IN CASE OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, EITHER OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF HARYANA OR PUNJAB CAN GRANT SUCH WRITTEN CONSENT — ADVOCATE HEMANT
(MOREPIC1)Face2News/Chandigarh
The consent in writing of the Advocate-General for the State is a must if any person (which also includes any Advocate) desires to bring to the notice of High Court the instance of commission of any sort of Criminal Contempt of the (High) Court by a person ( read alleged contemnor, even if he happens to be the Chief Minister of State) asserts Hemant Kumar, an Advocate at Punjab & Haryana High Court while quoting relevant provision of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Advocate further elaborated that in Section 15 of the aforementioned 1971 Act which deals with Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases, it has been stipulated that in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14 (i.e. except such cases where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court), the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by either the Advocate-General, or any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General.
However, Hemant points out an interesting catch here. Since as per Section 15(3)(b) of the ibid 1971 Act, the expression “Advocate-General” means in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General for the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established. Hence in view of the above, in case of Punjab & Haryana High Court, which has been established for the States of Punjab & Haryana, either of the Advocate Generals for the States of Haryana or Punjab can give such a written consent.
(SUBHEAD)This assumes significance in the backdrop of a recent controversy erupted due to certain remarks allegedly made by Haryana Chief Minister(CM) Manohar Lal Khattar which as per certain quarters lowers or tends to lower the authority (and dignity) of High Court. Hence, questions are also being raised if criminal contempt of court proceedings are, if any, are to be initiated against CM Khattar for his such alleged remarks, in that case would Advocate General for State of Haryana indeed accord such consent in writing. If he declines, then it that scenario, even Advocate General for the State of Punjab can too grant such written consent.
Pertinent that this past Sunday on April 2, a video clip had gone viral wherein Haryana CM Khattar who was then in a village in Bhiwani district reportedly made a remark in relation to a High Court Judge ( of course without taking name of Judge) with reference to 2019 Haryana Police constables recruitment process which is still sub-judice before the High Court. Haryana CM said “Voh [Samasya] hal ho jayegi. Voh ek Judge hai, uske maathe mein kuch gadbad hai. Toh theek karenge usko. Mujhe pata hai saara maamla. 3000 join ho gaye na. Paanch mein se teen [3000 out of 5000] ho gaye na? Baaki jo 2000 bach gaye hain, voh bhi court ka faisla jaldi kara lenge (That problem will be solved. There is a judge, there is some issue with his head. We will fix that. I am aware of the entire matter. Three thousand have already joined. Three thousand of 5,000 have joined. The remaining 2,000 who are left, they will get the court ruling soon),”.
The above statement of Haryana CM raised a hue and cry in both legal and political circles immediately after the video clip went viral. Indeed it raised such a storm that the very next day on Monday April 3, CM Khattar was compelled to withdrew his aforementioned remarks while expressing regret asserting that it was an ” aswabhavik si tippani (unnatural comment) and should not have been made. He also further said that if it (what he said) might have reached a particular Judge, he hereby withdrawing his words.
Now, if after post expression of regret by Haryana CM Khattar, it remains to be seen if the matter is given a quietus or else it would continue to haunt him in coming days.
Be that as it may, Hemant says Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which— (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
