Citation of the Case:
L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., 1984
AIR 1374, 1984 SCR (3) 833, 1984 SCC (3) 405, 1984 SCALE
(1) 862
Facts of the Case:
- The appellant was a senior advocate representing a client convicted of an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- The Special Judge required the appellant to appear in the prescribed formal court attire while making submissions on the sentence.
- The appellant, instead of complying, left the court.
- Another advocate represented the appellant's client, who was subsequently sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment.
- The appellant, displeased with the sentence and the treatment received from the Special Judge, submitted a written application containing scurrilous language. In the application, he made allegations that the Judge was a "corrupt Judge" contaminating the seat of justice. He threatened to complain to higher authorities.
- The appellant also forwarded copies of this application to various authorities, causing needless harassment and embarrassment.
Issue Involved:
- Whether the appellant's actions of making scurrilous allegations and threatening a judicial officer constituted criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Whether the appellant's later apology was sufficient to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.
Arguments of Both Parties:
- State's Argument:
The State argued that L.D.
Jaikwal's actions constituted criminal contempt of court. They contended that
his written application, which contained scurrilous language and imputations
against the judge, seriously undermined the integrity of the judiciary and the
authority of the judge. The State's position was that accepting a mere apology
should not be sufficient to allow someone to escape the consequences of such
conduct. They emphasized the need to preserve the dignity and reputation of the
judiciary and to prevent individuals from using contemptuous behavior to
intimidate judges.
- L.D. Jaikwal's Argument:
L.D. Jaikwal attempted to justify his actions based on the treatment he alleged to have received from the Special Judge. He argued that he had left the court because of the judge's request regarding his attire and that this treatment led to his actions. During the proceedings in the High Court, he expressed no remorse or sorrow and did not offer an apology. However, he later tendered a written apology to the judge, stating that he did so "as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court." Essentially, his argument revolved around the circumstances leading to his actions and the subsequent apology he tendered to
the court.
Decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed
the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision. the decision of the
High Court was to convict the appellant, L.D. Jaikwal, for criminal contempt
and to sentence him to one week of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.
500. This decision highlighted the seriousness with which the High Court viewed
the contemptuous conduct of the appellant
Ratio of the Case:
- An apology, when not genuinely felt but merely submitted as a formality, does not suffice to set aside a conviction for criminal contempt.
- The judiciary's independence and the morale of judges are essential, and those attempting to scandalize the court and intimidate judges must face consequences.
Comment on the Decision: This case underscores the critical need to maintain respect for the
judiciary and the rule of law. It highlights that contemptuous actions against
judges, such as making baseless allegations or threats, cannot be brushed aside
with insincere apologies. Judicial independence and the ability to make
impartial decisions are fundamental to the justice system, and any actions that
undermine these principles must be dealt with firmly and judiciously to protect
the integrity of the courts.
Analysis By: Harshavardhan Prakash Deshmukh (B.A.LL.B.)
Modern Law College, Pune, Maharashtra
Follow At https://www.instagram.com/dabangglawyer/
0 Comments