Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (5) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndividuals called the Conscientious Group . He filed contempt petition No. 4210 of 1986 alleging that the conduct of the first respondent in making certain adverse comments about the Judges who delivered the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 860 of 1986 (National Anthem Case) constitutes criminal contempt and that the first respondent as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who were responsible for publishing the said statement in certain newspapers should be punished by taking action against them under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) read with Rules framed by this Court for regulating the proceedings taken under the Act for contempt of this Court. When the said petition came up before a Bench of this Court on Sept .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... capacity as Attorney General in the National Anthem case, it was not appropriate for him to deal with the petitioner's application and hence the application was being returned to the petitioner. When the case later on came up before the same three judge Bench on December 12, 1986, the fact that such a reply had been received from the Attorney General seems to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges, whereupon the Bench passed the following order : Mr. Birla states that in view of the fact that the Attorney General has stated that he is a not in a position to consider this matter for the time being since he is a petitioner in the National Anthem Case he application for leave to withdraw. Hence the Crl. M.P. is allowed t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ney General was for any reason not in a position to give consent to the filing of the petition for contempt, he, that is, the petitioner could obtain the consent of the Solicitor General and maintain the petition for contempt. Now it is no doubt true that under Rule 3(c) a petitioner can file a petition for contempt with the consent either of the Attorney General or of the Solicitor General and the petitioner could have therefore obtained the consent of the Solicitor General and sustained the petition. But obviously he was not aware of this provision and indeed we too were not aware of it. If the petitioner had stated that in view of the stand taken by the Attorney General, he would like to approach the Solicitor General for his consent, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1987 requesting for the grant of his consent to the filing of the contempt petition. 6. As on the date of the drawing up of the present petition the petitioner had not received any reply from the Solicitor General and hence this petition for revival was filed on the basis that the non-consideration of the application by the Solicitor General amounted to a denial of the forum of this Court to the petitioner and he should therefore be allowed to revive the contempt petition. Subsequently, however, the Solicitor General his letter dated February 14, 1987 informed the petitioner that after taking all facts and circumstances of the into consideration he was of the view that it will not be in the public interest to give his consent to the igni .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e respondents under Section 15 of the Act if the Bench was inclined to adopt such a course. However, it is manifest from the two order passed by the Bench that the Bench did not think it fit to take such suo motu proceeding and was on the other hand ,disinclined to entertain the application unless the petitioner complied with the condition regarding the obtaining of the written consent of the Attorney General or the solicitor General. Both at the stage when the petition was with drown by him on December 2,1986 as well as at the stage when the motion was made for recalling the order dated December 12,1986 the petitioner had clearly proceed on the a foresaid basic that the application could be maintained only after his obtaining the written c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates