Gujarat High Court
Suo Motu vs Anand H Goswami on 5 August, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT) NO.
18552 of 2013
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18552 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO. 1 of 2013
==========================================================
SUO MOTU
Versus
ANAND H GOSWAMI
==========================================================
Appearance:
SUO MOTU for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MANOJ T DANAK(6264) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 05/08/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. On 30/07/2025, this Court has passed the following order:
“1. On 16.07.2025, we had clarified that no further time shall be
granted in the present suo motu proceedings.
2. This Court had registered the suo motu proceedings under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of the
communication dated 02.09.2013 addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of this Court, wherein the respondent-Contemnor had made
reckless allegations against the then sitting Judge, Hon’ble Ms.Justice
S.G.Gokani, the following order was passed on 29.11.2013, which reads
thus:
“From the communication addressed by the respondent herein-Mr. Anand H
Goswami, under trial prisoner 721 /13, Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad dated
02.09.2013, addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, we are prima facie of the opinion that
the language used and the averments made by the respondent in the said communication
against the Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani are contemptuous and for which it can be said
that the respondent is liable for criminal contempt.
Hence, Registry is directed to issue notice upon the respondent, making it retunable
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
on 26.12.2013, calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why he should not be held for
criminal contempt for using contemptuous language and making reckless allegations against
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani. Registy is directed to issue notice in the prescribed form /
format and after following due procedure, more particularly Section 17 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.”
3. The matter thereafter, was adjourned on numerous occasions and
the respondent-Contemnor had also remained present before this Court.
4. The respondent- Contemnor was also given an opportunity to
approach the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee, to have legal
assistance of an advocate from the panel. It appears that thereafter he
was represented by learned advocate Mr.Anand H.Goswami and a last
chance was given to the respondent- Contemnor vide order dated
07.05.2015. Accordingly, the respondent-Contemnor remained present on
04.11.2015 before this Court. However, he had taken time and requested
for an adjournment. On 18.03.2016, this Court recorded that the
respondent-Contemnor has not remained present and thereafter from the
order sheet, it reflects that he would like to appear as a party-in-person.
Again, on 10.06.2016, he appeared and requested for an adjournment as
he would like to obtain Legal Aid from the Gujarat State Legal Services
Authority. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for further occasions as
and when it was listed at the request of the respondent- Contemnor.
5. A detailed order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on
04.10.2016, wherein it was recorded that the respondent-Contemnor has
been whiling away time and dodging the hearing of this matter. However,
further chance was granted to him to get an assistance from the Gujarat
High Court Legal Services Committee. Further, opportunity was also
given by the Coordinate Bench on 07.12.2021. From the order dated
23.12.2021, it is noticed by us that the Coordinate Bench had issued a
Non-bailable Warant and fixed the matter on 25.01.2022 however, later
on, the respondent- Contemnor had appeared as a party-in-person, sought
adjournment and also made a statement that he would appear on all the
dates of hearing. Accordingly, the matter was ordered to be listed on
25.01.2022.
6. On 04.02.2022, when the matter was listed, since the respondent-
Contemnor had not remained present the Court had issued Non-bailable
Warrant upon him and hearing was kept on 04.03.2022. On 04.03.2022,
the respondent-Contemnor was present and he sought time through
learned advocate Mr. P.V Patadiya to file an affidavit of tendering
unconditional and unqualified apology. The Coordinate Bench
accordingly, granted permission to file the same.
7. By the order dated 19.04.2022, the Coordinate Bench had framed
the Charge against the respondent-Contemnor as under:
“We, the Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri, do hereby
charge you, respondent- accused, i.e.
Mr. Anandgiri Harigiri Goswami,
Male, Aged 64 years,
Resident of: 1358/2, Sector 2B,
Gandhinagar-382007
(Mobile No.9978612374)
1. That you have used defamatory language against Hon’ble Judge of this Court and
thereby you have tried to attack an individual judge and on the Court as a whole withPage 2 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
reference to Criminal Misc. Application No.12353 of 2012 by casting unwarranted
defamatory assertion upon the character and ability of Hon’ble Judge.
2. Scandalizing the Court in the aforesaid manner amounts to a criminal contempt as
defined under Section 2(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The
hostile criticism of judges and unwarranted attack on a Judge or a Court by means of
submitting representations/ complaints dated 2.9.2013 would amount to scandalizing
the Courts within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. Defamatory language used by you Mr. Anandgiri Harigiri Goswami is with an
intention and object to scandalize the Court and such acts would be falling within the
meaning of definition of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. By these
acts, you Mr. Anandgiri Harigiri Goswami have tried to interfere with and obstruct
the administration of justice and said acts are punishable under Sections 11 and 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act by taking cognizance of the said acts, we hereby direct
that you be tried by this Court on the said charge.
Dated this 19th day of April 2022″
8. On 10.06.2022, the respondent-Contemnor personally remained
present for hearing and the matter was adjourned at the request of
learned advocate Mr.P.V Patadiya. It appears that thereafter, the
respondent-Contemnor changed the advocate and learned advocate
Ms.Khushbu Danecha on 14.11.2022 mentioned that she has instructions
to appear on behalf of the respondent-Contemnor through Gujarat High
Court Legal Services. Thereafter, the matter has been further adjourned
on the request of learned advocate appearing for the respondent-
Contemnor.
9. Finally it appears that on 06.09.2023, learned advocate Mr.Manoj
T Dhanak has received instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent-
Contemnor. He has requested time in order to collect necessary papers
and instructions. The matter has been adjourned since then upon the
request of learned advocate Mr.Danak. On 09.07.2025, we accepted the
request of learned advocate Mr.Danak as he would like to file an affidavit
and as recorded hereinabove on 16.07.2025, last chance was granted to
him to file an affidavit. Today, learned advocate Mr.Danak has filed a sick
note.
10. As recorded hereinabove, as the Charge has already been framed
and the opportunity has also been granted by this Court to the
respondent-Contemnor, but despite the aforesaid orders, today learned
advocate Mr. Danak has chosen not to remain present and has filed a sick
note. As a last chance, the matter is ordered to be listed on 04.08.2025,
on top of the board.
11. In case, learned advocate Mr. Danak desires to file sick note or leave
note, he shall make an alternate arrangement, failing which, the Court
will be constrained to issue bailable warrant against the respondent-
Contemnor. Registry is direct to convey this order to the respondent-
Anand H. Goswami as well as learned advocate Mr. Manoj T Danak.”
2. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned. Today, the contemnor is
present before this Court.
Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
3. As recorded in the aforesaid order, charge was framed by this
Court on 19/04/2022, against the contemnor.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Danak, appearing for the contemnor, at the
outset, pointed out the unconditional apology tendered vide affidavit
dated 03/03/2022 which reads thus:
“I, Anandbhai S/o. Hiragiri Goswami, age: about 64 years, resident of: 1358/2, Sector 2-B,
Gandhinagar, respondent No. 1 herein, do hereby state on solemn affirmation in reply to the
above mentioned Misc. Criminal Application, as follows:
1. That the deponent submits that he has great 6-57 respect to the Hon’ble Judges and it
was not his intention to commit any offence amounting to offence under the contempt of court
act. Deponent submits that he begs to tender unconditional apology before this Hon’ble Court.
That it was not his intention or attempt to make allegations against the Hon’ble Judges of this
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court but he was not aware about the proceedings of the Hon’ble Court
that as to where he had to challenge the order of the Hon’ble Court and that too in which
manner and also where to ventilate his voice, and therefore, without knowledge of law, the
deponent, by inadvertently address letter to this Hon’ble Court. Therefore answering
respondent again tenders absolute and unconditional apology to this Hon’ble Court and he
assures to this Hon’ble Court that such kind of mistake will not be happened in future.
2. That the deponent further submits that he begs to withdraws the allegations made in
the letter dt. 02-09-2013 addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Gujarat. 2.”
5. Learned advocate Mr.Danak, appearing for the contemnor
submitted that during the pendency of the present application, the
contemnor was also ordered to be arrested as he was not remaining
present from 20/01/2015 to 20/10/2015. It also appears from the record
that while the contemnor was in jail, he had applied for engaging
Advocate through Legal Aid Services through the High Court and
thereafter he was provided Legal Aid Service through Advocate
Mr.Madansing Barod. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned on
numerous occasions and ultimately, learned Advocate Mr.Danak is
representing the case of the contemnor.
6. Today, learned advocate Mr.Danak appearing for the contemnor,
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
on instructions, has submitted that the contemnor will not repeat the
aforesaid conduct again. The order of framing of the charge was not
further challenged by the contemnor.
7. The contemnor was also supplied with a copy of communication
dated 07/02/2013, written by the contemnor, making reckless allegations
against the Judicial Officer/s of the Ahmedabad Courts. Similarly, the
contemnor had also written a letter dated 11/09/2011 levelling reckless
allegations against the sitting Hon’ble Judges of this Court.
8. The present Suo Motu application emanates from the order dated
01/02/2023, passed in SCR.A No.3179 of 2012 wherein the following
order is passed:
“1 It appears that the present petitioners, who are under trial prisoners, are in
habit of making wild allegations against Advocates, Officers of this Court and
Officers of the Government. By making such allegations, they have tried to obtain
orders of this court in the past also2 While approaching this Court earlier for temporary bail, similar type of allegations
were made by the applicants, which were deprecated by this court while passing
Order dated 22.8.2012 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12353 of 2012.
3 This Court (Coram: Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.) dismissed the aforesaid application and
has specifically observed that, in future, any application is filed by the present
petitioners, the same shall be first scrutinized by the Registrar (Judicial) and
thereafter only be placed before the Court. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said order read
as under:
“7. At the outset, it is also required to be mentioned that the applicants
appear to have lost sense of propriety and have chosen to use abusive and
unparliamentarian language against advocates, APPS, AAG and Officers of
the Court as also officials of the Government and in such circumstances, this
court could not have allowed the applicants to address the court in person
and as such, the application ought not to considered at the allow any kind of
unfettered powers to the jail officials also, the registry is, therefore, directed,
in future, any application received by either of the present applicants
directly, the same first shall be scrutinized at the level of Registrar (Judicial)
and thereafter, be placed before this Court.
8. It is also further required to be noted that, under the aid of Legal Service
Authorities Act, legal aid cell is also functional at Sabarmati Central Jail ifPage 5 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
these applicants are desirous of availing any aid or assistance.”
4 It appears that before placing this application before this Court, attention of
the Registrar (Judicial) is not drawn and therefore I do not find any remarks on the
application. Office to follow the directions given in the Order dated 22.8.2012 passed
in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12353 of 2012.
5 Apart from this, the prayers made by the applicants are not relevant with this
case and, therefore, the present petition is dismissed.
6 Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the concerned Jail
Authority and both the applicants.”
9. After the aforesaid order was passed in the month of September,
2013, the contemnor again levelled allegations against the sitting Hon’ble
Judges of this Court, which reads thus:
“d) In this matter, looking to such order of dtd.22-08-2012 so that the additional
advocate general Mr.Tushar Maheta and his accomplices get illegal and criminal
encouragement and to fulfill the conspiracy to save them from sentence, punishment,
penalty and arrest, if the Hon’ble Ms. justice Soniya Gokani cannot stop the activity
of causing injustice to the appellant for mysterious reasons, she should not be handed
over the case of the said application. It is humbly requested to consider to hand over
the said case to the learned justice who can render justice neutrally, justice loving
and able to carry out the responsibilities laid down by the makers of constitution and
law, being independent from the nuisance of democracy and who is not under the
influence of Mr.Tushar Mehta and Mr. P. R. Abichandani, a son of former Hon’ble
justice Mr. R. K Abichandani or his accomplices.”
10. A similar letter was written to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice by the
contemnor, dated NIL.09.2013, the relevant translated paragraphs read
thus:
“(1) …….have won the favours of the Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani to achieve
their criminal goals and the Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani has disclosed such
fabricated, strange and corrupt observations in her order dated 22/08/2012 as a part
of imaginary, slanderous, having malafide intention, contrary to the fact, deceitful
conspiracy, ……….it appears that the observations disclosed in the order of Hon’ble
Ms. Justice Gokani dated 22/08/12 in question which are not only strange but also
contrary to the fact, were disclosed as a rubber stamp of the said gang as a part of
slanderous, having bad intention and well organized, deceitful conspiracy…..”
2(C) ….on what evidence, record, affidavit, the Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani
has made observations which are imaginary, slanderous, such strange as are not
disclosed in my application.
Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined (D) ......due to which the Hon'ble Judge has passed shocking, surprising and
bogus observations which may be helpful to make successful the numerous criminal
conspiracies of the above gang…..
Further, such conduct of Hon’ble Judge and incident of such act, whether it
becomes criminal offence or not? To that point, it is necessary to get aware of the
relevant fact for obtaining guidance and advice of any refined judge or law expert.
Further, the order having bogus observation which may achieve the numerous
criminal goals of the said notorious gang, whether it could be said as illegal and
capricious.
In connection with such act, for taking disciplinary action departmentally
under section 197 of Cr.P.C and u/s 19 of PCA for taking permission against the
Hon’ble Judge, whether this is a prima facie case for making proposal/applications to
His Excellency President of India?…..
3(C) Whether Learned Justice Sonia Gokani has declared in the order in question
dated 22/08/12 by going against the facts and details of the application of the
applicant party of dated 16/08/12 that are slanderous, villainy, bogus, having malice
intention, false, imaginary, capricious and such that above gang get illegal co-
operation in obtaining their criminal goal and declared it emphatically as a part of
treacherous conspiracy? It is requested to examine that issue and in respect of
corruptly declaring illegal order and make a committee of neutral, just and fair
justices of three senior justices or retired justices who are not under influence,
pressure or recommendation of above gang or Learned Justice Gokani…… and take
actions as per departmental, administrative, criminal and as per law of contempt
against Learned Justice. And send the related papers along with reliable evidences to
the Most Honourable President as reference of priority…..”
11. After the charge was framed, numerous opportunities were granted
to the contemnor; including by this Bench, to indiate that whether the
contemnor would like to further contest the present application or not. He
was also intimated about the procedure as defined under the Gujarat High
Court Rules. However, the contemnor has been seeking adjournments
after the adjournments, and ultimately, the aforesaid order dated
30/07/2025 was passed by us.
12. At the outset, we may deal with the scope of powers conferred to
the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution read with the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the case of Prashant
Bhushan (Contempt Matter), In re, (2021) 1 S.C.C. 745, the Supreme
Page 7 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
Court reiterated and held that the High Courts enjoy powers similar to
those of the Supreme Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of
India, 1950. The Supreme Court rejected the argument of the alleged
contemnor that the notice for initiation of contempt proceedings should
have been issued in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, holding that any violation of the Act would not vitiate the
entire proceedings. Paragraph Nos. 17 to 18 of the said case are as
follows:
“17 Insofar as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
alleged contemnor No.1, that in the present case, the Court could not have initiated
suo motu proceedings and could have proceeded on the petition filed by Mr. Mahek
Maheshwari only after the consent was obtained from the learned Attorney General
for India is concerned, very recently, a Bench of this Court has considered identical
submissions in the case of Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors., 2020 SCC Online SC 407 (Suo
Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.2 of 2019. The Bench has considered various
judgments of this Court on the issue, in detail. Therefore, it will be apposite to refer
to the following paragraphs of the judgment wherein the earlier law has been
discussed in extenso:
“Powers of the Supreme Court
7. Before we deal with the objections individually, we need to understand
what are the powers of the Supreme Court of India in relation to dealing with
contempt of the Supreme Court in the light of Articles 129 and 142 of the
Constitution of India when read in conjunction with the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. According to the alleged contemnors, the Contempt of Courts Act
is the final word in the matter and if the procedure prescribed under the
Contempt of Courts Act has not been followed then the proceedings have to
be dropped. On the other hand, Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned amicus curiae
while making reference to a large number of decisions contends that the
Supreme Court being a Court of Record is not bound by the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act. The only requirement is that the procedure followed
is just and fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Article 129 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
“129. Supreme Court to be a court of record.- The Supreme Court shall be a
court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the
power to punish for contempt of itself.”
A bare reading of Article 129 clearly shows that this Court being a Court of
Record shall have all the powers of such a Court of Record including the
power to punish for contempt of itself. This is a constitutional power which
cannot be taken away or in any manner abridged by statute.
Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
Article 142 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to
discovery, etc.- (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may
pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete
justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or
order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such
manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and,
until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may
by order prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament,
the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have
all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the
attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or
the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”
Article 142 also provides that this Court can punish any person for contempt
of itself but this power is subject to the provisions of any law made by
parliament. A comparison of the provisions of Article 129 and clause (2) of
Article 142 clearly shows that whereas the founding fathers felt that the
powers under clause 92) of Article 142 could be subject to any law made by
parliament, there is no such restriction as far as Article 129 is concerned.
The power under clause (2) of Article 142 is not the primary source of power
of Court of Record which is Article 129 and there is no such restriction in
Article 129. Samaraditya Pal in the Law of Contempt has very succinctly
stated the legal position as follows:
“Although the law of contempt is largely governed by the 1971 Act, it is now
settled law in India that the High Courts and the Supreme Court derive their
jurisdiction and power from Articles 215 and 129 of the Constitution. This
situation results in giving scope for “judicial self-dealing”.
The High Courts also enjoy similar powers like the Supreme Court under
Article 215 of the Constitution. The main argument of the alleged contemnors
is that notice should have been issued in terms of the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act and any violation of the Contempt of Courts Act
would vitiate the entire proceedings. We do not accept this argument. In view
of the fact that the power to punish for contempt of itself is a constitutional
power vested in this Court, such power cannot be abridged or taken away
even by legislative enactment.
Xxxxx
18 From the perusal of various judgments of this Court, including those of the
Constitution Benches, it could be seen, that the source of power of this Court for
proceeding for an action of contempt is under Article 129. It has further been held,
that power of this Court to initiate contempt is not in any manner limited by the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It has been held, that the Court is
vested with the constitutional powers to deal with the contempt and Section 15 is not
Page 9 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
the source of the power to issue notice for contempt. It only provides the procedure in
which such contempt is to be initiated. It has been held, that insofar as suo motu
petitions are concerned, the Court can very well initiate the proceedings suo motu on
the basis of information received by it. The only requirement is that the procedure as
prescribed in the judgment of P.N. Duda (supra) has to be followed. In the present
case, the same has undoubtedly been followed. It is also equally settled, that as far as
the suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement for taking consent of
anybody, including the learned Attorney General because the Court is exercising its
inherent powers to issue notice for contempt. It is equally well settled, that once the
Court takes cognizance, the matter is purely between the Court and the contemnor.
The only requirement is that, the procedure followed is required to be just and fair
and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the
notice issued to the alleged contemnors clearly mentions the tweets on the basis of
which the Court is proceeding suo motu. The alleged contemnor No.1 has also
clearly understood the basis on which the Court is proceeding against him as is
evident from the elaborate affidavit-in-reply filed by him.”
13. The Supreme Court has held that the High Courts under Article
215 of the Constitution of India enjoy similar power given to the Supreme
Court under Article 129 and that the power to punish for contempt is a
constitutional power vested in this Court, and which cannot be abridged
or taken away by the legislative enactment. It has been held that the Court
is vested with the constitutional powers to deal with the contempt and
Section 15 is not the source of the power to issue notice for contempt. It
only provides the procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated. It
has been further held, that insofar as suo motu petitions are concerned,
the Court can very well initiate the proceedings suo motu on the basis of
information received by it.
14. In the case of Sukhdeo Singh vs. Hon’ble C. J. Teja Singh and the
Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Pepsu, AIR 1954 S.C. 186, the
Supreme Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not
apply in the matters of contempt tried by the High Court. The Court can
deal with it summarily and adopt its own procedure, provided the
procedure is fair, the contemnor is made aware of the charge against him,
and he is given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
15. In the case of C.K. Daphtary vs. O.P. Gupta, (1971) 1 S.C.C. 626,
the Supreme Court held that a specific charge is not required to be
framed, and the only requirement is that, a fair procedure be followed
while dealing with contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
16. The Supreme Court, in the case of E.M.Sankaran Namboodripad
vs. T. Narayanan Nambiar, (1970) 2 S.C.C. 325, held as follows:
“6. The law of contempt stems from the right of the courts to punish by imprisonment
or fines persons guilty of words or acts which either obstruct or tend to obstruct the
administration of justice. This right is exercised in India by all courts when contempt is
committed in facie curaie and by the superior courts on their own behalf or on behalf
of courts subordinate to them even if committed outside the courts. Formerly, it was
regarded as inherent in the powers of a court of record and now by the Constitution of
India, it is a part of the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. There are
many kinds of contempts. The chief forms of contempt are insult to Judges, attacks
upon them, comment on pending proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial,
obstruction to officers of courts, witnesses or the parties, abusing the process of the
court, breach of duty by officers connected with the court and scandalising the Judges
or the courts. The last form occurs, generally speaking, when the conduct of a person
tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard.
In this conduct are included all acts which bring the court into disrepute or disrespect
or which offend its dignity, affront its majesty or challenge its authority. Such contempt
may be committed in respect of a Single Judge or a single court but may, in certain
circumstances, be committed in respect of the whole of the judiciary or judicial system.
The question is whether in the circumstances of this case the offence was committed.”
17. It has been held that the law of contempt stems from the right of
the courts to punish by imprisonment or fines persons guilty of words or
acts which either that obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of
justice. Such right is exercised in India by all courts when contempt is
committed in facie curiae and by the superior Courts on their own behalf
or on behalf of courts subordinate to them, even if committed outside the
courts.
18. The Supreme Court further expressed that the chief forms of
contempt are insult to Judges, attacks upon them, comment on pending
proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial, obstruction to officers
Page 11 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
of courts, witnesses, or the parties, abusing the process of the court,
breach of duty by officers connected with the court, and scandalising the
Judges or the courts. The last form occurs generally speaking when a
person’s conduct tends to bring the authority and administration of law
into disrespect or disregard.
19. The Supreme Court has held that such conduct includes all acts
which bring the court into disrepute, or disrespect or which offend its
dignity, affront its majesty, or challenge its authority. Such contempt may
be committed in respect of a Single Judge or a single Court, or the whole
of the judiciary or judicial system.
20. In the case of Vijay Kurle, In re, (2021) 13 S.C.C. 616, the
Supreme Court dealt with the contemptuous act of an advocate, who
made scandalous and scurrilous allegations against two Honorable Judges
of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the suo motu proceedings were
initiated. The Supreme Court held that the procedure under Section 17 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for taking cognizance of contempt
under Section 15 does not apply to suo motu petitions, as they deal with
proceedings moved on a motion and not suo motu proceedings. The
Supreme Court has held thus:
“30. In exercise of the aforesaid powers, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was
enacted by Parliament. Section 15 deals with cognizance of criminal contempt and the
opening portion of Section 15 clearly provides that the Supreme Court or the High
Courts may take action : (i) suo motu, (ii) on a motion moved by the Advocate General
in case of the High Court or Attorney General/Solicitor General in the case of the
Supreme Court, and (iii) on a petition by any other person with the consent in writing
of the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General, as the case may be.
Section 17 lays down the procedure to be followed when action is taken on a motion
moved by the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General or on the basis of
their consent and Section 17(2) does not deal with suo motu contempt petitions. Section
17(2)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act will not apply to suo motu petitions because
that deals with the proceedings moved on a motion and not suo motu proceedings.
Section 17(2)(b) deals with contempt initiated on a reference made by the subordinate
court. It is only in these cases that the notice is required to be issued along with a copy
of the motion. As far as suo motu petitions are concerned, in these cases the onlyPage 12 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
requirement of Form I which has been framed in pursuance of Rule 6 of the Rules of
this Court is that the brief nature of the contempt has to be stated therein.
39. As far as the observations made in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian [Pallav Sheth v.
Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549] are concerned, this Court in that case was only dealing
with the question whether contempt can be initiated after the limitation prescribed in
the Contempt of Courts Act has expired and the observations made therein have to be
read in that context only. Relevant portion of para 30 of Pallav Sheth case [Pallav
Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549] reads as follows : (SCC p. 566)“30. There can be no doubt that both this Court and High Courts are courts of
record and the Constitution has given them the powers to punish for contempt.
The decisions of this Court clearly show that this power cannot be abrogated or
stultified. But if the power under Article 129 and Article 215 is absolute, can
there be any legislation indicating the manner and to the extent that the power
can be exercised? If there is any provision of the law which stultifies or
abrogates the power under Article 129 and/or Article 215, there can be little
doubt that such law should not be regarded as having been validly enacted. It,
however, appears to us that providing for the quantum of punishment or what
may or may not be regarded as acts of contempt or even providing for a period
of limitation for initiating proceedings for contempt cannot be taken to be a
provision which abrogates or stultifies the contempt jurisdiction under Article
129 or Article 215 of the Constitution.”
The aforesaid finding clearly indicates that the Court held that any law which stultifies
or abrogates the power of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution or
of the High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution, could not be said to be validly
enacted. It, however, went on to hold that providing the quantum of punishment or a
period of limitation would not mean that the powers of the Court under Article 129
have been stultified or abrogated. We are not going into the correctness or otherwise of
this judgment but it is clear that this judgment only dealt with the issue whether
Parliament could fix a period of limitation to initiate the proceedings under the Act.
Without commenting one way or the other on Pallav Sheth case [Pallav Sheth v.
Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549] it is clear that the same has not dealt with the powers of
this Court to issue suo motu notice of contempt.
40. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the powers of the
Supreme Court to initiate contempt are not in any manner limited by the provisions of
the Act. This Court is vested with the constitutional powers to deal with the contempt.
Section 15 is not the source of the power to issue notice for contempt. It only provides
the procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated and this procedure provides
that there are three ways of initiating a contempt:
(i) suo motu,
(ii) on the motion by the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General,
and
(iii) on the basis of a petition filed by any other person with the consent in
Page 13 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
writing of the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General.
As far as suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement for taking
consent of anybody because the Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue
notice for contempt. This is not only clear from the provisions of the Act but also
clear from the Rules laid down by this Court.”
21. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kurle (supra) further
observed that when the Court exercises power under Article 215 of the
Constitution, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
including limitations, may not strictly apply. Even if we segregate those
matters where cognizance was taken beyond one year, there remain
approximately 20 to 25 cases on which the contemnor is guilty of
contempt.
22. Writing scandalous letters/communications, amounts to
interference with the administration of justice and pending judicial
proceedings, constituting “criminal contempt” under Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
23. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sukhdeo Singh (supra), held
that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to contempt
matters tried by the High Court. The High Court can deal with it
summarily and adopt its own procedure, provided the procedure is fair,
and the contemnor is made aware of the charge against him and given a
fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
24. We reiterate the observations of the Supreme Court that an attack
on a Judge or Judges, that is offensive, intimidatory, or malicious beyond
condonable limits, must be met with the strong arm of the law in the
name of public interest and public justice to strike a blow at one who
challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and
Page 14 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
stream. In the case of Pritam Pal vs. High Court of M.P., 1993 Supp. (1)
S.C.C. 529, the Supreme Court validated the action of the High Court in
invoking jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution by initiating
suo motu contempt proceedings against an advocate. This judgment was
referred to in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra) as follows:
“40. In the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi [(1953) 2 SCC 571 : 1954 SCR 454 : AIR
1954 SC 186 : 1954 Cri LJ 460] it has been observed: (SCR pp. 455-56)“… the power of a High Court to institute proceedings for contempt and punish where
necessary is a special jurisdiction which is inherent in all courts of record and Section
1(2) of the Code expressly excludes special jurisdictions from its scope.”
41. The position of law that emerges from the above decisions is that the power
conferred upon the Supreme Court and the High Court, being Courts of Record under
Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is an inherent power and that the
jurisdiction vested is a special one not derived from any other statute but derived only
from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India (See D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal
[(1988) 3 SCC 26 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 546] ) and therefore the constitutionally vested
right cannot be either abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut down. Nor can
they be controlled or limited by any statute or by any provision of the Code of Criminal
Procedure or any Rules. The caution that has to be observed in exercising this inherent
power by summary procedure is that the power should be used sparingly, that the
procedure to be followed should be fair and that the contemnor should be made aware
of the charge against him and given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
42. If we examine the facts of the present case in the backdrop of the proposition of
law, the contentions raised by the opponent challenging the procedure followed by the
High Court do not merit any consideration since the opponent has been served with a
notice of contempt and thereafter permitted to go through the records and finally has
been afforded a fair opportunity of putting forth his explanation for the charge levelled
against him. Incidentally, we may say that the submission of the contemnor that the
impugned order is vitiated on the ground of procedural irregularities and that Article
215 of the Constitution of India is to be read in conjunction with the provisions of
Sections 15 and 17 of the Act of 1971, cannot be countenanced and it has to be
summarily rejected as being devoid of any merit.”
25. The summary jurisdiction of this Court, while dealing with such
blatant disregard of the rule of law, wherein the dignity and honour of
individual Judges are attacked and scandalized, demands from this Court
to curb this nuisance with an iron hand to uphold the majesty of the law,
the administration of justice, and to repose the trust, faith, and confidence
of the people.
Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18552/2013 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
26. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find that the contemnor, in his
affidavit-in-reply dated 03/03/2022, had tendered the unconditional
apology. He has also assured the Court that he would not repeat such
conduct in future. However, we have also noticed that during the
pendency of the present application, he was also sent to jail and remained
in jail for more than nine months. Though we find that the conduct of the
contemnor-Anand H Goswami is contemptuous and establishes under the
provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which defines
‘criminal contempt’ we are not inclined to further punish him by sending
him to jail as stipulated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
However, the reckless allegations made by the contemnor scandalizing
the sitting Hon’ble Judge of this Court has lower down the majesty of this
Institution, hence we hold the contemnor guilty for “criminal contempt”
as defines under section 2(c ) of the Contempt of Court and impose a fine
of Rs.2,000/-, which shall be deposited by the contemnor before the
Registry of this Court; within a period of two weeks; failing which the
contemnor shall be ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one week. We also direct that if in future the contemnor finds of
indulging into such activities, he shall be again inviting the proceedings
under the Contempt of Courts Act.
27. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
proceedings are disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura /09
Page 16 of 16
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 21:53:37 IST 2025