Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Contempt Proceedings Against State's Advocate General And AAG

The Jharkhand High Court has granted substantial relief to the state's Advocate General Rajeev Ranjan and Additional Advocate General Sachin Kumar, in a petition seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against them.

The petition stemmed from alleged remarks and conduct while seeking the recusal of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi from a matter.

For context, a single bench of the High Court was seized of a writ petition in a murder case. On August 13, 2021, the Advocate General had requested Justice Dwivedi's recusal, citing an overheard remark from the counsel for the petitioner, suggesting that the case will be allowed "200%". Thereafter, while delivering its judgment on September 1, 2021, the writ Court formed a prima facie opinion that the AG and AAG 'had committed criminal contempt of the Court'. Accordingly, suo moto  was initiated and notices were issued to both for alleged criminal contempt.

However, a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice S Chandrashekhar and Justice Ambuj Nath deemed the petition unworthy of further consideration and dismissed it.

The bench noted, “We are however faced with a situation where the learned Single Judge did not record the words and utterances of the opposite parties in the Court on 13th August 2021; and, a charge was not framed and put to the opposite parties even on 1st September 2021. Just for the sake of fullness, we may record that no charge based on the facts recorded in the judgment dated 1st September 2021 can be framed now to proceed with the present criminal contempt proceeding. Furthermore, assuming that there was a charge framed against the opposite parties on the basis of the facts recorded in the aforesaid judgment because the words spoken by the opposite parties are not recorded in the judgment dated 1st September 2021 the present reference could not have been adjudicated and decided.”

“Simply put, without framing a charge and affording an opportunity to the opposite parties to explain their conduct, a reference under section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act for registering a criminal contempt proceeding against the opposite parties is not maintainable. The aforementioned reference against the opposite parties contravenes the provisions under sub-section (3) to section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the rules of natural justice and therefore liable to be discharged,” the bench concluded while closing the Contempt case.

On August 13, 2021, the AG had informed the court that in an online session related to the case, the microphone of the petitioner's lawyer was inadvertently left on. Allegations were made by the deceased's relatives that they were promised an assured victory and that a CBI investigation was imminent.

The AG had requested the judge to step aside from the case. As a result of this behavior, the court asked both individuals to apologize, but they declined. Consequently, the court issued notices to them.

In its ruling, the Court stressed the vital role of maintaining the rule of law, emphasizing that members of the Bar share this responsibility equally.

“The responsibility to maintain the rule of law lies equally on the members of the Bar. Any conduct designed to or suggestive of or creating unnecessary controversy in the Court would erode the public confidence in the judicial system and undermine the authority of the Court. Such attempts shall be construed as an intentional attempt to obstruct the course of justice and to deter the Court from performing its duty. The rules framed under section 49(1)(c) of the Bar Council of India Act, 1961 lay down that an advocate must conduct himself with dignity and not be servile.”

The Court underscored that an advocate should comport themselves fittingly as an officer of the Court, and while advocating for their clients' interests vigorously, advocates must exercise restraint and refrain from using intemperate language during court proceedings.

The opposing parties claimed they had acted respectfully toward the Court, intending only to inform it about the conduct of the petitioner's counsel. They submitted evidence of their interactions with the Court and other counsel, contending that the judgment of September 1, 2021, did not accurately reflect the events.

However, the Court held that the accuracy of the opposing parties' statements could not be evaluated in the current proceeding.

Can court take cognizance of past incidents?

One issue before the Court was whether Court can take cognizance of any alleged contemptuous act with certain delay.

The Court elucidated on Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which delineates the procedure for cases where contempt is in the face of Supreme Court or High Court. It emphasized that every High Court possesses the inherent power to punish for contempt, with the only requisite being that the procedure followed must be just, fair, and reasonable under the law.

Additionally, the Court elaborated on Section 15, which allows the High Court to take action on its own motion in contempt cases not covered under Section 14. It clarified that while Section 15 can be invoked independently, it cannot be utilized for contempts falling under Section 14.

During the hearing, the Amicus contended that this is not a requirement in law that the cognizance of the contemptuous conduct must be taken on the same day and, that, the proceedings on 13th August 2021 and thereafter reveal that there was no unreasonable delay in taking cognizance of the offending conduct of the opposite parties.

The Court however said, “The criminal contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the burden and standard of proof required are the same as in a criminal case. Therefore, the High Court can invoke powers and jurisdiction vested in it under Article 215 of the Constitution but such a jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. This is common knowledge that the exercise of the powers under contempt jurisdiction ensues serious consequences and the Court exercising the contempt jurisdiction is required to record its satisfaction about the contumacious conduct,” the Court underscored.

After examining the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the inherent powers of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution, the Court rejected the argument that taking cognizance of past incidents would be inherently without jurisdiction.

Case Title: Court on its own motion Versus Mr. Rajiv Ranjan and Anr

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 74

Click Here To Read The Judgement