Contempt of Court — Malicious imputation against Judicial Officer — Apology not accepted — Contempt of Court Act, section 6.

In this case there was unfounded malicious attack on the character of a Judicial Officer, by a party who had been directed to pay maintenance allowance to the wife and minor child. The contemner and other co-accused were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, Shri U. T. Pol, in the matter of offence punishable u/s. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. A Criminal Misc. Application was filed by the wife of the contemner, which was decided on 23rd April, 2007 by the same Magistrate wherein the present contemner was directed to pay costs of the said litigation. The contemner wrote an open letter dated 5th August, 2009 to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and a copy thereof was sent to the President of India for taking action against the Judicial Officer. The imputations cast against the Judicial Officer by the contemner were per se malicious and scandalous.

In the contempt proceeding the contemner had given unconditional apology by way of filing reply affidavit. The Court observed that in view of per se mala fide attitude spelt out from the conduct of the contemner, inasmuch as he wrote the offending letter making wild, malicious and reckless allegations against the Judicial Officer, the apology was not acceptable.

It was a deliberate act on the part of the contemner to scandalise the Judicial Officer and to bring Courts or Judicial system into contempt, disrepute, disrespect and to lower its authority and offend its dignity. In other words, the conduct of the contemner is far more than causing the defamation simplicitor or aspersions against a particular judge. It was a fit case for inflicting appropriate punishment upon the contemner.

The Court relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of M. R. Parashar v. Dr. Farooq Abdullah, AIR 1984 SC 615 wherein it was observed that the Judges cannot defend themselves. They need due protection of law from unfounded attacks on their character. Law of Contempt is one of such laws.

The court pointed out that judiciary has no forum from which it could defend itself. The Legislature can act in defence of itself from the floor of the House. It enjoys privileges which are beyond the reach of law. The executive is all powerful and has ample resources and media at its command to explain its actions and, if need be, to counter-attack. Those, who attack the judiciary must remember that they are attacking an institution which is indispensable for the survival of the rule of law but which has no means of defending itself.

The sword of justice is in the hands of Goodess of Justice, not in the hands of mortal Judges. Therefore, Judges must receive the due protection of law from unfounded attacks on their character.