The Uttar Pradesh government acquired 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya in 1991 for developing amenities for pilgrims.
The acquisition was challenged in court, and three interim orders were made by the High Court and Supreme Court.
The then-Chief Minister, Kalyan Singh, gave a promise to the National Integration Council and the court that the government would protect the Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid structures and follow and implement the court's orders.
Despite this, construction started near the disputed structure in July 1992, violating the court's orders.
The contempt petition accuses Kalyan Singh of encouraging and allowing this violation due to his political and ideological affiliations.

ISSUES

Whether the undertaking is given by the Chief Minister before the National Integration Council which was in terms recapitulated and incorporated in the order dated 15-11-1991 of this Court could be said to be an undertaking given by the Chief Minister personally or was merely an undertaking on behalf of the U.P. Government?
Whether there was any construction of a permanent nature carried on the land in wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court?
Whether these constructional activities were carried on by or at the instance of the State Government or its authorities or were done in connivance with and assistance and encouragement of the State Government; or where they carried out in spite of all reasonable steps taken in that regard by the State Government and the Chief Minister to prevent the same? and
Whether the State Government and the Chief Minister were not liable for contempt for any alleged wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court ?

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner's Contentions:

Large-scale violation of Supreme Court and High Court orders by demolishing and constructing a permanent structure on acquired land.
Respondent Kalyan Singh, connected with BJP and VHP, deliberately encouraged and permitted the violation due to their commitment to building a Ram temple.

Respondent's Contentions (through counsel Venugopal):

Constructions were done by the State Government for pilgrim facilities (Parikrama).
Construction was carried out during 'Chaturmas' in July, a religious event when many Sadhus congregate.
Sadhus commenced building a cement concrete platform, and their large numbers made coercive action difficult without endangering the disputed structure's safety.
Constructions by Sadhus did not amount to permanent structures prohibited by the Court's order.

Rule of Law

The petitioner filed a complaint against then-Chief Minister Kalyan Singh for disobeying court orders.
The petitioner used Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows citizens to approach the court if their fundamental rights are being violated.
The case started with a dispute over 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya, which the government acquired for a public purpose using the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The court had previously ruled on the issue, based on promises made by the Chief Minister at the National Integration Council.
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 allows the government to acquire land for public purposes and gives officials certain powers to carry out the acquisition.

Findings of the Court

Ministers and Officers can be held liable for contempt: The Court ruled that government ministers and officers can be held liable for contempt of court, both in their official capacity and personally, if they willfully disobey court orders or breach undertakings given to the court.
Breach of undertaking and disobedience of court order: The Court found that Shri Kalyan Singh, the then-Chief Minister, had given an undertaking to protect the disputed structure, but failed to do so, and instead, allowed a flagrant breach of the court's order.
Government's inaction: The Court rejected the defense that the government was helpless due to a large congregation of sadhus at the site. The Court found that the government did not take any concrete steps to prevent the violation of the court's order and failed to provide evidence of any efforts made to prevent the building of structures on the disputed site.

The Court concluded that it was very unhappy situation that a leader of a political party and Chief Minister has to be convicted of an offence of contempt of court. But it has to be done to uphold the majesty of law. Since the contempt raised large issues affecting the very foundation of secular fabrics of the nation, he was sentenced to undergo a token imprisonment of one day and to pay a fine of Rs. Two thousand only.

Principles of law laid down in the case

No one is above the law. Even a government or a Minister holding a higher position in the government may be held liable for the contempt of Court.

_______________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India &Anr.1998 SC 1895

History of the Case

In the case of re Vinay Chand Mishra, an advocate was found guilty of criminal contempt of court and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks and suspended from practicing as an advocate for a period of three years and it was held that the licence of an advocate to practice legal profession may be suspended or cancelled by the SC or HC in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction.

This decision of the SC in Re V.C. Mishra has been overruled in the present case i.e. Supreme Court Bar Association vs UOI and the SC made it clear that in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction the licence of an advocate cannot be suspended or cancelled.

Facts of the Case

In this case, Supreme Court found the contemner V.C. Mishra an advocate guilty of committing criminal contempt of court for abusing and intimidating Justice Kishote of Allahabad High Court.
On this Supreme Court, awarded him a suspended sentence of imprisonment together with suspension of his practice as an advocate in the manner directed herein.
Aggrieved by the direction that the "Contemner shall stand suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of three years" issued by the Supreme Court by invoking its powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court Bar Association, through its Honorary Secretary, had filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which was directed by the Division bench to be placed before the Constitutional Bench.

The petitioners i.e. Supreme Court Bar Association , seek a declaration that:

Disciplinary committees of Bar Councils ( set up under the Advocates Act) have exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into and punish advocates for professional misconduct, including contempt of court.
Supreme Court or High Courts do not have inherent jurisdiction, power or authority to suspend or debar advocates from practicing law, contrary to the ruling in Re Vinay Chander Mishra.

Issue

Whether punishment for established contempt of Court committed by advocate can include punishment to debar concerned advocate from practicing by suspending his licence for specified period in exercise of power under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India ?

Findings of the case

It is evident from article 142(2) the express substantive statutory provisions dealing with the specific subject cannot be ignored by the Supreme Court. The advocates Act empowers the bar council to punish the advocate for proved professional or other misconduct, the punishment includes to suspend the licence of an advocate.

These statutory powers of the statutory body called the bar council cannot be taken away by Supreme Court.

Article 142 of Constitution of India

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass decrees or orders necessary for complete justice in any case or matter before it. These decrees or orders are enforceable across India and are significant tools for judicial intervention.

Furthermore, Subject to the any law made by the Parliament in this behalf , the Supreme Court has the power to:

Make orders for securing the attendance of any person
Order the discovery or production of any document
Investigate or punish contempt of itself

However, it's important to note that even as a court of record under common law, the Supreme Court (and High Courts) do not have the power to:

Suspend or cancel the license of an advocate to practice law

This power lies exclusively with the disciplinary committees of the Bar Councils, as per the Advocates Act, 1961.

Article 129 of Indian Constitution

Supreme Court to be a Court of record -

The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the power of such a court including the power of punish for contempt of itself.

Also the court has opined that if the conduct amounts to both, contempt of court and professional misconduct, the court should punish for the contempt and refer the case the bar council to take suitable action.

If the bar council does not take action, the SC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under section 38 of the advocate act , direct the bar council to send the case to it and then bar council of India shall be bound to follow the direction and thereafter Supreme Court May pass order cancelling or suspending the licence of an advocate.

The HC may also refer the case to the Council but it has no appellate jurisdiction under section 38 of the advocate act.

Indeed, the constitutional powers under article 129 and 142 cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same time these powers are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in statute dealing expressly with the subject.

When the advocate is guilty of both ‘contempt of court and Professional Misconduct

In this case, Following points was analysed by the court.

Separate Jurisdictions

Contempt of; Court and Professional Misconduct are separate offenses with different jurisdictions and procedures
Contempt of Court is punishable by the courts, while Professional Misconduct is punishable by the Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961

Punishment for Professional Misconduct

Exclusive power to punish an advocate for Professional Misconduct lies with the State Bar Council and Bar Council of India
Punishment can only be imposed after a charge is established in a manner prescribed by the Act and Rules

Limitations of Court's Power

The Supreme Court cannot impose a punishment of suspending an advocate's license while punishing for Contempt of Court
The Court's power under Article 142 is curative in nature and cannot ignore substantive rights of a litigant

Principles of Law

Contempt of Court jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and with caution
Powers under Article 142 are limited and cannot be expanded to include determining Professional Misconduct
Separate procedures must be followed for punishing Contempt of Court and Professional Misconduct

Overruling of Previous Judgment

The law laid down in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) is overruled to the extent that it allowed the Court to impose punishment for Professional Misconduct while punishing for Contempt of Court.

____________________________________________________________________

Dr. LP Mishra vs State of U.P.

Facts of the Case

On July 15, 1994, a Division Bench consisting of Justice B.M. Lal and Justice A.P. Singh began its proceedings and heard some cases, including Writ Petition No. of 1994 (Deoki Nandan Agarwal vs. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, and others). However, the proceedings were disrupted when Dr. L.P. Misra, an advocate and appellant in Connected Appeal No. 483 of 1994, along with his associates, entered the courtroom shouting slogans and demanding that the court adjourn and stop functioning. Despite this, the court continued to function, prompting Dr. L.P. Misra and his associates, including A.K. Bajpaie, Anand Mohan Srivastava, Y.C. Pandey, and Shamim Ahmad, to approach the dias and attempt to physically confront the judges. In the ensuing altercation, Dr. L.P. Misra grabbed Justice A.P. Singh, forcing the court to adjourn, and then directed abusive language at Justice B.M. Lal, using the following words:

“TUM SHALE UTTH JAAO NAHIEN TO JAAN SE MAAR DAALENGE. TUMNE CHIEF JUSTICE SE KAHA HAI KI LUCKNOW KE JUDGES 5000/- RUPYA LEKAR STAY GRANT KARTE HAI AUR STAY EXTEND KARTE HAIN AAJ 2 BAJE TAK AGAR TUM APNA BORIYA BISTAR LEKAR YAHAN SE NAHIEN BHAG JAATE HO TO TUMHE JAAN SE MAAR DALENGE."

Means, Here's the translation of the text from Hindi to English:

"You will be killed if you don't leave the court now. You have told the Chief Justice that judges in Lucknow grant and extend Stay for a bribe of rupees 5000/-. If you don't leave with your belongings by 2 PM today, you will be killed."

Due to the alarming and threatening situation, the Court was forced to adjourn and the two Hon'ble Judges, Justice B.M. Lal and Justice A.P. Singh, retired to Justice B.M. Lal's chamber. However, Dr. L.P. Misra followed them into the chamber and continued to use abusive language, repeating the same threats. It was only through the intervention of Shri J.N. Bhalla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, and some court staff members that Dr. L.P. Misra and his associates were persuaded to leave the chamber. After a brief adjournment, the court reconvened and took serious note of the contemptuous conduct by the appellants. Exercising its powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the court passed the following order:

“This clearly amounts to grossest contempt of the Court, interference in the administration of justice and insult to the court as it scandalises the court and lowers the authority of the Court. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Dr. L.P. Misra, Sri A.K. Bajpaie, Sri Anand Mohan Srivastava, Sri Y.C. Pandey and Sri Shamim Ahmad, Advocates, are exfacie guilty of contempt of court and accordingly in exercise of powers conferred by Article 215 of the Constitution of India, this Court hereby sentence aforesaid advocates, namely

Dr. L.P. Misra, Advocate,
Sri A.K. Bajpaie, Advocate,
Sri Anand Mohan Srivastava, Advocate and
Sri Shamim Ahmad, Advocate with imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.”

The court further directed the Addl. Registrar of the said court to take steps forthwith for execution of this order.

It is against this order dated 15th July, 1994 passed by the High Court, that the appellants have filed these Criminal Appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Issue

Is it mandatory for the Court to issue a show cause notice to the contemnor when the contempt is committed on the face of the Court ?

Arguments of the Respondent

Mr. Dwivedi, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 483 of 1994, challenged the impugned order on the following primary grounds

court failed to follow the legally prescribed procedure while passing the order.
⁠ court did not provide the appellants with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
⁠Even assuming the incident occurred as described in the impugned order, the court should not have passed the order on the same day without issuing a show cause notice or allowing the appellants to explain their alleged contemptuous conduct.
⁠The court overlooked the minimal requirement of following the prescribed procedure.

In support of his submission ,counsel drew attention of the court to section 14 of contempt of court Act and Rule 7 and 8 of Chapet XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952.
When it is alleged or appears to the Court upon its own view that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day or as early as possible thereafter, shall -
1. cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged, and if such person pleads guilty to the charge, his plea shall be recorded and the Court may in its discretion, convict him thereon,
2. if such person refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Court does not convict him, on his plea of guilt, afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge, in support of which he may file an affidavit on the date fixed for his appearance or on such other date as may be fixed by the court in that behalf,
3. after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed either forthwith or after the adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge, and
4. make such order for punishment or discharge of such person as may be just.

This is Rule 8 of Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. It states that:

“Notwithstanding Rule 7, a person charged with contempt can apply (orally or in writing) to have the charge tried by a different Judge than the one in whose presence the offence allegedly occurred.” [Section 14 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971]

If the court thinks it practicable and in the interests of proper justice, it will place the matter before the Chief Justice for directions on how to proceed with the trial.

Counsel further urged that the impugned order is totally opposed to the principles of natural justice and, therefore, unsustainable on this score alone. He, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

The Supreme Court (SC) held that:

1. 1. The impugned order was passed without following the prescribed procedure, and therefore, cannot be sustained.
  2. It is true that HC can invoked its powers and jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution but such jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It is in these circumstances; the impugned order cannot be sustained. Principal
  3. With a view to avoid embarrassment to the party’s contempt proceedings were remotes to principal seat of High Court. And the learned Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court was requested to nominate a Bench to hear and dispose of the contempt proceedings in accordance with Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
  4. The High Court was directed to dispose of the case as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
  5. The appeal was partly allowed, and the order dated 15th July, 1994, passed by the High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2058 (C) of 1994, was set aside.

Principles of law laid down in the case

This case is remarkable for laying down the principle that although High Court enjoy vast powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, still it is bound to follow the minimum procedure prescribed by law even if the contempt is committed on the face of it.

_________________________________________________________________