This article has been written by Saloni Bhatt. This article deals with the case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P. A detailed explanation has been provided regarding the facts and judgments of the case. It also explains the concept of contempt of court.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P. (2011) revolves around the concept of contempt of court. Usually referred to as “contempt,” contempt of court occurs when any person defies a court order, or is disrespectful towards the court of law, or does or says something that taints the legal system or interferes with the administration of justice, authority and dignity of the court. When the same is done towards a legislative body, it is termed contempt of Parliament. The offence of contempt of court is usually of two categories that is when any person is disrespectful towards the judges in the courtroom or wilfully disobeys a court order.
Maintenance of certain legal standards and ethics is very important in courtrooms to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. As advocates, officers, and government officials should always maintain the decorum in the courtroom; they should always address the judge in a respectful manner and shall refuse to act in an illegal manner towards the judges or the opposing counsel. It should be kept in mind that there shall be no repeated signs of disrespect and misconduct in the court of law; doing so frustrates the judge as well as others appearing in the courtroom.
Background of the case
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, defines the limits and powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of court and regulating their procedures.
Section 2(a) of the Act defines contempt of court as both civil and criminal, wherein Section 2(b) is civil contempt of court, which means wilful disobedience to any judgement, direction, decree, orde, or wilful breach of an undertaking given by the court, and Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt as the publication, whether by words, written, signs or visual representation, that scandalises or undermines the authority of any court, interferes with the due proceedings of the court or obstructs the administration of justice.
The history of contempt of court dates back to the offence being established in common law, which can also be traced back to the colonial legislation wherein the penalties for the offence were contained in the first and foremost Regulating Act of 1773, in which the Mayor’s Court of Calcutta would have the same powers as a court of the English King’s Bench to punish those who commit such an offence. The courts that were formed in India during those times followed the common law system that all courts were given the power to penalise the accused for contempt. The High Courts in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta were such courts that penalised anybody who disrespected the administration of justice.
Details of the case
Case name: Vishram Singh v. State of U.P
Case No.: AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 2275
Type of case: Criminal Appeal
Name of the court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Swatentar Kumar, B.S. Chauhan
Date of judgement: 15 June, 2011
Equivalent citations: AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 2275.
Name of the parties: Vishram Singh Raghubanshi (Appellant) and State of U.P (Respondent)
Laws involved in the case: Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (Section 15, Section 19), Advocates Act of 1961, Part – IV of Bar Council of India Rules (Section 1)
Facts of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State of UP (2011)
The appellant has been practising as an advocate for the last 30 years in the district court of Etawah (U.P.). On the date of 25.7.1998, the appellant deliberately produced an individual named Om Prakash, impersonating him as Ram Kishan S/ o Ashrafi Lal, who was the main accused in the criminal proceeding in the court of the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Certain concerns and doubts were raised regarding the genuineness of the person who was presented in court to surrender; therefore, the Presiding Officer of the court had raised issues regarding the same. To protect himself and the person presented before the court, the appellant misbehaved with the said officer in court and used abusive language as well.
On 27.10.1998, the Presiding Officer of the court made a complaint against the appellant to the U.P. Bar Council and referred it to the High Court for initiating contempt of court proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, against him, wherein the Bar Council dismissed the complaint later on. The appellant, being an advocate himself, filed an appeal in the High court of Allahabad.
The High Court, after considering the matter, issued a show cause notice on 5.5.1999 to the appellant, wherein he denied the allegations made against him and put forward an apology in the form of an affidavit stating that he has respect for the court and has kept the court in the highest esteem.In the letter of complaint by the presiding officer, he mentioned that during a cross- examination, the appellant was advised to ask questions in a manner that is peaceful and does not hurt the witness, while he did the opposite by using abusive language during the court proceedings and hampering the cause of justice. Charges were framed against the appellant as the High Court of Allahabad did not think it appropriate to accept the appellant’s explanation or his offer of remorse.
The appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice which was delivered to him, expressing his regret on multiple occasions, which may or may not be acceptable to the High Court. After which, the appellant was given full opportunity to express himself in front of the Divisional Bench of Allahabad High Court.
Issues raised
- Whether the appeal filed by the appellant will be accepted in the court of law?
- Whether the appellant’s apology will be accepted in the court of law?
Arguments of the parties
Appellant
The appellant’s learned counsel, Shri Sanjeev Bhatnagar, presenting his arguments, said that he would not be in a position to defend the disrespectful behaviour of the appellant, although he made it known that the appellant is an elderly, sick individual who has repeatedly offered his apologies for disrespecting the court, wherein he contested that his apology may be accepted. The appellant submitted a reply in response to the show–cause notice issues to him, stating his apologies a number of times and that he is an elderly and sick man.
A second affidavit was filed by the appellant, tendering an apology. The apology was framed under pressure after charges were framed against the appellant in the High Court for criminal contempt after the appellant realised that he could be punished. The apology was tendered as a mere formality and just to escape the punishment of the court for the grossest criminal contempt committed by him. There was no remorse or regret on the part of the appellant; had it been so, rather than complaining against the Presiding officer, the appellant could have gone to the concerned judicial officer and rendered his apology. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to defend him as well and only stated that his apology may be accepted as he is old and sick.
Respondent
The respondent counsel, Shri R.K. Gupta, disagreed with the prayers offered by the appellant’s counsel, arguing that the appellant’s apology shall not be accepted as the language of the apology does not show any remorse on his behalf and he shall be punished for contempt of court. The respondent argued that the appellant has committed the gross offence of Criminal contempt and his apologies are rendered to escape the punishment that shall be granted by the court.
He further contended that the apology has not been tendered at the initial stage. The first apology was tendered only after receiving show cause notice from the High Court and under the pressure. Further, the appellant has shown no remorse in his apologies and has been very disrespectful towards the court of law. Moreover, the appellant tried impersonating another person to surrender for a serious crime. The appellant is also an officer of the court, wherein he was responsible for satisfying the court and establishing the real identity of the person concerned. Being an advocate himself, the appellant is accountable for maintaining his dignity and self-respect in court, which he did not do.
The respondents argued that such a person should under no circumstances be allowed to act independently and proceed to take the law into his own hands, in whichever way he wishes, disrespecting the very existence of the system of administration of justice at stake.
Law discussed in Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State of UP (2011)
In this respective case, the appellant was said to be in violation of Section 1 of Chapter 2 (PART VI) of the Bar Council of India rules states that it is the duty of the advocate during the presentation of his case to conduct himself with dignity and respect; he shall submit his grievances to the judicial officer as well as have a respective attitude towards the court. He shall not try to influence the decision of the court in an illegal or improper way. He shall refrain himself as well as his client from entering into any unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to court.
An appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court, 1971, arising out of the judgement passed by the Divisional Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the contempt of court case.
Section 12 of the Act, lays down the punishment for contempt of court, which can be simple imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to two thousand or both.
Section 15 of the Act empowers the court to initiate proceedings of contempt of court, and Section 35 of the Advocates Act governs the punishment for misconduct by advocates.
The Advocates Act of 1961 governs the enrolment, practices, and code of conduct of advocates in India. It also outlines the duties and responsibilities of advocates, including upholding the dignity and integrity of the court and their legal profession.
Judgement in Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State of UP (2011)
In the case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P. The Supreme Court of India found Vishram Singh Raghubanshi, the Advocate, guilty of contempt of court. It was stated that a mere apology cannot be a concrete defence, justification or appropriate punishment for an act that is contempt of court.
The appellant tendered the apology after receiving a show–cause notice from the High Court as to why the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against him. The Apex Court, after giving the case a thorough evaluation and going through every detail, concluded that the appellant had committed the offence of gross criminal contempt, that the complaint by the judicial officer against the appellant was admissible, and that the appellant was guilty of the said crime. The charge that stood proved against the appellant could not be taken lightly and in such a fact-situation the apology tendered by him, being not bona fide, was not acceptable.
Such an attitude by the appellant had hindered the dignity and respect of not only the judicial officers but also the court of law. The appeal filed by the appellant lacked merit and the apology tendered by the appellant had not been sincere nor worthy of acceptance. There were mainly two contentions of respondent which were addressed by the court-
1. Impersonation and;
2. Use of abusive language in court.
Let’s discuss these in detail.
Use of abusive language in court
The court made it quite clear that it is not required to accept an apology as a matter of course, an apology without any bona fide intention is just a paper apology. The court has the authority to reject the apology and impose punishment while documenting its reasoning. The use of derogatory language does not release the critic from any responsibility. If the comments are calculated and obviously meant to offend, any apology that is offered with no remorse, regret, or repentance is not worthy of being received. The apology rendered by the appellant had neither been sincere or bona fide, not worth acceptance.
With reference to the case of, M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors(1991), it was observed that using disparaging and insulting words undermines the foundation of our judicial system, which relies on independence and impartiality of those who run it. Such derogatory marks made against a presiding judge has its own consequences, it is high time that we acknowledge the need of defending judicial independence, not only from legislative or execution but also from people who are a part of our judicial system.
Similarly, in the case of L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P, 1984 it was stated that expressing regret should come from the heart rather than the pen, an apology written down should also be felt by the contemnor. An apology for the criminal court of contempt should be made at the earliest.
Impersonation
The High Court of Allahabad found the appellant guilty of contempt of court, and the Supreme Court gave its reasoning, holding him accountable for the offence of contempt of court and for impersonating an innocent person for a crime committed by someone else. The court also stated that a lawyer cannot act beyond the bounds of what is acceptable in court. Mr. Raghubanshi’s actions amounted to an attempt to mislead the court and scandalise or demean the authority.
The Supreme Court found his apology insincere and the fact that Mr. Raghubanshi did not submit his apology at the earliest, and gave justifications for the same. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of sentencing him to imprisonment.
Conclusion
The Court found appellant Vishram Singh Raghubanshi guilty of criminal contempt. The appellant was sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- referring to the fact that he had impersonated the accused in the case by submitting a fictional accused for surrender, that he had acted abusively toward a presiding officer, and that the High Court had rejected his honest remorse. In rejecting the appellant’s appeal, the Supreme Court underlined the importance of maintaining the dignity and honour of the court. Distinguishing between contempt of court and free expression can be challenging. Although it’s usually acceptable to criticise a court’s decisions, making comments intended to undermine a case or show discord in the courtroom could be seen as contempt.
The penalty for contempt of court varies depending on the severity of the case; in some cases, the punishment can range from a fine imposed to imprisonment for six months, and in other cases, it can be mitigated by tendering a bona fide apology.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the purpose of contempt of court?
Contempt of court exists to ensure the integrity and dignity of the court system. It ensures that judges can preside over a fair and just trial without fear of interference or intimidation.
What is the difference between civil and criminal contempt of court?
Civil contempt of court refers to willful disobedience of a court order or anything that hinders the process of administering justice. For instance, if someone fails to pay court-fees, destroys evidence in a case, or produces deceiving facts, they could be held in civil contempt.
Criminal contempt refers to any action that scandalises the court, prejudices a trial or interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings. Any action that hinders the dignity and code of conduct of the court can be criminal contempt of court. For instance, threatening a witness, using foul language, making inflammatory speeches in an ongoing case, or disrespecting officers of the court. Imprisonment for criminal contempt of court can vary from a fine to six months of imprisonment, depending on the facts of each case. In the respective case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P., the appellant was guilty of committing the offence of criminal contempt of court.
How is free speech balanced with contempt of court?
The line between free speech and contempt of court can be quite blurry. Generally, grievances and issues can be raised in court, but comments or actions that may disrespect the court of law, mislead a trial or create a hostile atmosphere in court can be considered contempt of court.
What if someone accidentally commits contempt of court?
Intention is a crucial factor in deciding whether a person has committed contempt of court. If someone unintentionally hinders the process or makes such remarks, they can be exempt from getting tried for the offence if they tender a bona fide apology or justify that they had no intention to do so.
What if you cannot comply with the court’s order?
If a person genuinely cannot comply with the orders of the court, he needs to inform the court immediately. If circumstances are beyond one’s control, the court may modify the order according to the given circumstances after providing a burden of proof. If one fails to do so, he shall be tried for contempt of court.
References
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/738369/
- https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/38141.pdf
- https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1514/1/197170.pdf
- https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1631/1/A1961_25.pdf
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
