{"id":192802,"date":"1962-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962"},"modified":"2016-02-12T00:35:35","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T19:05:35","slug":"pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962","title":{"rendered":"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1172, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 838<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPRATAP SINGH AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGURBAKSH SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n29\/01\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR 1172\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (2) 838\n CITATOR INFO :\n APR\t    1968 SC1513\t (12,14,15)\n D\t    1974 SC 642\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\n     Contempt of Court-Circular letter prohibiting\nGovernment servant  from seeking decision of Court\nbefore exhausting  official remedies-Proceeding on\nsuch circular  letter pending  suit-It constitutes\ncontempt of Court-Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (32\nof 1952), s. 3.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The   appellants,\t both\tpublic\t servants,\ninitiated  departmental\t proceedings  against  the\nrespondent, another  public  servant,  for  having\nsued the  Government in\t the  Subordinate  Judge's\nCourt at Amritsar for a declaration that a certain\nsum of money was being illegally deducted from his\nsalary; the  respondent brought\t the  suit  before\nexhausting  all\t  his  departmental   remedies\tas\nrequired by  an official  circular which  directed\n\"that in the matter of grievances arising out of a\nGovernment  Servant's\temployment  conditions\tof\nservice the  proper course is to seek redress from\nthe  appropriate   departmental\t  and\tGovernment\nauthorities. Any  attempt by  a Government servant\nto seek\t a decision  on such  issues in a Court of\nlaw (even  in cases where such a remedy is legally\nadmissible) without  first exhausting  the  normal\nofficial channels  of redress can only be regarded\nas contrary  to official  propriety and subversive\nof  good  discipline  and  may\twell  justify  the\ninitiation  of\tdisciplinary  action  against  the\nGovernment servant\".  The respondent complained to\nthe  High   Court  that\t the  two  appellants  had\ncommitted contempt  of court punishable under s. 3\nof the\tContempt of  Courts Act,  1952,\t as  their\naction was  tent amount\t to interfering\t with  his\nlegal rights to seek redress in a court of law and\namounted to exerting pressure upon him to withdraw\nthe suit, thereby obstructing the judicial process\nand interfering\t with the course of a suit pending\nin a Court subordinate to the High Court, The High\nCourt held that the appellants were clearly guilty\nof contempt  but since\tthey were  merely carrying\nout the\t instructions of  the Government, the ends\nof justice  would be sufficiently met if they were\ndirected to  abandon the  departmental proceedings\nand  warned   against  complying   with\t the  said\ninstructions. It  was contended\t on behalf  of the\nappellants  that   the\tcircular   letter,  fairly\nconstrued, did\tnot impose  any absolute  ban  but\nmerely\timposed\t an  obligation\t on  a\tGovernment\nservant to exhaust his departmental remedies\n839\nbefore taking  recourse to  a court  of law and as\nsuch did  not constitute  an interference with the\ncourse of justice.\n^\n     Held, (per\t S. K.\tDas and\t Subba Rao,  JJ.),\nthat  any   conduct  which   interferes\t with\tor\nprejudices parties  litigant during the litigation\namounts to  contempt of Court. The question is not\nwhether the  action in\tfact interfered\t with  but\nwhether it  had a  tendency to\tinterfere with the\ndue course of justice. There was no doubt that the\nproceedings initiated  in the  present case by the\nappellants on the basis of the circular letter had\nonly  one   tendency,  namely,\t to   coerce   the\nrespondent to  withdraw the pending suit or not to\npress it.  The appellants  must be  held guilty of\ncontempt of  court, and\t it would be no defence to\nsay that  they were  merely carrying out executive\ndirections contained in the circular letter.\n     The question  at issue  was not  whether  the\ncircular letter\t was valid  in the  abstract,  but\nwhether the action taken against the respondent on\nthe basis  of the  circular letter  at a time when\nthe suit was pending amounted to interference with\nthe due course of justice.\n     Shankar Lal  Sharma v.  M. S. Bisht, A. I. R.\n1956 All. 160, referred to.\n     S. S.  Roy v. State of Orissa, A.I.R.<\/a> 1960 S.\nC. 190\tand Webster  v.\t Bakewell  Rural  District\nCouncil, L. R. 1916 1 Ch. 300, held inapplicable.\n     Per Dayal.\t J.-There could\t be no\tdoubt that\npressure put on a party to a pending litigation to\nact in\ta particular  way would amount to contempt\nof court, but the initiation of the proceedings by\nthe  appellants\t revealed  no  such  conduct.  The\ncharge-sheet   did    not   indicate\tthat   the\ndepartmental  proceedings  were\t intended  to  put\npressure on  the respondent  to withdraw the suit.\nThe appellants who were doing their duty under the\ncircular letter,  the validity of which was not in\nquestion, could\t not  be  held\tto  be\tguilty\tof\ncontempt of Court.\n     Cheriyan  Joseph  v.  Dr.\tJames  Kalacherry,\nA.I.R. 1952 Trav. Co. 75, approved.\n     Shankar Lal  Sharma v.  M. S.  Bisht,  A.I.R.\n1956 All. 160, considered.\n     Perera v. The King, 1951 W.N. 208, Rizwan-ul-\nHasan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh,<\/a> [1953] S.C.R.\n581 and\t Brahma Prakash\t Sharma v.  The\t State\tof\nUttar Pradesh,<\/a> [1953] S.C.R. 1169, referred to.\n840\n     Departmental proceedings  against\tGovernment\nservants for  acts of  indiscipline are as much in\npublic\tinterest   as  contempt\t proceedings  and,\nconsequently, unless  departmental action directly\naffects the  course  of\t judicial  proceedings\tit\ncannot amount  to contempt  of Court.  Whether the\ndepartmental action  would tempt the respondent to\nwithdraw  the\tsuit  or  deter\t other\tGovernment\nservants  from\t filing\t similar  suits\t would\tbe\nconsiderations outside\tthe scope  of  a  contempt\nproceeding and, therefore, irrelevant.\n     In\t re  the  South\t Shields  (Thames  Street)\nClearance  Order,  1931,  (1932)  172  L.T.J.  76,\nreferred to.\n     In re William Thomas Shipping Co. H.W. Dillon\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Thomas, (1930) 2 Ch. D. 368, distinguished.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  instant case the departmental enquiry
\nagainst\t the   respondent  did\tnot  constitute\t a
\nparallel enquiry  and tend  to interfere  with the
\ncourse of  the litigation  pending  in\tCourt  and
\ntherefore,  no\t contempt  of\tcourt\thad   been
\ncommitted.\n<\/p>\n
     Saibal Kumar  Gupta v.  B. K.  Sen,<\/a> [1961]\t 3
\nS.C.R. 460, applied.\n<\/p>\n
&
\n     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION  :  Criminal
\nAppeals Nos. 128 and 129 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals from  the judgment\t and  order  dated
\nNovember 5,  1958, of the Punjab High Court in Cr.
\nO. Nos. 20 and 27 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
     B. K.  Khanna, K.\tL. Hathi  and P. D. Menon,
\nfor the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Bhagat Singh  Chawla and K. R. Chowdhuri, for
\nthe respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     1962. January  29. The  Judgment of  Das  and
\nSubba Rao  JJ, was  delivered by Das, J. Dayal, J.
\ndelivered a separate Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     S.\t K.  DAS,  J.-These  are  two  appeals\ton
\ncertificates granted  by  the  Punjab  High  Court
\nunder Art.  134(1)(c) of  the  Constitution.  They
\nhave been  heard together  and this  judgment will
\ngovern them both.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeals  are from  the judgment and order
\nof the\tsaid High Court dated November 5, 1958, by
\nwhich it found the two appellants guilty of an
\n841<\/span>
\noffence punishable  under s.  3 of the Contempt of
\nthe Courts  Act, 1952 (XXXII of 1952) and directed
\nthem,  by   way\t of  punishment,  to  abandon  the
\ndepartmental  proceedings  which  had  been  taken
\nagainst\t the  respondent  Gurbaksh  Singh  for\tan
\nalleged contravention of the instruction contained
\nin a  circular\tletter\tdated  January\t25,  1953,
\nissued\tby  the\t Chief\tSecretary  to  the  Punjab
\nGovernment and\twarned them against complying with
\nthe said instructions.\n<\/p>\n
     The relevant  facts are these. Gurbaksh Singh
\nrespondent in  the two\tappeals, was a Forester in
\nthe  Punjab   Forest  Department.   Pratap  Singh,
\nappellant in Criminal Appeal no. 128 of 1959, was,
\nat  the\t  relevant  time,   Chief  Conservator\tof
\nForests, Punjab.  Bachan Singh,\t appellant in  the
\nother  appeal,\t was  Divisional  Forest  Officer,
\nAmritsar. It  appears that  in the  year 1950  the
\nrespondent  supplied  three  lacs  cubic  feet\tof
\ntimber to the various ordnance Depots under orders
\nof the then Chief Conservator of Forests. In 1954,
\nthe then  Chief\t Conservator  of  Forests  sent\t a
\nletter to  the respondent  alleging that there had
\nbeen a\tshort supply  in the timber which was sent
\nto the Ordnance Depot at Chhoke and that there had
\nbeen a loss of Rs. 11,366 to the Government. By an
\norder conveyed\tin a  letter dated  July 16, 1956,
\nthe   State    Government   directed   the   Chief
\nConservator of Forests to recover ten per cent. of
\nthe loss  i.e. Rs.  1,136 and  odd annas  from the
\nrespondent  Gurbaksh  Singh.  The  letter  further
\nstated that  the recovery  sought to  be made from
\nthe salary  of the  respondent was  in\taccordance
\nwith the  rules\t contained  in\tthe  Punjab  Civil
\nServices (Punishment  and Appeal) Rules, 1952, and
\nthat an\t opportunity had already been given to the
\nForester to  submit an\texplanation and\t the order
\nfor  recovery\twas  made  after  considering  his
\nexplanation. Gurbaksh Singh then instituted a suit
\nin the Court of the
\n842<\/span>
\nSenior\t Subordinate   Judge,\tAmritsar   for\t a
\ndeclaration  that   the\t order\tof  recovery  made
\nagainst him  was void and without effect. The suit
\nwas followed  by a  petition under Art. 226 of the
\nConstitution which  was, however, dismissed by the
\nPunjab High Court on May 20,1957. When the summons
\nin the\tsuit instituted in the Court of the Senior
\nSubordinate Judge,  Amritsar, was  served  on  the
\nState Government,  the Under Secretary to the said
\nGovernment in  the  Forest  and\t Animal\t Husbandry
\nDepartments,  sent   a\tmemorandum  to\tthe  Chief
\nConservator of\tForests in  which the attention of
\nthe latter  was drawn  to a circular letter issued
\nby the\tChief Secretary\t on January  25, 1953. The
\nletter has  been quoted in extenso in the judgment
\nof the High Court and was in these terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I am\t directed to say that the question
\n     of Government  servants  having  recourse\tto
\n     Courts of law in matters arising out of their
\n     employment or  conditions of service has been
\n     engaging the attention of Government for some
\n     time past\tand it\tis considered necessary to
\n     lay down  that in\tthe matter  of\tgrievances
\n     arising  out   of\ta   Government\t servant’s
\n     employment\t or   conditions  of  service  the
\n     proper course  is to  seek redress\t from  the
\n     appropriate  departmental\t and  Governmental
\n     authorities.  Any\tattempt\t by  a\tGovernment
\n     servant to\t seek a decision on such issues in
\n     a Court  of law  (even in\tcases where such a
\n     remedy is\tlegally admissible)  without first
\n     exhausting the  normal official  channels\tof
\n     redress, can  only be regarded as contrary to
\n     official propriety\t and  subversive  of  good
\n     discipline\t  and\tmay   well   justify   the
\n     initiation of disciplinary action against the
\n     Government servant.  These instructions  may,
\n     therefore, be  brought to\tthe notice  of all
\n     Government\t      servants\t     of\t      your
\n     department\/office.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
843<\/span><\/p>\n
The Under Secretary said in his memorandum that as
\nthe respondent\thad not exhausted the departmental
\nremedies open  to him  before going  to a court of
\nlaw,   he   had\t  rendered   himself   liable\tto
\ndisciplinary  action   as  per\t the  instructions
\ncontained  in\tthe  circular  letter.\tThe  Under
\nSecretary then said :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It may  please be intimated immediately
\n     as to what action you propose to take against
\n     him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  receipt  of\t this  memorandum,  the\t appellant
\nPratap\tSingh\tsent  a\t  copy\tthereof\t  to   the
\nConservator of Forests, South Circle, and directed
\nthat the  respondent should  be proceeded  with in
\naccordance with\t the instructions  aforesaid and a
\ncopy of the proceedings recorded and orders passed
\nin the case should be forwarded to him. On receipt
\nof the\tsaid orders,  the Conservator  of Forests,
\nSouth Circle,  passed an  office order\tappointing
\nBachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 129
\nof 1959, to hold an enquiry against the respondent
\nfor having  contravened the instructions contained
\nin the\tcircular letter quoted above. Bachan Singh
\nthen drew up a charge-sheet against the respondent
\nand asked  him to submit an explanation in writing
\nwithin 15  days. In the charge-sheet it was stated
\nthat the  respondent had  gone to  a court  of law
\nbefore exhausting  all his  departmental  remedies
\nand this  was contrary\tto official  propriety and
\nsubversive of  good discipline.\t The  charge-sheet
\nappears to  have been  drawn up on or about August
\n30,  1957.   Then,  on\t September  14,1957,   the
\nrespondent made\t an application\t to the High Court
\nto  the\t  effect  that\t the  two  appellants  had
\ncommitted contempt  of court punishable under s. 3
\nof the\tContempt of  Courts  Act,  1952.  In  that
\npetition the  allegation made  was that\t appellant
\nPratap Singh  had framed  and got served a charge-
\nsheet on the respondent and appellant Bachan Singh
\nwas holding an enquiry into the
\n844<\/span>
\ncharge, which  was tantamount  to interfering with
\nthe legal rights of the respondent to seek redress
\nin a  court of\tlaw and\t also amounted to exerting
\npressure upon  him with\t the intent of restraining
\nhim from  pressing his\tsuit. This, it was stated,
\namounted to an obstruction of the judicial process
\nand interfered\twith  the  course  of  justice\tin
\nrespect of the suit which was pending in the court
\nof the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, a court
\nsubordinate to\tthe High  Court.  The  High  Court
\nissued notice  to the appellants and after hearing
\nthe parties came to the conclusion that though the
\nappellants  were  clearly  guilty  of  an  offence
\npunishable under  s. 3\tof the\tContempt of Courts
\nAct, 1952, they were merely endeavouring to comply
\nwith  the  instructions\t of  the  Government,  the
\nlegality or  propriety of which they had no reason
\nto doubt.  In that  view of  the matter,  the High
\nCourt expressed\t the view that the ends of justice
\nwould be  amply met  if the  two  appellants  were
\ndirected to  abandon the  departmental proceedings
\nwhich had  been taken  against the  respondent and
\nfurthermore, if they were warned against complying
\nwith the  instructions contained  in the  circular
\nletter issued by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
     On behalf of the appellants three points have
\nbeen urged  in support of the contention that they
\nwere not  guilty of  the offence  of  contempt\tof
\ncourt.\tFirstly,  it  has  been\t argued\t that  the
\npetition dated\tSeptember 14,  1957, by\t which the
\nrespondent   prayed   for   action   against   the
\nappellants for\tcontempt of court, stated that the
\ncontempt was in respect of the High Court in which
\na writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution
\nhad been  filed. That writ petition, it is pointed
\nout, was  dismissed on May 20 1957 and the charge-
\nsheet against  the  respondent\twas  drawn  up\ton
\nAugust 30,  1957, i.e.,\t about three  months after
\nthe writ  petition in  the  High  Court\t had  been
\ndismissed. The\targument before\t us is\tthat where
\nthe contempt is criminal in its nature, the
\n845<\/span>
\nspecific  offence  charged  should  be\tdistinctly
\nstated and  each step in the proceedings to punish
\nit should  be fairly, properly and strictly taken.
\nIt is argued that the application on behalf of the
\nrespondent a made a grievance of interference with
\nthe due\t course of  justice in\tthe matter  of the
\nwrit petition  filed in\t the High  Court, but  the
\nHigh  Court   held  the\t appellants  guilty  of\t a
\ndifferent offence,  namely, of\tinterference  with
\nthe course  of justice\tin  respect  of\t the  suit
\npending in  the Court  of the  Senior  Subordinate
\nJudge, Amritsar.\n<\/p>\n
     The second\t point which  has  been\t taken\ton
\nbehalf\tof  the\t appellants  is\t that  on  a  fair
\nconstruction of\t the terms  of the circular letter
\non which  the two  appellants took  action against
\nthe respondent,\t it should be held that it did not
\nconstitute an  interference  with  the\tcourse\tof
\njustice,  inasmuch   as\t it  did  not  impose  any
\nabsolute ban  on  a  Government\t servant  to  have
\nrecourse to  a court of law for the redress of his
\ngrievances  arising   out  of  his  employment\tor
\nconditions of  his service,  but merely imposed an
\nobligation on  a Government servant to exhaust his
\ndepartmental remedies  before taking recourse to a
\ncourt of law. It has been argued that on this view
\nof the\tcircular letter,  the action  taken by the
\nappellants  against   the   respondent\t did   not
\nconstitute an  interference  with  the\tcourse\tof
\njustice in  respect of\tthe suit which was pending
\nin the\tcourt of  the  Senior  Subordinate  Judge,
\nAmritsar.\n<\/p>\n
     Thirdly, it  has been  contended that  in any
\nview of\t the matter  appellant Pratap  Singh,  who
\ntook no\t action beyond endorsing the memorandum of
\nthe Under  Secretary was not guilty of contempt of
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
     We propose\t now  to  deal\twith  these  three
\npoints in  the order in which we have stated them.
\nThe first  point can  be very shortly disposed of.
\nIt appears that the respondent filed two petitions
\non September  14, 1957,\t in the\t Punjab High Court
\nwhich gave  rise to  two cases\tnos. 20\t and 27 of
\n1957. These  two cases were heard together. In the
\npetition
\n846<\/span>
\nwhich  gave  rise  to  case  no.  20  of  1957,\t a
\ngrievance was made of interference with the course
\nof justice  in the  High Court\tin respect  of the
\nwrit petition  which was  dismissed  by\t the  High
\nCourt on  May 20, 1957. But in the second petition
\nfiled on the same day, which gave rise to case no.
\n27 of  1957,  the  respondent  clearly\tstated\tas
\nfollows in para. 9 of his petition :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Previously  the   petitioner\t filed\t a
\n     petition under  Section 3\tof the Contempt of
\n     Courts Act\t in this  Hon’ble Court in respect
\n     of this  very charge-sheet on the ground that
\n     this chargesheet related to the writ petition
\n     that had  been filed by the petitioner (Civil
\n     Writ no.  528 of  1956).  Now.  however,  the
\n     respondents are  taking up\t the plea that the
\n     charge-sheet (annexure `A’) is not in respect
\n     of the  writ petition filed in the High Court
\n     but concerns the suit which has been filed by
\n     the petitioner and which is awaiting decision
\n     in the  Court of  the  Subordinate\t Judge\tat
\n     Amritsar.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is  clear, therefore,  that the  High Court had
\nbefore it two petitions against the appellants, in
\none of\twhich a grievance was made of interference
\nwith the  course of justice in respect of the writ
\npetition and  in the other a grievance was made of
\ninterference with the course of justice in respect
\nof the\tsuit which  was awaiting  decision in  the
\ncourt of  the Senior  Subordinate Judge, Amritsar.
\nThe respondent further stated that “by forcing and
\ncoercing him to withdraw his suit or otherwise not
\nto press  it” the  appellants were obstructing the
\ncourse of  justice and\thad, therefore,\t committed
\ncontempt of  court punishable  under s.\t 3 of  the
\nContempt of  Courts Act,  1952. In  view of  these
\nallegations  in\t  the  second  petition\t filed\ton
\nSeptember 14,  1957,  the  first  point\t urged\ton
\nbehalf of the appellants must be overruled.\n<\/p>\n
     We now come to the second point which is of a
\nmore substantial nature. We have already quoted
\n847<\/span>
\nthe terms of the circular letter dated January 25,
\n1953. There  was some  argument before\tus  as\tto
\nwhether\t the   said  circular\tletter\t contained
\nexecutive instructions only or laid down a rule as
\nto a condition of service. Our attention was drawn
\nto some institutions or departments of Government,
\nwhere a\t rule in similar terms laid down as one of
\nthe conditions\tof service that it is improper for
\na Government  servant to  take recourse to a court
\nof law before he has exhausted the normal official
\nchannels of  redress. Learned  Advocates  for  the
\nparties were,  however, agreed that no rule laying
\ndown  the  conditions  of  service  of\tGovernment
\nservants serving  in the  department to\t which the
\nrespondent belonged  imposed an obligation similar
\nto that\t imposed by  the circular letter. We have,
\ntherefore, proceeded  in this  case on the footing
\nthat  the   circular  letter  contained\t executive
\ninstructions  only  and\t did  not  embody  a  rule
\ngoverning the  conditions of service. Therefore we
\nhave not thought it necessary to consider what the
\nposition would\tbe if  such a  rule  were  made\t a
\ncondition of  employment  for  certain\tGovernment
\nservants, Other\t considerations would  then  arise
\nsuch as, the authority of the rule-making power to
\nmake such  a rule,  and we must make it clear that
\nwe  are\t expressing  no\t opinion  on  those  other
\nconsiderations.\n<\/p>\n
     Assuming that  the circular  letter contained
\ncertain executive  instructions what  then is  the
\nposition? It  should perhaps  be made clear at the
\nvery outset  that the question before us is not so
\nmuch the  validity of  the circular  letter in the
\nabstract, but  the propriety  of the  action taken
\nagainst\t the   respondent  on  the  basis  of  the
\ncircular letter\t at  a\ttime  when  his\t suit  was
\nawaiting decision  in  the  court  of  the  Senior
\nSubordinate  Judge   at\t Amritsar.  It\tmust  not,
\nhowever,  be  assumed  that  we\t are  holding  the
\ncircular letter\t to be\tvalid in  the  sense  that
\ncompliance with\t it  will,  in\tno  circumstances,
\namount to contempt of court. We do not come to any
\nsuch
\n848<\/span>
\nconclusion. The\t argument before  us is\t that  the
\ncircular letter\t did not impose an absolute ban on
\na  Government\tservant\t seeking  redress  of  his
\ngrievances  arising   out  of  his  employment\tor
\nservice conditions  in a  court of  law\t ;  it\tis
\nsubmitted  that\t  all  that  it\t did  was  to  ask
\nGovernment servants  to exhaust\t first the  normal
\nOfficial channels  of redress before proceeding to
\na court\t of law. The emphasis, it is stated, is on
\npropriety and  discipline  in  the  conduct  of\t a
\nGovernment servants and it has been submitted that
\njudged from that point of view the circular letter
\ncannot be  said to constitute an interference with
\nthe  course  of\t justice  in  any  court  of  law.
\nTheoretically and  in the  abstract, this  may\tbe
\ntrue; and  if the circular letter merely lays down
\nthat  Ordinarily   a  Government   servant  should
\nexhaust his  departmental remedies before going to
\na court\t of law,  no objection can be taken to it.
\nSpeaking generally,  a Government servant does not
\nordinarily go  to court\t unless and until he fails
\nto get\twhat he\t considers to  be justice from the
\ndepartmental authorities.  But we have to consider
\nin this case a somewhat different problem, namely,
\nthe action  taken against  the respondent during a
\npending litigation,  as though going to a court of
\nlaw before  exhausting departmental  remedies must
\nin all cases be visited with punishment.\n<\/p>\n
     What, after  all, is  contempt of\tcourt? “To
\nspeak generally,  contempt of court may be said to
\nbe constituted\tby any conduct that tends to bring
\nthe authority  and administration  of the law into
\ndisrespect or  disregard, or  to interfere with or
\nprejudice  parties  litigant  or  their\t witnesses
\nduring\tthe  litigation.”  (Oswald’s  Contempt\tof
\nCourt, 3rd  Edition, page  6.) We are concerned in
\nthe present case with the second part, namely, “to
\ninterfere  with\t  or  prejudice\t parties  litigant
\nduring the  litigation”. In  the  case\tunder  our
\nconsideration the respondent had instituted a suit
\nin the\tcourt of  the  Senior  Subordinate  Judge,
\nAmritsar,
\n849<\/span>
\nin respect  of his grievance that a certain sum of
\nmoney  was   being  illegally  deducted\t from  his
\nsalary. On behalf of the respondent it was alleged
\nthat he\t had no\t further departmental  remedies to
\nexhaust, inasmuch  as the order by which a part of
\nhis salary  was being  deducted was  a final order
\nmade by\t the Punjab  Government after  considering
\nthe respondent’s  explanation. On  behalf  of  the
\nappellants  it\t has  been   contended\tthat   the
\nrespondent had still a further remedy by way of an
\nappeal to  the Governor.  That is  a  matter  with
\nwhich we  are not  really concerned, as it relates
\nto the\tquestion whether the respondent had or had
\nnot violated  the terms of the circular letter. We
\nare concerned  with  the  action  that\twas  taken
\nagainst the  respondent on  the footing,  right or
\nwrong, that  he had  violated the instructions. Of
\nthe circular  letter. His  suit was pending in the
\ncourt of  the Senior  Subordinate Judge, Amritsar.
\nWhen the  summons in  the suit\twas served  on the
\nGovernment, the\t Under\tSecretary  to  Government,
\ndrew the attention of one of the appellants to the
\ncircular letter\t and asked  the latter to intimate
\nto Government  what action  he\tproposed  to  take
\nagainst the  respondent.  Appellant  Pratap  Singh
\nthen  forwarded\t  the  memorandum   of\tthe  Under
\nSecretary to  the Conservator  of  Forests,  South
\nCircle, and  in his  forwarding endorsement Pratap
\nSingh  directed\t that  the  respondent\tshould\tbe
\nproceeded with in accordance with the instructions
\nin the\tcircular letter\t and that  a copy  of  the
\nproceedings recorded  and orders  passed should be
\nforwarded to  him.  It\tappears,  therefore,  that
\nappellant Partap Singh was not merely content with
\nforwarding the\tmemorandum of the Under Secretary.
\nHe directed his subordinate officer to take action
\nagainst the  respondent. In  accordance with  that
\ndirection a  proceeding was  drawn up  against the
\nrespondent and\tthe  appellant\tBachan\tSingh  was
\nasked to  enquire into\tit. The\t appellant  Bachan
\nSingh then drew up a
\n850<\/span>
\ncharge-sheet  and  in  that  charge-sheet  it  was
\nstated that  the respondent had gone to a court of
\nlaw  before   exhausting  all\this   departmental
\nremedies.  What\t would\tbe  the\t effect\t of  these
\nproceedings on\tthe suit  which was pending in the
\ncourt of  the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar ?
\nFrom the  practical point of view, the institution
\nof the\tproceedings at a time when the suit in the
\ncourt of  the Senior  Subordinate Judge, Amritsar,
\nwas pending  could only\t be to put pressure on the
\nrespondent to  withdraw\t his  suit,  or\t face  the
\nconsequences of\t disciplinary action. This, in our
\nopinion,  undoubtedly\tamounted  to  contempt\tof
\ncourt. There  are many\tways  of  obstructing  the
\nCourt and  “any conduct\t by which  the\tcourse\tof
\njustice is  perverted, either  by  a  party  or\t a
\nstranger, is  a contempt; thus the use of threats,
\nby letter  or otherwise, to a party while his suit
\nis pending;  or abusing\t a  party  in  letters\tto
\npersons likely\tto be witnesses in the cause, have
\nbeen held  to be contempts”. (Oswald’s Contempt of
\nCourt, 3rd  Edition, page 87). The question is not
\nwhether the action in fact interfered, but whether
\nit had a tendency to interfere with the due course
\nof justice.  The action taken in this case against
\nthe respondent\tby way of a proceeding against him
\ncan, in\t our  opinion,\thave  only  one\t tendency,
\nnamely, the  tendency to coerce the respondent and
\nforce him  to withdraw\this suit  or otherwise not
\npress it.  If that  be the  clear and unmistakable
\ntendency of  the  proceedings  taken  against  the
\nrespondent, then there can be no doubt that in law
\nthe appellants\thave been  guilty of  contempt\tof
\ncourt, even  though they  were merely carrying out
\nthe instructions contained in the circular letter.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  been referred  to a  large number of
\ndecisions dealing with various aspects of contempt
\nof court.  We consider\tit unnecessary to refer to
\nthem all,  because it  is clear\t to  us\t that  any
\nconduct\t which\t interferes  with   or\tprejudices
\nparties litigant
\n851<\/span>
\nduring the  litigation is  undoubtedly contempt of
\ncourt. There  is, however,  one decision  which is
\nvery much  in point and to which we must refer. In
\nShankar Lal  Sharma v.\tM. S  Bisht  (1)  in  very
\nsimilar circumstances it was held by the Allahabad
\nHigh Court  that if  any kind  of  threat  or  any
\naction which may amount to a threat is held out to
\na person  who approached  the Civil  Courts for\t a
\nredress of  his grievances,  with a view to induce
\nhim to\tforego the  assistance of the Civil Courts
\nthe action amounts to a contempt of court. In that
\ncase  also   an\t employee   of\tthe  Public  Works
\nDepartment of  Uttar Pradesh  moved the High Court
\nfor the\t grant of  a writ. While the writ petition
\nwas pending in the High Courts the Chief Engineer.
\nP.W.D., U.P., purporting to act in accordance with
\ncertain directions  contained in a circular letter
\nasked for  an explanation  from the employee as to
\nwhy he\thas submitted  a writ  application to  the
\nHigh Court.  The learned Judges expressed the view
\nthat there  was no  doubt that the action taken by
\nthe  Chief   Engineer  in   accordance\twith   the
\ninstructions  contained\t in  the  circular  letter
\namounted to  a threat  with a  view to\tinduce the
\nemployee to  forego the\t assistance of\tthe  Civil
\nCourts.\t An   unqualified  apology   having   been
\ntendered in the case, no further action was taken.
\nOn behalf of the appellants reliance was placed on
\nthe decision  of this  Court in S. S. Roy v. State
\nof Orissa<\/a>(2).  That was\t a case\t in which  a First
\nClass  Magistrate  misconceiving  his  powers  and
\nexercising a jurisdiction act vested in him by law
\nand without  any justifying  circumstances made an
\norder under s. 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, by
\nwhich a\t Civil\tCourt  peon  was  restrained  from
\nexecuting  a   warrant\tof  arrest  issued  by\tan
\nAdditional Munsif in connection with the execution
\nof  a\tmoney  decree:\t the  Magistrate  was  not
\ninfluenced  by\tany  extraneous\t consideration\tor
\ndishonest motive in making the
\n852<\/span>
\norder and  it was held that the Magistrate was not
\nguilty of  contempt of the Court of the Additional
\nMunsif, because\t there was  nothing to suggest any
\nwilful culpability  on his  part. We are unable to
\nagree with the learned Advocate for the Appellants
\nthat the  principle of\tthat decision should apply
\nto the present case. The appellants in the instant
\ncase were  not judicial\t officers who misconceived
\ntheir powers.  They were  no  doubt  carrying  out
\nexecutive instructions\tgiven by  their\t employer,
\nbut they  carried out those instructions at a time
\nwhen a civil suit was pending and they carried out
\nthe instructions  in such  a manner  as\t to  exert
\npressure on  the respondent  to withdraw the suif.
\nThat in\t the  finding  at  which  the  high  Court
\narrived and  on that  finding the  appellants were
\nclearly guilty\tof contempt of court. The decision
\nin Webster  v. Bakewell Rural District Council (1)
\non which  also learned Advocate for the appellants
\nrelied is not in point. That was case in which the
\nyearly tenant  of a  cottage and land, adjoining a
\nhighway and  farming  part  of\ta  settled  estate
\nissued a  writ against\tthe local authority for an
\ninjunction to  restrain an alleged trespass on his
\nland; the  solicitor of\t the tenant for life wrote
\nto the\tlocal authority with a view to arrange the
\nmatter and  at the  same time  wrote to the tenant
\nthat the  tenant for life required him to withdraw
\nthe writ,  and that,  if he  did not  comply,  his
\ntenancy would  be determined.  It was heldthat the
\nsolicitor had not committed a conr tempt of court.
\nThe decision  proceeded on  thefootings\t that  the
\ntenant for  life had  the right\t to turn  out  the
\nyearly tenant and there was nothing to prevent the
\ntenant\tfor  life,  who\t was  the  landlord,  from
\nexercising his\tlegal rights if he did so honestly
\nto protect the rights he had in the property.\n<\/p>\n
     “We have,\ttherefore, come\t to the conclusion
\nthat the appellants were guilty of contempt of the
\n853<\/span>
\nCourt of  the Senior  Subordinate Judge,  Amritsar
\nand  in\t awarding  the\tsentence  the  High  Court
\ncorrectly took into consideration the circumstance
\nthat the  appellants were  merely carrying out the
\ninstructions contained\tin  the\t circular  letter.
\nThough that circumstance does not afford a defence
\nto the\tcharge, it  is undoubtedly a consideration
\nrelevant to the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
     As to  the third  point that appellant Pratap
\nSingh  took   no  action   beyond  endorsing   the
\nmemorandum of the Under Secretary, we have already
\ndealt with  it and  pointed out that he not merely
\nendorsed the memorandum of the Under Secretary but
\ndirected the Conservator of Forests, South Circle,
\nto institute  a proceeding  against the respondent
\nfor having  contravened the instructions contained
\nin the circular letter.\n<\/p>\n
     This disposes  of all  the\t points\t urged\ton
\nbehalf of  the appellants.  In our  opinion, there
\nare no\tgrounds for interference with the judgment
\nand order  of the  High Court  dated  November\t5,
\n1958. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     RAGHUBAR DAYAL,  J,-I have held the advantage
\nof perusing the judgment of my learned brother, S.
\nK. Das,\t J., but regret my inability to agree that
\nthe appellants are guilty of contempt of Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tleading to  the conviction  of the
\nappellants in  the two\tappeals, have  been  fully
\nmentioned in  the majority judgment and I need not
\nrepeat them  here. For the purpose of these cases,
\nI assume  the validity\tof the\tCircular issued by
\nthe  Government\t  in  1953.   That  has\t not  been
\nchallenged by  the opposite  party. If an employee
\nacts  against  the  directions\tcontained  in  the
\nCircular, it  is just  and proper  that action\tbe
\ntaken. If  action is  taken and that be considered
\nper se\tto amount to the commission of contempt of
\nCourt, the  directions\tin  the\t Circular  can\tbe
\ndisobeyed with impugnity and
\n854<\/span>
\nthe Circular,  though valid,  would remain  a dead
\nletter. It  would then be incongruent to hold that
\nany action  taken in  pursuance of it would per se
\namount to  contempt of\tthe  Court  to\twhich  the
\nGovernment servant had gone for adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  nothing in  the charge-sheet framed
\nagainst the appellants by Bachan Singh, Divisional
\nForest officer,\t which can  amount to  contempt of
\nCourt.\tThe   Charge  relates  to  misconduct  and
\nindiscipline.  The  evidence  in  support  of  the
\ncharge is mentioned in the charge sheet to be that
\nGurbaksh Singh had gone to the Court of law before
\nexhausting all\tthe  souroes  as  ordered  in  the
\nCircular  and\twhich  was  contrary  to  official
\npropriety and that thereby he had rendered himself
\nliable to  disciplinary action.\t There was nothing
\nin  the\t description  of  the  charge  or  in  the
\ndescription of\tthe evidence  in  support  of  it,
\nwhich, in  any way,  referred to the merits of the
\ncase  or   directed  Gurbaksh\tSingh  to  do,\tin
\nconnection with that case. For the purposes of the
\ncharge laid  against him,  the merits of the civil
\ncase were  irrelevant. The charge was with respect
\nto misconduct  and  indiscipline  which\t exnsisted
\nsimply in  his going  to Court\twithout exhausting
\nall  the  normal  official  channels  of  redress.
\nGurbaksh Singh had simply to point out that he had
\nexhausted all  the official  channels open  to him
\nand  that   therefore,\the   had  not\tacted\tin
\ncontravention  of  the\tdirections  given  in  the
\nCircular.\n<\/p>\n
     The  charge-sheet\t did  not,   in\t any  way,
\nthreaten Gurbaksh  Singh with  any consequences in
\nview of\t his continuing\t his suit.  His continuing
\nthe suit  will not  be\tin  contravention  of  the
\nCircular and  therefore, will not be misconduct or
\nindiscipline on\t account of  his contravening  the
\ndirections  of\t the  Circular.\t  I   am   unable,
\ntherefore,  to\t conclude  from\t the  Departmental
\ncharge-sheet against  Gurbaksh\tSingh  during  the
\npendency  of   his  suit   in\tCourt\tthat   the
\nDepartmental proceedings were in
\n855<\/span>
\norder to  put pressure on him to withdraw his suit
\nor face\t the consequences  of disciplinary action.
\nEven if Gurbaksh Singh does not withdraw the suit,
\nthe basis  of the  charge against  him would stand
\nand  he\t  will\thave  to  meet\tit.  There  is\tno
\nindication in  the charge-sheet,  or in\t any other
\ncircumstance, that  in case  he withdraws the suit
\nthe charge  would be dropped. He committed the act
\nof indiscipline and he has to answer for it if the
\nDepartment  considers\tit   expedient\t to   take
\nDepartmental action.\n<\/p>\n
     I do  not dispute\tthe legal proposition that
\nif any pressure is put on a party in order to make
\nhim act\t in a  particular manner  with respect\tto
\npending litigation,  that would amount to contempt
\nof the\tCourt in  which the  matter be\tpending. I
\nhowever fail  to see  any such conduct on the part
\nof the\tappellants in  the action  taken  by  them
\nagainst Gurbaksh Singh.\n<\/p>\n
     Reference may  now be  made to  certain cases
\nhaving a  bearing on  the question  before us  for
\ndetermination.\n<\/p>\n
     The cases reported as Hrishikesh Sanyal v. A.
\nP. Bagchi  (1) and Radhey Lal v. Niranjan Nath (2)
\nhold that  a person  does not  commit contempt\tof
\nCourt  if   during  the\t  pendency  of\ta  certain
\nproceeding he  takes recourse  to  other  judicial
\nproceedings open  to him,  even though\tthe latter
\nproceedings put\t the other  party to loss, because
\neverybody is entitled to take recourse to law.\n<\/p>\n
     It was held in Baldeo Sahai v. Shiva Datt (3)
\nthat the plaintiff’s son’s serving a notice on the
\ndefendant telling  him that  either he\tshould pay
\ndamages for  a defamatory  statement about  him in
\nthe written  statement within a certain time or he
\nwould bring action against him for defamation, did
\nnot constitute contempt of Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In Kamta  Prasad v. Ram Agyan (4) it was held
\nthat a party cannot be said to be interfering with
\n856<\/span>
\nthe course of justice and to be guilty of contempt
\nof Court when he makes an offer for the settlement
\nof the\tdispute between\t the parties  out of Court
\nand, as\t part of the settlement, suggests that the
\npending\t litigation   should  be   withdrawn  and,
\nfailing it,  threatens to  take legal  proceedings
\nopen to him under the law. Reliance was placed for
\nthis view  on the  decision in Webster v. Bakewell
\nRural District Council (1).\n<\/p>\n
     The principle  behind all these cases is that
\nsuch action  of\t the  person  which  he\t takes\tin
\npursuance of  his right\t to take legal action in a
\nCourt of  law or  in just  making a  demand on the
\nother to  make amends for his acts will not amount
\nto interfering\twith the  course of  justice, even
\nthough that may require some action on the part of
\nthe  other   party  in\tconnection  with  his  own
\njudicial proceeding,  as a  party is  free to take
\naction to enforce his legal rights.\n<\/p>\n
     The case reported as Shankar Lal Sharma v. M.
\nS. Bisht(2)  does go  against  the  appellants.\t I
\nhowever do  not agree  with the conclusion in that
\ncase that  the calling for an explanation from the
\nemployee  as  to  why  he  had\tsubmitted  a  writ
\napplication in the High Court, in contravention of
\ncertain directions  contained  in  the\tGovernment
\nCircular of  1952, was\tan attempt  to hold  out a
\nthreat of Departmental action against him in order
\nto induce  him to  withdraw the application he had
\npresented for  the protection  of his rights under
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  other hand,  in the  case reported as
\nCheriyan Joseph v. Dr. James (3), a different view
\nwas expressed. The plaintiff instituted a suit for
\na declaration  that a  certain resolution  was not
\nbinding upon  the church or the parish in which he
\nresided and for a permanent injunction to restrain
\n857<\/span>
\nthe defendants\tfrom acting  in pursuance  of that
\nresolution. The\t Vicar of  that church\twas one of
\nthe  defendants.   The\tBishop’s   letter  to  the
\nplaintiff contained  a threat to excommunicate him
\nand to\tclaim damages  from him in case he did not
\nwithdraw his  suit forthwith.  The  plaintiff  was
\nsubsequently   excommunicated.\t  Thereafter,\the
\napplied for  contempt of Court proceedings against
\nthe Bishop and the Vicar, alleging that the letter
\nand  the   excommunication  were   calculated\tto
\ninterfere and  obstruct the  course of justice, as
\ntheir object  was to  cow him down into submission
\nand  to\t  compel   him\t under\t the   threat\tof
\nexcommunication to  abandon the\t suit which he had
\nfiled and  which he  was entitled to prosecute. In
\nconsidering the question, it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “On the  other hand  the contents of the
\n     letter indicate  that  it\twas  conceived\tby
\n     respondent 1  (the Bishop)\t and that  he  was
\n     acting in\tthe  exercise  of  his\tlegitimate
\n     right of  safeguarding the\t interests of  the
\n     church. We\t are not prepared to assume as the
\n     petitioner’s  learned  counsel  wants  us\tto
\n     assume that  respondent  2\t (the  Vicar)  was
\n     responsible for  the despatch of this letter.
\n     He was  legally bound to obey the commands of
\n     his Bishop\t and all that he did was to comply
\n     with the direction given to him by the Bishop
\n     in\t as   innocuous\t a   manner  as\t possible.
\n     Therefore,\t in  our  judgment,  respondent\t 2
\n     cannot be\ttaken to task for obeying an order
\n     sent to him by respondent 1.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  the\t  question  of\tthe  letter  amounting\tto
\ncontempt of  Court, it\twas said at the end of the
\nsame page:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The facts seem to us to be more similar
\n     to the  case reported  as Webster v. Bakewell
\n     Rural District Council (L.R. 1916 1 Ch. 300).
\n     There
\n858<\/span>
\n     it was  held that\tthe threat to assert one’s
\n     legal rights  against another  if he chose to
\n     continue in  action started by him, would not
\n     amount to\tcontempt. In the present case also
\n     the threat\t held out by respondent 1 was that
\n     the petitioner had already incurred a censure
\n     by the  church and\t that if  he persisted\tin
\n     asserting his rights in the suit filed by him
\n     in\t the  Court  of\t the  District\tMunsif\tof
\n     Alleppy,  respondent  I  would  exercise  the
\n     lawful   right    of   excommunicating    the
\n     petitioner for the wrongful act done by him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Vicar  was not  held  guilty  of  contempt\tof
\nCourt. I  think in  this case  the Judges  took\t a
\ncorrect view of thee matter.\n<\/p>\n
     The case  before us  is a still stronger case
\nfor holding  that no  contempt of Court took place
\nsince the  action taken against Gurbaksh Singh did
\nnot  ask   him\tto   withdraw  the   suit  he  had
\ninstituted.\n<\/p>\n
     The observations  of  the\tPrivy  Council\tin
\nPerea v.  The King(1) lead to the same conclusion.
\nMr.   Perera,\ta   member   of\t  the\tHouse\tof
\nRepresentatives of Ceylon and is such a Visitor of
\nthe Jail,  made certain\t remarks in  the Visitor’s
\nBook, which  were considered to amount to contempt
\nof court  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ceylon.\tOn
\nappeal, the Privy Council said.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Their Lordships  are satisfied that the
\n     order against the appellant ought not to have
\n     been made…  But Mr. Perera, too, has rights
\n     that must\tbe respected,  and their Lordships
\n     are unable\t to find  any thing in his conduct
\n     that comes\t within the definition of contempt
\n     of\t court.\t  That\tphrase\t has  not   lacked
\n     authoritative interpretation.  There must\tbe
\n     involved some ‘act done’ or writing published
\n     calculated to bring a court or a Judge of the
\n859<\/span>
\n     court  into   contempt  or\t  to   lower   his
\n     authority’;  or  some  thing  ‘calculated\tto
\n     obstruct or  interfere with the due course of
\n     justice or\t the lawful process of the court’:
\n     See, Reg. v. Gray (1900) 2 Q.B. 36.
\n\t  What has  been done  here is\tnot at all
\n     that kind\tof thing. Mr. Perera was acting in
\n     good  faith  and  in  discharge  of  what\the
\n     believed to  be his  duty as  a member of the
\n     legislature. His  information was inaccurate,
\n     but he  made no  public use of it, contenting
\n     himself with  entering  his  comment  in  the
\n     appropriate instrument,  the visitors’  book,
\n     and writing  to the responsible Minister. The
\n     words that\t he used  made no direct reference
\n     to the  Court, or\tto any judge of the court,
\n     or, indeed,  to the  course of justice, or to
\n     the process  of the  courts….  Finally  his
\n     criticism was honest criticism on a matter of
\n     public importance.\t When these  and no  other
\n     are the  circumstances that attend the action
\n     complained of  there cannot  be  contempt\tof
\n     court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It can\tbe said\t in  the  present  case\t that  the
\nappellants acted in good faith and in discharge of
\nwhat they believed to be their duty as officers of
\nGovernment to  comply with the directions given in
\nthe Circular  to which attention had been drawn by
\nthe Under  Secretary to\t the  Government,  by  his
\nletter enquiring  what action  was proposed  to be
\ntaken against Gurbaksh Singh. The action taken was
\non the\tdepartmental basis. No publicity was given
\nto it.\tThe words  used\t in  the  charge  made\tno
\nreference to  the merits of the case, to the judge
\nor the Court or to the course of justice or to the
\nprocess of the Courts. The action was taken in the
\ninterest  of   discipline  of\tthe  services  and
\ntherefore in public interest.\n<\/p>\n
860<\/span><\/p>\n
     In Rizwan-ul-Hasan\t v.  The  State\t of  Uttar
\nPradesh<\/a>(1) this Court said.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “As  observed\t  by   Rankin\tC.J.,\tin
\n     Anantalal\tSingha\t v.  Alfred  Henry  Watson
\n     (I.L.R. 58\t Cal. 884,  895), the jurisdiction
\n     in contempt is not to be invoked unless there
\n     is real  prejudice which can be regarded as a
\n     substantial interference  with the due course
\n     of\t justice  and  that  the  purpose  of  the
\n     court’s action  is a practical purpose and it
\n     is reasonably  clear on  the authorities that
\n     the court\twill not exercise its jurisdiction
\n     upon a mere question of propriety.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  follows   that  even  if  the  action  of  the
\nappellants be considered to be improper, that will
\nnot justify  holding them  guilty of  contempt\tof
\nCourt when  their action  in no way prejudiced the
\ntrial of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     In Bradima\t Prakash Sharma\t v. The\t State\tof
\nUttar Pradesh(2), it was stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It would  be only  repeating\t what  has
\n     been said so often by various judges that the
\n     object of\tcontempt  proceedings  is  not\tto
\n     afford protection\tto judges  personally from
\n     imputations to  which they\t may be exposed as
\n     individuals;  it\tis  intended   to   be\t a
\n     protection\t to  the  public  whose\t interests
\n     would be  very much affected if by the act or
\n     conduct of\t any party,  the authority  of the
\n     court is  lowered and the sense of confidence
\n     which people  have in  the administration\tof
\n     justice by it is weakened.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Contempt  of   Court  proceedings  are\tin  public
\ninterest  and\tso  are\t Departmental  proceedings
\nagainst\t Government   employees\t for  any  act\tof
\nindiscipline committed\tby them.  It is\t therefore
\nonly when the Departmental action directly affects
\nthe course of the judicial proceeding that it can
\n861<\/span>
\namount to  interfering with  the course of justice
\nand consequently, to contempt of Court. If it does
\nnot do\tso, there  can be  no case  of contempt of
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t Re  the  South\t Shields  (Thames  Street)
\nClearance Order,  1931(1)  certain  articles  were
\npublished suggesting  that the appellants by their
\nappeal were  keeping the  tenants out  of the  new
\nhouses, that  they were\t hindering the progress of
\nhousing in the borough and causing the corporation
\nto lose\t the rent of the new houses. It was argued
\nthat the  articles  constituted\t contempt  not\tas
\naffecting the  mind of\tthe Court  that would hear
\nthe appeal, but as tending to deter the appellants
\nand other  from coming to the Court and presenting
\ntheir appeal  and  that\t the  articles\twere  thus
\ncalculated to affect the course of justice. It was
\nheld that  the rule ought not to be granted as the
\nissue of  the writ of attachment in the case would
\nbe an  extension of  the jurisdiction of the court
\non contempt beyond anything that could justify it.
\nIt is  to be noticed that in that case nothing was
\nsaid on the merits of the matter for consideration
\nin the\tappeal, though\treference was  made to the
\nadverse results\t of the\t pendency of the appeal on
\nthe tenants,  the corporation  and the progress of
\nhousing and  it was  said  that\t in  view  of  the
\npublicity of  such contemplated\t adverse  effects,
\nthe appellants and other persons might be deterred
\nfrom taking similar matters to Court and therefore
\nthose articles\tcause obstruction to the course of
\njustice. Such a contention was not accepted, as it
\nwould be  extending the\t jurisdiction of the Court
\nin matters  of contempt.  Such a  possibility of a
\ncertain act with respect to the conduct of a party
\nor a  few persons  interested in  similar cause in
\nfuture was  held not  to  amount  to  contempt\tof
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     I have  already stated that no threat is held
\nout to\tGurbaksh Singh\tin  the\t contents  of  the
\ncharge-sheet with respect to withdrawing or not
\n862<\/span>
\nwithdrawing the\t suit. Any  consideration that\tto
\navoid  Departmental   action  he   be  tempted\tto
\nwithdraw  the\tsuit  or   that\t other\tGovernment
\nservants  would\t  be  deterred\t from  instituting
\nsimilar\t suits,\t  will\tbe  beyond  the\t scope\tof
\nconsiderations\tfor   the  determination   of  the
\nquestion whether the appellants committed contempt
\nof Court or not.\n<\/p>\n
     In In  re The  William Thomas Shipping Co. H.
\nW. Dillon  & Sons.  Ltd. v. The Company, In re Sir
\nRobert Thomas (1) it was said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I  think   that  to\tpublish\t injurious
\n     misrepresentations directed  against a  party
\n     to\t the  action,  especially  when\t they  are
\n     holding up\t that party to hatred or contempt,
\n     is liable\tto affect  the course  of justice,
\n     because it\t may in\t the case  of a plaintiff,
\n     cause him to discontinue the action from fear
\n     of\t public\t dislike,  or  it  may\tcause  the
\n     defendant to  come to  a compromise  which he
\n     otherwise would  not  come\t to,  for  a  like
\n     reason.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This   would   make   publication   of\t injurious
\nmisrepresentations against  a party  to an action,
\ncontempt of Court, if they had a tendency to cause
\nthat party  to\tcome  to  a  compromise\t which\the
\notherwise would\t not come  to. The  facts  of  the
\npresent case  do not in any way correspond to this
\ncase even  if on his own, Gurbaksh Singh, to avoid
\nDepartmental action, discontinues the suit, as the
\naction\ttaken  does  not  in  any  way\tmake  such
\ninjurious misrepresentation  of the party, if any,
\nas would hold him up to hatred or contempt.\n<\/p>\n
     Lastly, I\tmay refer  to the judgment of this
\nCourt in  Saibal Kamar\tGupta v.  B. K.\t Sen<\/a>  (2).
\nProceeding  in\t revision  against   the  Sessions
\nJudge’s orderfor  further enquiry  on a\t complaint
\nfiled by one Bimala Kanta Rov Choudhury against B.
\nK. Sen,\t under s.  497, I.  P. C., were pending in
\nthe
\n863<\/span>
\nHigh  Court.   B.  K.\tSen  held  the\toffice\tof
\nCommissioner  of  the  Calcutta\t Corporation.  The
\nCorporation appointed a Special Committee of three
\nCouncillors  to\t  enquire  into\t  the  allegations
\nlevelled against  certain officials,  including B.
\nK. Sen,\t of the\t Corporation, who  were alleged to
\nhave been  taking advantage  of\t their\toffice\tin
\ncarrying on  business  in  their  own  names.  The
\nSpecial Committee  issued a questionnaire to B. K.
\nSen. Some  of the  questions related to his giving
\nappointments to\t certain persons  who were related
\nto certain  witnesses  in  the\tcase,  his  giving
\nappointments to\t certain persons and condoning the
\npunishment previously  inflicted on one person, as
\nthey were helping him in continuing the defence in
\nthat  case   and  to  his  being  instrumental\tin
\nsecuring  the\tappointment  of\t another  probable
\nprosecution witness.  The  High\t Court\tconsidered
\nthis action  of the Special Committee to amount to
\ngross contempt\tof Court and convicted the members
\nof the Special Committee for it. On appeal to this
\nCourt, the order was set aside. This Court said in
\nthe majority judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The record  does not\t establish that at
\n     any time  the appellant  had made comments on
\n     the case  under s.\t 497, Indian  Penal  Code,
\n     pending against  B. K.  Sen or  in respect of
\n     any matter\t pending in  connection with  that
\n     case  in\tthe  Calcutta\tHigh  Court….The
\n     questionnaire nowhere  suggested that  B.\tK.
\n     Sen had  made these  appointments in order to
\n     suborn prosecution\t witnesses in that case or
\n     that he had made the appointments with a view
\n     to preventing Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury from
\n     producing witnesses to prove his case against
\n     B.\t K.   Sen….The  Special   Committee  had
\n     embarked upon an enquiry on the directions of
\n     the  Corporation\tin   order   to\t  discover
\n     malpractice on  the part of the Corporation’s
\n     servants. Malpractices of the
\n864<\/span>
\n     part of  a servant\t of the\t Corporation would
\n     presumably\t   include     making\t  unworthy
\n     appointments. The ascertainment of the motive
\n     for   the\t appointment   would   be   merely
\n     incidental\t to   the  main\t  purpose  of  the
\n     enquiry. It  would be  difficult to  conclude
\n     therefrom that  the  Special  Committee  were
\n     holding a parallel enquiry on matters pending
\n     decision by  a court  of law and that thereby
\n     their action  tended to  interfere\t with  the
\n     course of justice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The same,  with greater\t emphasis, can\tbe said in
\nthe present case. The Departmental enquiry against
\nGurbaksh Singh\tdid not tend to interfere with the
\ncourse of  justice. Bachan  Singh, appellant,  was
\nconducting the\tenquiry under the orders of Pratap
\nSingh. Pratap  Singh directed  the  enquiry  under
\norders from  Government.  Neither  of  them  would
\ncommit contempt of Court in discharging his duty.\n<\/p>\n
     I am  therefore of\t opinion that the facts of
\nthe case  do not  make out that the appellants, by
\ntheir  alleged\t conduct,  committed  contempt\tof
\nCourt. I would therefore allow their appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     BY COURT:\tIn accordance  with the opinion of
\nthe majority, these appeals are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tAppeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
865<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1172, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 838 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K. PETITIONER: PRATAP SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: GURBAKSH SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/01\/1962 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR CITATION: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192802","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-11T19:05:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T19:05:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962\"},\"wordCount\":7599,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962\",\"name\":\"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T19:05:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-11T19:05:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962","datePublished":"1962-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T19:05:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962"},"wordCount":7599,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962","name":"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T19:05:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-and-another-vs-gurbaksh-singh-on-29-january-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pratap Singh And Another vs Gurbaksh Singh on 29 January, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192802","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=192802"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192802\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}