High Court Issues Contempt Notice To DRT Chandigarh Presiding Officer For "Lying" About Status Of CCTV Cameras In Tribunal

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a contempt notice to the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh (DRT-II) for failure to submit CCTV footage of its proceedings, as sought by the Court.

The officer claimed the footage is not available since CCTV cameras are not installed in the Tribunal. On the contrary, the Court found that CCTV cameras are installed.

A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma thus remarked,

"it is clear, that hybrid system with video and audio picture, is in place at the DRT concerned. Nonetheless, it is also clear from readings of the above said paragraph, that the working thereof is erratic, and the said, is a result of the Presiding Officer concerned, at his own whims rather the switching on and off the said system."

The Court pulled up the Presiding Officer for "rob(bing) the well purpose qua the transparency of the justice dispensation system," and that too prima facie "for ulterior motives".

The development came in a writ petition filed by IDFC First Bank seeking directions to set aside the order passed by the Presiding officer whereby the officer allegedly directed restoration of physical possession of a mortgaged property to the borrowers "in complete violation" of the directions issued by this High Court.

The Court had sought CCTV footage of the proceedings from the said day, however the directions were not complied with. In January, the Court directed the concerned Presiding Officer to inform whether the video recording of proceedings is being carried out or not.

In pursuance of the direction, the Officer had submitted that, "that the CCTV clippings relating to the day i.e. 12.01.2024, are not available, owing to the fact that the CCTV camera is not installed in the Tribunal house of Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Chandigarh."

The Court noted that the counsel for the petitioner highlighted the orders passed by the High Court of a co-ordinate bench where it was recorded that as per the affidavit filed under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, "infrastructure of hybrid hearing at Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, II and III is in place. Furthermore, dedicated personnel has been deputed for recording of the proceedings..."

In the light of the above, the Court issued a show cause notice upon the Presiding Officer to explain as to why proceedings for contempt not be initiated against him for his making the "above miscommunication, which but is prima facie completely ridden with lies."

Furthermore, it directed NIC to preserve the CCTV footage of the proceeding. 

Listing the matter for February 28, the Court directed the President of DRT Bar Association, Chandigarh to join the proceedings to assist the Court in the contempt petition.

It is worthwhile to mention that a plea was filed by the DRT Bar Association Chandigarh, alleging the intemperate, erratic behaviour and working patterns of the same Presiding Officer and a detailed enquiry was prayed to be conducted in terms of Section 15 (2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 regarding incompetency of the Officer. The matter is sub judice before the High Court.

The High Court on November 3 last year, directed to record the proceedings before the DRT Presiding Officer by the dedicated personnel provided by the Union Government. The High Court also directed that the Presiding Officer should not insist on the deposits of costs imposed for the restoration of any applications since October 2022. The HC further directed the Union Government to provide facilities for hybrid hearings before the Tribunal.

Challenging the High Court's directions, the Officer moved to Supreme Court and alleged that it will have grave consequences impacting his performance of legal duties.

While dismissing the plea, the CJI verbally observed that it was important for the petitioner to be kind and sensitive towards the circumstances of the lawyers and not take up 'cudgels' against the bar association.

Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate and Nikhil Sabharwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with Saigeeta Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel, Union of India.

Gaurav Goel, Addl. Standing Counsel with Arav Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1.

Tegjeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4 (iii) in CWP-513 of 2024 and for respondent No.4 and 5(i) to (iv) in CWP-1080 of 2024.