- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mulk Raj v. State Of Punjab .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant had previously obtained a decree in a civil suit (Mulkh Raj v. Jhabbar Mal etc.). After various appellate proceedings, an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the judgment-debtors to recover an alleged excess payment of Rs 998.20 from the appellant. While that application was still pending, the appellant addressed a letter dated 24 July 1968 to the Chief Justice of India, with copies to the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and two subordinate judicial officers. The letter contained serious allegations against Shri J. P. Gupta, Additional District Judge, and Mr Justice Harbans Singh of the High Court.
The Subordinate Judge sought transfer of the pending proceedings and recommended contempt action. Acting on a report from the District Judge, the Punjab and Haryana High Court initiated proceedings under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. By judgment dated 12 March 1969, the High Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to three months’ simple imprisonment. The present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by special leave challenging that conviction and sentence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s letter containing allegations against judicial officers amounted to criminal contempt under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.
- Whether the appellant’s later expression of apology warranted acceptance and consequent exoneration from punishment.
- Whether the acts complained of should be treated merely as defamation punishable under the Indian Penal Code rather than as contempt of court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The impugned letter was merely a “representation” addressed to the highest judicial authority concerning subordinate courts; it should not be treated as contempt.
- If the statements were libellous, the proper remedy lay under the Indian Penal Code for defamation, not under the Contempt of Courts Act.
- The High Court ought to have accepted the appellant’s apology.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s findings through the following reasoning:
- Nature of the Allegations: The appellant’s letter “maliciously endeavoured to impair the image of judicial integrity” by insinuating corruption and undue influence against named judges, thereby lowering the authority of the court.
- Impropriety of Direct Representations: It is “most improper” for litigants to send such communications to the Chief Justice of India about pending matters while casting aspersions on judges; doing so disrupts the administration of justice.
- Distinction from Defamation: The Court rejected the submission that the conduct was merely libellous, holding that the allegations constituted a “clear case of contempt” because they tended to scandalise the court and obstruct justice.
- Apology Not Bona Fide: An apology must be prompt and sincere. The appellant tendered a perfunctory apology only after realising punishment was imminent; the Court characterised this as lacking penitence and therefore unworthy of acceptance.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed; conviction and sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment affirmed.
Immediate consequence: the appellant must serve the sentence imposed by the High Court. The decision reiterates that unfounded, scandalous allegations against judges constitute contempt of court and that insincere apologies will not absolve contemnors; however, it does not establish new legal precedent beyond reinforcing settled principles.
A.N Ray, J.— This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment, dated March 12, 1969, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana convicting the appellant under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for three months.
2. Proceedings under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 were initiated at the instance of the District Judge, Amritsar arising out of an application dated July 24, 1968, made by the appellant and addressed to the Chief Justice of India. Copies of the application were sent by the appellant to the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Additional District Judge, Amritsar and the Subordinate Judge, Amritsar. The District Judge wrote to the Registrar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the Subordinate Judge had moved the District Judge for transfer of the proceedings from his court to some other court and also for commencing proceedings against the appellant for contempt of court for contemptuous allegations against the Judicial Officers. The High Court thereupon started proceedings against the appellant.
3. The appellant filed a suit against Jhabbar Mall and others. The appellant obtained a decree on January 14, 1964. The decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge, Amritsar. The defendants filed an appeal. Shri J.P Gupta, Additional District Judge modified the decree. The appellant filed a second appeal. The appeal was dismissed by Harbans Singh, J., at a preliminary hearing on April 1, 1965. The appellant thereafter moved for leave to appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. That application was dismissed.
4. The decretal amount and the costs were recovered by the appellant. The defendants filed an application on June 20, 1969, under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of the sum of Rs 998.20 recovered by the appellant in excess of the decretal dues.
5. It is during the pendency of the application for recovery of excess payment that the appellant forwarded the application to the Chief Justice of India. In that application the appellant made the allegations against Shri J.P Gupta, Additional District Judge and Mr Justice Harbans Singh.
6. The appellant in that application made the following allegations:
“That against this decision of Shri J.P Gupta, (Officio) District Additional Judge, the plaintiff applicant had filed in appeal in the Punjab High Court, Chandigarh on March 30, 1965, through Shri Sri Chand Goyal, Advocate which appeal was dismissed unjustifiably by the Hon'ble Justice Harbans Singh simply to suppress my case on April 1, 1965. The case relates to Mulkh Raj v. Jhabbar Mal etc and its number is R.S.A 480/1965. The plaintiff (applicant) filed a letter patent appeal (applications with grounds of appeal) against the verdict of Hon'ble Justice Harbans Singh through Shamer Chand, Advocate, Bar-at-Law on May 25, 1965 but the said Hon'ble Justice Harbans Singh on May 28, 1965, used his nadar shahi system without going to any discussion into the case thereby dismissing my application of letter patent appeal unjustifiably and forcibly and just to suppress my case and did not allow to file a letter patent appeal. This resulted in my full destruction and disaster. The defendant party is too rich and has many approaches.”
7. The High Court held that the appellant “maliciously endeavoured to impair the image of judicial integrity of the High Court and wilfully attempted to damage the dignity and high esteem which the office of a Judge of a High Court carries with it”. The High Court added that “the appellant has the audicity to add that the judgment-debtors were rich enough and had many approaches thereby insinuating some kind of approach on their part to the Hon'ble Judge. He has further stated that as a result of orders passed by Harbans Singh, J., justice has been murdered and cruelty committed to him because of corruption”.
8. Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the application was at the most representation of a person against a subordinate court and the High Court to the highest Court of the land and if the appellant made a libellous remark against a Judge the appellant might be punished under the Indian Penal Code. It was also said on behalf of the appellant that the High Court should have accepted the apology.
9. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellant's expression of apology “without any further word”. The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go away with impunity after having committed gross contempt.
10. The submission of the appellant that the application was a representation is unmeritorious. It will be most improper for litigants to send applications to the Chief Justice of India concerning pending matters and making allegations against Judges. The dismissal of the appellant's application by the High Court was characterised by the appellant in offensive language casting aspersions on the Judges and lowering the dignity and esteem of the judiciary.
11. The submission of the appellant that the application in the present case was a libellous remark punishable under the Indian Penal Code and did not amount to a contempt is unsound and unacceptable. The appellant's application constituted a clear case of contempt.
12. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will serve out the sentence.
Alert