Radha Mohan Lal V. Rajastan High Court (J.P Bench) (2003) 3 SCC 427

Judges :  Y. K. Sabharwal 
                H. K.  Seema   


Facts  :

                  Rajasthan High Court ( Jaipur bench)  in March 1993 , delivered a judgement against the Appellant Radha Mohan Lal and his advocate Shri Sualal Yadav, for committing Contempt of Court and sentenced to 3 months simple imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 1000 each and in default of payment, further simple improvement for 15 days.

                   The basis of initiation and Punishment for Contempt of Court is the statement made in the application made before the single judge of High Court in a Civil revision application. In the statement it was mentioned that the appellant and other petitioners have moved to complain in writing against Honorable Shri. R.R. Kejriwal to the Honorable Chief  Justice requesting him to list the above revision before a Bench of which Shri. R.S.Kejriwal is not a member as they have reasonable Grounds to believe that no impartial justice would be imparted from this Bench.

                   This revision petition arose out of an interim order passed in a civil suit filed by the appellant Radha Mohan Lal and four other to ensure the access to the temple and not obstructed by the Rajasthan Sports Council.

 

                   When The Contempt petition  came up for hearing, the Appellant Radha Mohan gave an undertaking to this Court that he shall file an affidavit within one week unconditional apology for the allegations made by him against R.S. Kejriwal of the High Court of Rajasthan and shall tender such apology to him. Accordingly, the Appellant tendered apology before the Court.

                    The matter came up for hearing before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the punishment of simple improvement as also the fine imposed on the Appellant. However, the case of Appellant's advocate Sualal Yadav is different. He maintained that whatever he has written is as per the instructions by his client and therefore he is not guilty.

                    The Supreme Court observed that the advocate cannot escape his responsibility for drafting a scandalous notice to Magistrate on the ground that he did so in his professional capacity.

Supreme Court Held : 

                   Advocate Sualal Yadav guilty of Contempt of Court and confirm the findings.

However, on the quantum  of punishment it was reduced to on already undergone by the Appellant while maintaining the fine and the improvement in default of payment.

See Also....  Punishment for Contempt of Court.
                    
                     Types of contempt of courts. 
   
                           1) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt
                           2) Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt
                   
                     Constitutional validity of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971