Judges can't demand respect through contempt power: SC

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that "no one can be a judge in his own cause". This principle brings fairness to the justice delivery system and upholds equality of all before law.

It also lays down a sound ground rule for adjudication, decision and punishment. It bars anyone from becoming a complainant, investigator and also the judge, all rolled into one.

Against this backdrop, newspapers last week published an interesting news item. An MLA in Uttar Pradesh had barged into a school to slap a Class V student. The boy allegedly had a brawl with the MLA's son. Taking his son's complaint against his classmate, the father took it upon himself to punish the alleged aggressor. Since he was the local MLA, he thought he had the sanction to punish the alleged wrongdoer.

He executed the punishment without bothering to hear the classmate's version of the story.
A similar story got enacted in Delhi high court last month. A magazine published a report alleging that an HC judge's son had a stake in a hotel where the dance floor remained open much beyond the scheduled closure time. It also alleged that police turned a blind eye because the stakeholder was an HC judge's son.


The Supreme Court has barred anyone from becoming a complainant, investigator and also the judge, all rolled into one.

The publication came to the judge's notice. He inquired from his son, who told him that he had no connection with the hotel. On completing the inquiry with his son, the judge came to the conclusion that the report was published to tarnish his image and also to bring disrepute to the judiciary. He also termed it an attempt to shake the public's confidence in judiciary, which would impede administration of justice.

He took up the case for hearing and issued contempt of court notice to the magazine's entire editorial staff, from the editor in chief to the subeditor and photographer. Importantly, he also directed the Delhi Police commissioner to seize all copies of the magazine, which contained the 'baseless' story, from its offices across the country.

These two incidents show that aberrations continue despite repeated pronouncements by the SC cautioning everyone, including judges of the higher judiciary, against donning the dangerous 'judge in his own cause' robe.

In 2010, the apex court in Mohd Yunus Khan vs UP had referred to its own judgments in AU Kureshi vs High Court of Gujarat [2009 (11) SCC 84] and Ashok Kumar Yadav vs State of Haryana [1985 (4) SCC 417]. In both, the court had held that no person should adjudicate a dispute in which he or she has dealt with in any capacity.


The Supreme Court of India.

"The failure to observe this principle creates an apprehension of bias on the part of the said person. Therefore, law requires that a person should not decide a case wherein he is interested. The question is not whether the person is actually biased but whether the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision," it had said in the 2010 judgment.

More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court had laid down the parameters for contempt of court proceedings in Rizwan-ul-Hasan vs Uttar Pradesh [1953 SCR 581].

It had said, "The jurisdiction in contempt of court is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice. The purport of this court's action is a practical purpose and the court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety."

In 2007, the court in Rajesh Kumar Singh vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh had elaborated and expanded the contempt ground rule laid down in 1953.


Justice John Marshall of US supreme court had warned that the power of judiciary lies not in deciding cases, not in imposing of sentences, not in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, confidence and faith of the common man."

It had said, "This court has repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint. Courts should not readily infer an intention to scandalize courts or lower the authority of court unless such intention is clearly established. Nor should they exercise power to punish for contempt where mere question of propriety is involved."

Expressing anguish at the invocation of contempt jurisdiction by some judges at the drop of a hat, the court had said, "Of late, a perception that is slowly gaining ground among public is that sometimes, some judges are showing over-sensitiveness with a tendency to treat even technical violations or unintended acts as contempt. It is possible that it is done to uphold the majesty of courts, and to command respect."

What it then said is worth its weight in gold. "Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect. They cannot demand respect by demonstration of power. Nearly two centuries ago, Justice John Marshall of US supreme court had warned that the power of judiciary lies not in deciding cases, not in imposing of sentences, not in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, confidence and faith of the common man."