Delhi HC discharges 12 lawyers in 2006 contempt proceedings in Tis Hazari court ‘vandalism’ case

The bench after perusing the video footage of the incident observed, “that there is no evidence linking the damage caused to the courtrooms with the protest by the advocates” and added that “these actions cannot be directly attributed to the alleged contemnors”.

It said, “…during the course of the present proceedings all the alleged Contemnors/Respondents have also expressed their deep remorse and have stated that they have the utmost respect for the institution of judiciary and that it was never their intention to cause any distress or to do anything that could be construed as undermining the majesty and dignity of the Court of Law”.

On February 24, 2006, the then District & Sessions Judge S N Dhingra forwarded a report to the HC, “highlighting the need for initiating suo motu contempt of court proceedings against the errant advocates, which included numerous supporting documents, as well as reports from other Judges and officials functioning at the Tis Hazari Courts,” the HC noted.

In early 2006 advocates went on strike, opposing the establishment of the Rohini Court complex and transfer of cases. On February 24, 2006 an incident occurred at Tis Hazari courts resulting in alleged acts of “vandalism”, “disturbance” and “destruction of Court property”. Three days later, the HC had taken suo moto cognizance of the incident.

“Consequently, the material including the subject videos fail to provide any direct evidence connecting the damage allegedly caused to court rooms with the advocates’ protest…the videos do not furnish any evidence of advocates manhandling their colleagues, obstructing the administration of justice, or supporting any other allegations made against the alleged contemnors in the present proceedings…Therefore, it cannot be conclusively established that the act of protesting interfered with the administration of justice,” the bench said.

The alleged contemnors had raised an objection to the suo moto cognizance taken by the HC with respect to the alleged incident, arguing that “simultaneous criminal prosecution” under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (including rioting, obstructing public servant discharging public functions) in an FIR registered on February 24, 2006, at Subzi Mandi police station, and the contempt proceedings before HC are “unsustainable”.

They referred to the “proviso” in Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act which states that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it, if such contempt constitutes an offense punishable under the IPC.

Referring to various judgments of the apex court and after considering the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as in light of the background of the matter, the bench was of the view that the HC had “appropriately exercised its suo motu jurisdiction with respect to the occurrence of the purported incident that transpired in the District Courts of Delhi”. It said that the jurisdiction of the High Court to acknowledge and address matters pertaining to its subordinate court, as well as its authority to penalise for acts of contempt, is derived from Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

It also observed that legal practitioners are the “vanguard safeguarding the sanctity of the Constitution of India” and necessitate protection in the “capacity of whistleblowers within the court”. It, however, said that while “permissible criticism of a judgment is acceptable”, there exists a boundary beyond which when it “transforms into abusive, irrational, and personally targeted attacks on judges” and thereby compromising the overall integrity of the institution.

“…Resultantly, the notice to show cause as to why criminal contempt be not drawn against the alleged contemnors/respondents, are hereby discharged,” the order states.