IN RE: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY...CONTEMNER versus .

IN RE: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY...CONTEMNER versus .

The contemner's conduct—questioning judges' conduct through notices, demanding apology and compensation, using disrespectful and scandalous language, and attempting to prosecute judges for judicial actions—amounts to criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such conduct is aimed at threatening and overawing the Court, thereby interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice. The Supreme Court's contempt powers are unfettered under Article 129, and an unconditional apology by the contemner, in absence of genuine repentance and after repeated defiance, does not mandate acceptance by the Court.

Parties
Contemner: Ajay Kumar Pandey; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (crl.) Nos. 55 and 56 of 1996 / Original Jurisdiction; Final Order
Outcome
Convicted; sentenced for contempt of court
Legal Topics
Criminal Contempt, Advocate Misconduct, Freedom of Expression and Its Limits, Judicial Dignity
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Contempt of Court Criminal Contempt Advocate Misconduct Freedom of Expression and Its Limits Judicial Dignity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajay Kumar Pandey

Contemner

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (crl.) Nos. 55 and 56 of 1996 / Original Jurisdiction; Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contemner's actions constituted 'criminal contempt' under Article 129 of the Constitution and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court's contempt jurisdiction under Article 129 is independent and not restricted by the Contempt of Courts Act;
  3. 3 Whether the conduct and language of the contemner amounted to an attempt to threaten and overawe the Court and Judges, thus interfering with the administration of justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The contemner's conduct—questioning judges' conduct through notices, demanding apology and compensation, using disrespectful and scandalous language, and attempting to prosecute judges for judicial actions—amounts to criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such conduct is aimed at threatening and overawing the Court, thereby interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice. The Supreme Court's contempt powers are unfettered under Article 129, and an unconditional apology by the contemner, in absence of genuine repentance and after repeated defiance, does not mandate acceptance by the Court.

Court Disposition

Convicted; sentenced for contempt of court

Orders

  • The contemner Ajay Kumar Pandey is sentenced to imprisonment for six months.
  • After serving two weeks, the remaining sentence shall be suspended for two years and may be activated if the contemner is convicted of any other offence of contempt of court within the said period.