The Supreme Court in the case Gulshan Bajwa vs. Registrar, the High Court Or Delhi observed and has convicted an advocate in a seventeen-year-old criminal contempt case, reiterated that an apology must be evidence of remorse for the contemptuous acts.
The court stated that it must be used as a weapon ‘to purge the guilty of their offence’.
Further, the court stated that an apology lacking sincerity and not evidencing contriteness cannot be accepted.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PS Narasimha was hearing an appeal of one Gulshan Bajwa, a lawyer, who was convicted by the Delhi High Court dated October 19, 2006 of criminal contempt. Thus, Bajwa, inter-alia, made improper and reckless allegations against the Judges.
Moreover, the court stated that he continuously failed to appear before the High Court. Multiple ways were adopted to secure the appellant’s presence, without any avail.
The High Court bench comprising of Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice G.S. Sistani in the case observed and has pointed out several instances where the appellant’s conduct was scrutinised in different proceedings.
Therefore, the court stated that in all those cases, the egregious act of contempt of the appellant was recorded.
The court in the case held that the said acts are intentional and malicious and have persisted over a long period and it has also been refused by the High Court to accept intentional and malicious and have persisted over a long period. Besides, the High Court also refused to accept the appellant’s apology, observing that it was neither sincere nor satisfactory and a belated one.
The High Court in the case obserevd while finding the appellant guilty of criminal contempt has sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 2000, thus, the instant appeal.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has granted an interim order to stay in operation of this High Court order. However, on more than a dozen occasions in this appeal.
The court noted that the listed cases were either adjourned at the appellant’s request or because of his absence. Thus, the Court vacated the interim order.
The Supreme Court concurred with the view taken by the Delhi High Court, after perusing the said submissions.
The court stated that this court is in an incomplete agreement with the decision of the High Court on the need to maintain the dignity and reputation of judicial officers and to protect them from motivated, libellous, and unfounded allegations.
It has also been observed by the said court that the apology rendered by the appellant was not bonafide and was a mere lip service.
Further, the court opined that the appellant’s conduct amounts to undermining the system of the law.
Adding to it, the High Court in the case observed a pattern in the behaviour of the appellant. He has had a habit of misbehaving with a Bench which is not agreeing with him. Thus, the misbehaviour goes to the extent of casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters.The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has refused to interfere with the impugned judgment. However, considering certain medical ailments of the appellant, thus, the said Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for three months till the rising of the court.