that the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh has misguided the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi has filed the present supplementary counter affidavit.”
The order further stated, “prima facie, it appears that in a mechanical way, the affidavit has been filed before the court by none other than the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi himself. As such, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi is directed to explain the above misappropriation in the supplementary chargesheet as well as the disclosure made in para-7 of the supplementary counter affidavit by way of filing further supplementary counter affidavit.”
The DGP, Jharkhand, Ranchi, was also allowed to seek an explanation from the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, for misleading him. At the next hearing on May 6, 2024, the court noted that the DGP had urgently requested an explanation from the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, who claimed the error was typographical.
The court remarked, “Thus, it is crystal clear that false affidavit has been filed before this Court by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand at the instance of Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh.”
Further, the court observed that the affidavit filed on May 6, 2024, was also misleading, with a missing page in the supplementary chargesheet suggesting an attempt to mislead the court with false information by the DGP, Jharkhand.
The court highlighted, “This aspect of filing of false affidavit was the subject matter before the several High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been repeatedly emphasized that averments in the affidavit should be clear and specific and to the dismay of the Court it is not only vague but, highly unsatisfactory. The two officers of such high stature have not cared to discharge their duty with responsibility.”
The court underscored the serious nature of making false statements before the court, adding, “A very lame excuse is taken by Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh that it was a typographical error and this matter is pending since 2013 before this Court. It is well settled that a person makes a false statement before Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court. The Court not only has the inherent powers but it would be failing in its duty if alleged contemner is not dealt with a contempt jurisdiction for abusing process of Court. Prima facie, these two officers are in contempt of Court.”
Following the court's directive on May 6, 2024, the DGP, Jharkhand, Ranchi, filed an I.A. seeking to withdraw the supplementary counter affidavits submitted on his behalf and requested permission to submit a fresh, consolidated supplementary counter affidavit.
The court noted that the I.A. admitted a mistake had occurred, although it was claimed to be a bona fide typographical error.
The court observed, “Same ground was taken in earlier supplementary counter affidavit and when this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 held that the Director General of Police, Jharkhand and Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag are in contempt, thereafter, the present I.As. have been filed which clearly suggests that it is an afterthought to save the skin of issuing the contempt proceeding. At the earlier point of time, it was not accepted and earlier they have tried to justify the action and after the order dated 06.05.2024, present I.As. have been filed.”
Rejecting the I.As., the court stated, “Thus, the Court finds that the word 'apology' used in the said I.A., as well as supplementary counter affidavits, is belated and it is without real contribution and rumors and it was merely tendered as a weapon of defence then it was tendered and no cogent ground has been taken and, as such, I.A. No.4983 of 2024 and I.A. No.4984 of 2024 are, hereby, rejected,” the Court added.
The court relied on the judgement in Court on its own motion v. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan and Mr. Sachin Kumar, and also referred to Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 3 SCC 705, which held that contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, require the same standard of proof as other criminal cases. The court noted, “Thus, it is well known that after cognizance only, charge can be framed.”
Acknowledging the procedural complexities, especially since notices of contempt had not been issued earlier, the court deliberated on whether charges should be framed along with the notice on the first date or after cognizance and appearance, as per criminal procedure norms. Given these complexities, the court decided not to proceed further with initiating contempt proceedings against the DGP, Jharkhand, and the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, until receiving clarity on procedural matters under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The court opined that the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court in Contempt Case (Crl.) No.3 of 2021 (Court on its own motion v. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan and Mr. Sachin Kumar) required reconsideration by a larger bench. It listed five key questions for the larger bench, addressing issues such as the timing of taking cognizance of contempt, the framing of charges, and the procedure for dealing with contempt by high-ranking officials like the Advocate General.
The key questions for the larger bench are:
- Should the Court take cognizance on the very first date of a contemptuous act, or should it proceed with caution, providing opportunities for the contemnor to respond before taking cognizance? Additionally, is it necessary to record every word in the order to maintain judicial propriety?
- Should charges be framed on the first date or upon taking cognizance, and after notice/cognizance, can charges be framed on the first date of appearance as per criminal procedure?
- When a contemnor is put on notice along with all documents, should they be given the opportunity to review these documents and respond after their appearance, ensuring procedural fairness?
- When a Single Judge of a constitutional Court takes suo motu cognizance of contempt and refers the matter to the Division Bench under Sections 15 and 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, is this considered a proper reference? Can a constitutional Court Judge's cognizance be seen as initiating the motion of contempt rather than merely a reference?
- In cases where the Advocate General is in contempt, is the procedure outlined in Section 15(1)(c) and Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act required? Is there any restriction on the Court's power to take suo motu action?
The court, citing several case laws, concluded that the matter needed consideration by a larger bench. Consequently, it ordered, “The papers including the entire records of W.P.(Cr.) No.139 of 2021 as well as Contempt Case (Crl.) No.3 of 2021 may therefore be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Jharkhand for appropriate order.”
Case Title: Mansoor Ansari vs The State of Jharkhand