TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt to punish for contempt committed of itself is a power not subject to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the only requirement is to follow a procedure which is just, fair and in accordance with the rules framed by this Court. 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 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. Objections a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent by the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society, as is apparent from the order initiating contempt proceedings - there are no merits in the plea. Freedom to criticise - HELD THAT:- There can be no manner of doubt that any citizen of the country can criticise the judgments delivered by any Court including this Court. However, no party has the right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question the bona fides of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to the competence of the Judge. Judges are part and parcel of the justice delivery system. By and large Judges are reluctant to take action under contempt laws when a personal attack is made on them. However, when there is a concerted attack by members of the Bar who profess to be the members of an organization having a large following, then the Court cannot shut its eyes to the slanderous and scandalous allegations made. If such allegations which have not only been communicated to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India, but also widely circulated on social media are permitted to remain unchallenged then the public will lose faith not only in those particular Judges but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Vijay Kurle, State President of Maharashtra and Goa of the Indian Bar Association, and the second complaint dated 19.03.2019 made by alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, National Secretary of the Human Rights Security Council. It was mentioned that these complaints have not only been sent to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India but also have been circulated in the social media and the complaints were attached as Annexures 1 and 2 to the said letter. The Bench took note of the letter and the complaints attached to the said letter and specifically noted the prayers made in both the complaints and found that both the complaints are substantially similar. The Bench on noting the allegations made in the complaints was of the view that scandalous allegations have been made against the members of the said Bench and, therefore, notice was issued to Shri Vijay Kurle, alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Nilesh Ojha, alleged contemnor no. 3 and Shri Mathews Nedumpara, alleged contemnor no. 4. The Bench also directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench to hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the only document against him was also the letter dated 20.03.2019 which letter was not signed by him, but admittedly, he is President of the Indian Bar Association. We had given opportunity to Shri Nilesh Ojha to explain his position whether the letter dated 20.03.2019 was sent with his consent or under his authority. 4. It would be pertinent to mention that Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan have not denied that they are the authors of the letters which are signed by them. 5. The basis of the present contempt are the two letters dated 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 admittedly signed by alleged contemnor nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan respectively. These letters are very lengthy running into more than 250 pages combined. Therefore, it would not be feasible to extract the entire letters but we have no doubt in our mind that the tenor of the letters is highly disrespectful, and scandalous and scurrilous allegations have been levelled against 2 Judges of this Court. 6. The three alleged contemnors have raised a number of preliminary issues. We may summarise the same as follows: (i) That the Bench of Justice R. F. Nariman and Just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 120) and was followed in India and in Burma in In re Vallabhdas (I.L.R. 27 Bom. 394 at 390) and Ebrahim Mamoojee Parekh v. King Emperor (I.L.R. 4 Rang. 257 at 259 261). In our view that is still the law. 9. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shri C. K. Daphtary and Others v. Shri O.P. Gupta and Others 1971 (1) SCC 626 was dealing with a case where the contemnor had published a pamphlet casting scurrilous aspersions on 2 Judges of this Court. During the course of argument, the contemnor raised a plea that all the evidence has not been furnished to him and made a request that the petitioner be asked to furnish the pamphlet or book annexed to the petition. The Court rejected this argument holding that the booklet/pamphlet had been annexed to the petition in original and the Court had directed that the matter be decided on affidavits. 10. In respect of the absence of a specific charge being framed, the Court held that a specific charge was not required to be framed and the only requirement was that a fair procedure should be followed. Dealing with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 this Court held as follows: 58. We are here also not concerned with any law made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istration into disrepute. It was held that Shri P. Shiv Shanker was not guilty of contempt of this Court. Having held so, the Court went on to decide whether the petition could have been entertained on behalf of Shri Duda. In the said petition, Shri Duda had written a letter to the Attorney General seeking consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Shri P. Shiv Shanker. A copy of the said letter was also sent to the Solicitor General of India. While seeking consent, the petitioner had also stated that the Attorney General may be embarrassed to give consent for prosecution of the Law Minister and in view of the said allegations, the Attorney General felt that the credibility and authority of the office of the Attorney General was undermined and therefore did not deny or grant sanction for prosecution. The Court held that the petitioner could not move the Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent without consent of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: 39. The question of contempt of court came up for consideration in the case of C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta. In that case a petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... temnors contended that the last portion of the aforesaid paragraph shows that the judgment in C. K. Daphtary s case (supra) having been delivered prior to the enactment of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is no longer applicable. We may however point out that in the very next paragraph in the same judgment, it was held as follows: 40. Our attention was drawn by Shri Ganguly to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in G.N. Verma v. Hargovind Dayal (AIR 1975 All 52) where the Division Bench reiterated that Rules which provide for the manner in which proceedings for contempt of court should be taken continue to apply even after the enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore cognizance could be taken suo motu and information contained in the application by a private individual could be utilised. As we have mentioned hereinbefore indubitably cognizance could be taken suo motu by the court but members of the public have also the right to move the court. That right of bringing to the notice of the court is dependent upon consent being given either by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General and if that consent is withheld without reasons or without consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. 18. A bare perusal of Rule 3 shows that there are 3 ways for initiating contempt proceedings. The first is suo motu, the second is on a petition made by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, and the third is on the basis of a petition made by any person and where criminal contempt is involved then the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General is necessary. Rules 4 and 5 prescribe for the manner of filing of a petition under Rules 3(b) and 3(c). Rule 4 lays down the requirements of a petition to be filed under Rules 3(b) and 3(c) and Rule 5 requires that every petition under Rule 3(b) or Rule 3(c) shall be placed before the Court for preliminary hearing. Rule 6 requires notice to the person charged to be in terms of Form I. Rule 6 reads as follows: 6. (1) Notice to the person charged shall be in Form I. The person charged shall, unless otherwise ordered, appear in person before the Court as directed on the date fixed for hearing of the proceeding, and shall continue to remain present during hearing till the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584 discussed the law on this point in detail. The Court while holding the respondent guilty for contempt had not only sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of 6 weeks which was suspended but also suspended his advocacy for a period of 3 years, relying upon the powers vested in this Court under Article 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India. 23. We may now refer to certain other provisions of Constitution, Entry 77, Union List (List I) of VII Schedule reads as follows: 77. Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court (including contempt of such Court), and the fees taken therein; persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court. Entry 14, Concurrent List (List III of VII Schedule) reads as follows : 14. Contempt of court, but not including contempt of the Supreme Court. 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 move ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of justice. It also provides that truth can be permitted to be raised as a valid defence if the court is satisfied that the defence has been raised in the public interest and is a bona fide defence. Section 14 deals with the powers of the Supreme Court or the High Courts to deal with contempt in the face of the Court. We have already dealt with Section 15 which deals with cognizance of the criminal contempt other than contempt in the face of the Court. Section 17 lays down the procedure after cognizance. It is in the background of this Act that we have to read and analyse the judgment of the Constitution Bench. 25. The Constitution Bench referred to the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution of India and also Entry 77 of List I of Seventh Schedule and Entry 14 of List III of the Seventh Schedule and, thereafter, held as follows: 18. The language of Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List III of the Seventh Schedule demonstrates that the legislative power of Parliament and of the State Legislature extends to legislate with respect to matters connected with contempt of court by the Supreme Court or the High Court, subject however, to the qualification that such leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parliament by virtue of Entry 77 List I is competent to enact a law relating to the powers of the Supreme Court with regard to contempt of itself and such a law may prescribe the nature of punishment which may be imposed on a contemner by virtue of the provisions of Article 129 read with Article 142(2). Since, no such law has been enacted by Parliament, the nature of punishment prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 may act as a guide for the Supreme Court but the extent of punishment as prescribed under that Act can apply only to the High Courts, because the 1971 Act ipso facto does not deal with the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, except that Section 15 of the Act prescribes procedural mode for taking cognizance of criminal contempt by the Supreme Court also. Section 15, however, is not a substantive provision conferring contempt jurisdiction. The judgment in Sukhdev Singh case (AIR 1954 SC 186 : 1954 SCR 454) as regards the extent of maximum punishment which can be imposed upon a contemner must, therefore, be construed as dealing with the powers of the High Courts only and not of this Court in that behalf. We are, therefore, doubtful of the validity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... courts. 29. A careful analysis of the Constitution Bench decision leavesno manner of doubt that Section 15 of the Act is not a substantive provision conferring contempt jurisdiction. The Constitution Bench finally left the question as to whether the maximum sentence prescribed by the Act binds the Supreme Court open. The observations made in Para 38 referred to above clearly indicate that the Constitution Bench was of the view that the punishment prescribed in the Act could only be a guideline and nothing more. Certain observations made in this judgment that the Court exceeded its jurisdiction in Vinay Chandra Mishra s case (supra) by taking away the right of practice for a period of 3 years have to be read in the context that the Apex Court held that Article 129 cannot take over the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of the State or the Bar Council of India to punish an advocate. These observations, in our opinion have to be read with the other observations quoted hereinabove which clearly show that the Constitution Bench held that Parliament has not enacted any law dealing with the powers of the Supreme Court with regard to investigation and punishment of contempt of itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not going into the correctness or otherwise of this judgment but it is clear that this judgment only dealt with the issue whether the Parliament could fix a period of limitation to initiate the proceedings under the Act. Without commenting one way or the other on Pallav Seth s case (supra) it is clear that the same has not dealt with the powers of this Court to issue suo motu notice of contempt. 31. 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 writing of the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General. As far as suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity going to the root of the matter. The only documents which are the basis for issuing notice of contempt are the complaints sent by Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan which were annexed to the letter of the Bombay Bar Association and Bombay Incorporated Law Society. The letters of the Bombay Bar Association and Bombay Incorporated Law Society along with all the annexures attached to the said letter have been supplied to the alleged contemnors and they were permitted to file additional replies after receiving all these documents. As mentioned above, this Court had clarified that the action against alleged contemnors is being restricted to the allegations made in the two complaints by Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan of which they are admittedly the authors. Since this Court has not relied upon any of the other documents, we do not see how any prejudice has been caused to the alleged contemnors by the non supply of the documents along with the notice. As per the Rules of this Court, the notice was only to briefly state nature of the contempt and in the order itself reference has been made to the complaints of Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan. We ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further held that from the record it was apparent that the respondent was always shown as the petitioner in the contempt petition and, therefore, there was nothing which indicated that the proceedings had been initiated suo motu. 34. As far as the present case is concerned, the order passedby this Court clearly shows that this Court after taking note of the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society, the annexures attached to this letter and after specifically noting the prayers made in the complaints of Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan along with the allegations made in both the complaints was of the view that the allegations levelled against the Members of the Bench were scandalous in nature and therefore, notice was issued to the alleged contemnors and against Shri Nedumpara who has since been discharged. The alleged contemnors are basically urging that the order does not use the word suo motu . In our view, that would not make any difference. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.03.2019 reads as follows: Given the two complaints filed, it is clear that scandalous allegations have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed and required the respondents only to assist the Court till the disposal of the matter. On the contrary, the respondents are shown as the petitioners in the contempt case before the High Court. It is thus clear, it is the respondents who initiated the proceedings and continued the same but without the written consent of the Advocate General as is required in law. The proceedings, therefore, were clearly not maintainable. 37. As pointed out above, in the present case the Bombay Bar Association and the Bombay Incorporated Law Society have never been shown as petitioners. The letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society is not addressed to this Court to initiate contempt proceedings. The letters were addressed to the President of India, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay and the prayer made therein was that the complaints by the Indian Bar Association and Human Rights Security Council should be rejected. There is no prayer for initiating contempt proceedings. These letters were placed in the office of the Judges of this Court and after taking note of the averments m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by any rules or convention to the contrary. Even so, the Bench in deference to the principle of master of the roster, after taking cognizance of the scandalous allegations made in the complaints of the alleged contemnors and issuing notice to them directed that the matter be placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate Bench. This, in our view, is the proper procedure. If an article, letter or any writing or even something visual circulating in electronic, print or social media or in any other forum is brought to the notice of any Judge of this Court which prima facie shows that the allegation is contemptuous or scandalises the court then that Judge can definitely issue notice and thereafter place it before Hon ble the Chief Justice for listing it before an appropriate Bench. 40. The alleged contemnors have relied upon the judgment in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala Others. (2008) 3 SCC 542 wherein it was observed that individual writing should be placed before the Chief Justice as to the proposed action on such petitions. It was held: 71. The individual letters, if any, addressed to a particular judge are required to be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Whether it should be strictly called a campaign is beside the point. The essential facts mentioned in Para 5 are admitted by the first respondent. Therefore the fact that the source of information was not disclosed does not debar us from taking the facts into consideration. The last sentence of Para 5 viz., The said pamphlet was, as the petitioners believe, sold or offered for sale to the public by Respondent No. 3 is a matter of belief. Para 6 contains inferences and submissions in respect of which there was no question of disclosing the source of information. Para 7 contains extracts from the booklet or the pamphlet which was attached as an annexure. In view of the document having been attached it was not necessary that the source of information regarding Para 7 should have been disclosed. The allegations in Para 9 of the petition are supported by an affidavit of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate, who has verified that the contents in his affidavit are true to his knowledge . 42. We fail to understand how Shri Vijay Kurle can urge that the source of information should be disclosed. His complaint is addressed amongst all others to Judges of this Court which obviously includes the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only the judiciary, but democracy itself will be under threat. Contempt powers have been very sparingly used by the Courts and rightly so. The shoulders of this Court are broad enough to withstand criticism, even criticism which may transcend the parameters of fair criticism. However, if the criticism is made in a concerted manner to lower the majesty of the institution of the Courts and with a view to tarnish the image, not only of the Judges, but also the Courts, then if such attempts are not checked the results will be disastrous. Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act itself provides that publishing of any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided does not amount to contempt. 46. In Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon ble the Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216 after referring to a large number of judgments to which we need not refer, this Court held that though freedom of speech is an essential part of democracy, it is equally necessary for society to regulate such freedom of speech or expression in terms of the exceptions to Article 19 of the Constitution. Bonafide criticism of any institution including the judiciary is always welcome. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir office, i.e., to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear and favour. Thus the judges must do, in the light given to them to determine, what is right. Any criticism about the judicial system or the judges which hampers the administration of justice or which erodes the faith in the objective approach of the judges and brings administration of justice to ridicule must be prevented. The contempt of court proceedings arise out of that attempt. Judgments can be criticised. Motives to the judges need not be attributed. It brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Faith in the administration of justice is one of the pillars on which democratic institution functions and sustains. In the free market place of ideas criticism about the judicial system or judges should be welcome so long as such criticism does not impair or hamper the administration of justice. This is how the courts should exercise the powers vested in them and judges to punish a person for an alleged contempt by taking notice of the contempt suo motu or at the behest of the litigant or a lawyer. In that case the speech of the Law Minister in a Seminar organised by the Bar Council and the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain allegations together. 1 st Complaint dt.20.03.2019 by Shri Vijay Kurle 51. On pages 49 51 of the 1st complaint, the following allegations have been made: III) CHARGE # : PERSONAL BIAS PROCEEDING VITIATED. The another illegality is regarding conflict of interest violation of law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar Ors. (2011) 14 SCC 770. That since last 2 years, Advocate Nedumpatra is posting articles against Advocate Fali S. Nariman. He also filed Writ Petition before Delhi High Court being W.P. (C) No.2019 of 2019, where he raised the issue of Advocate Fali Nariman practising in Supreme Court where his son Rohington Fali Nariman is a Judge. Under these circumstances having direct conflict of interest and having prejudice with Advocate Nedumpara, Justice Rohington Fali Nariman was disqualified to hear the case and he should have recused himself from the cases where Advocate Nedumpara is appearing. xxx xxx xxx But instead of maintaining dignity sobriety of the Supreme Court the Respondent Judge Rohington Fali Nariman heard the case and brought the dignity majest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n affidavit which reads as follows: AFFIDAVIT I, Mathews J. Nedumpara, Advocate, aged 60 years, Indian Inhabitant, residing at Harbour Heights, W Wing, 12 F, 12th Floor, Sassoon Docks, Colaba, Mumbai400 005, now in Delhi, do hereby swear and state as follows: 1. A Bench of this Hon ble Court comprising Hon ble Shri Justice Rohinton F. Nariman and Hon ble Shri Justice Vineet Saran, by judgment and order dated 12th March, 2019, was pleased to hold me guilty for contempt in the face of the Court and list the case for hearing on the question of punishment. 2. I happened to mention the name of Shri Fali S. Nariman to buttress my proposition that even legendary Shri Fali Nariman is of the view that the seniority of a lawyer should be reckoned from the date of his enrolment and nothing else. However, I was misunderstood. I along with some office bearers of the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms have instituted Writ Petition No.2199/2019 in the High Court of Delhi for a declaration that the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules is void inasmuch as it explains that the word Court does not mean the entire Court, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On Page 60 of the first complaint Shri Vijay Kurle has stated as follows: The threats given by Justice Nariman to Advocate Nedumpara on 5th March, as published in Bar Bench is itself an offence of Contempt on the part of Justice Rohington Fali Nariman. 55. What has been published in Bar Bench has not been placed on record. Shri Vijay Kurle has filed a large number of documents but has not stated on what basis he has alleged that Shri Nedumpara was threatened by Justice Nariman. Admonishment by a Judge cannot be said to be a threat. Since the alleged contemnors have not placed any material on record to show how Justice Nariman threatened Shri Nedumpara, this itself amounts to making a false accusation against a Judge. Shri Nedumpara in his affidavit has not made any reference to any threats given to him by any Member of the Bench. This clearly shows that the allegation made by Shri Vijay Kurle is false. 56. It is alleged by Shri Vijay Kurle, that Justice Nariman had misused his power to use material outside the court record and received by personal knowledge without disclosing its source and therefore, his action was against earlier judgments of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basic law of criminal jurisprudence and basic law of evidence and acted in denial of whole basis of indian constitutional . 59. Similarly, the allegations made at Pages 71 72 of the first complaint are as follows: Hence Justice Rohington Fali Nariman by placing reliance on the Notice in Contempt proceeding, and making it as a basis to draw conclusion of conduct of an advocate knowing fully well that the said matter is still subjudice before sub ordinate court, have violated Fundamental rights of Advocate Nedumpara and acted against the Constitutional mandate and thereby breached the oath taken as a Supreme Court Judge and is unbecoming of a Judicial officers. Therefore reliance placed by Justice Rohington Fali Nariman on show cause Contempt notice is illegal and shows his lack of knowledge. Hence the one sided blanket reliance by some illiterate Judges having half backed knowledge of law will broke the fabric of cardinal principles of criminal and civil jurisprudence. VI) CONSPIRACY TO DISTROY IMAGE AND KEEP ADVOCATE AWAY FROM HIS CLIENTS CAUSING SERIOUS PREJUDICES TO THEIR SUBJUDICE CAUSE EX FACE PROVED: In the present case Justice Nariman is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenge the impartiality of Judges of this Court. 63. Again, in Para 79 for the first letter, the alleged contemnors have stated as follows: However Justice Nariman is trying to create an atmosphere of prejudice against some clients so that no advocate will accept their brief and they will be denied their constitutional right of being represented by a Lawyer of their choice. These allegations that Justice Nariman is wanting to create an atmosphere of prejudice against some clients is a false allegation for which no supporting material has been given by the alleged contemnors in their reply. We do not even understand how the order passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2019 or in Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 1 of 2019 would lead to the conclusion that some clients would be prejudiced as no advocate would accept their brief. There is no basis for this absolutely false allegation which also amounts to contempt of Court. 64. On Page 81 of the first complaint Shri Vijay Kurle has stated as follows: It is settled law that person having half backed knowledge of law should not be allowed to participate in court proceedings [Vide: N. Natarajan Vs. B.K. Subba Rao AI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a who acted against various Supreme Court Judgments and making such prayers is fundamental right of the victim it cannot be termed as Contempt. 66. Further on Page 124 of the first complaint it is alleged as follows: Hence it is clear that Justice Rohington Fali Nariman is a person who neither knows the law nor knows its application i.e. neither Command over shastras nor put it into practice. The alleged contemnors could have criticised the correctness of the judgment, but the allegation that observations of Justice Nariman amount to contempt of Court or show his poor level of understanding and lack of basic understanding of law is not language which a lawyer is expected to use against a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court. Again, in this very quoted portion a totally unfounded allegation has been made that Justice Nariman was aggrieved since allegations had been levelled against his close Judge of the Bombay High Court (Justice S.J. Kathawala). The conclusion drawn by Shri Vijay Kurle is not only incorrect but totally false and appears to have been done with the mala fide intention of harming the reputation of Justice Nariman and raising questions with regard to his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by advocate for observations against an advocate without issuing any notice to him which is are prima facie illegal and against the settled legal principle by various Supreme Judgments and more particularly in Sarwan Singh Lamba s Case (Supra). Said matter being sub-judice should not be commented by Justice Rohington Fali Nariman. So the Criminal minded Judges by twisting material facts, by misleading legal position and by misinterpreting the settled law of Hon ble Supreme Court are trying to make the Court as their personal property. Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely . And such type of Judge are running syndicate to extort money for giving favourable orders to the underserving people. We are constrained to observe that Shri Vijay Kurle has totally misread and misquoted the order of Justice R.F. Nariman. In Para 8 of the said order in Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2019 after referring to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court it is recorded that Shri Nedumpara filed Writ Petition No.L 1180 of 2018 in his own name against the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court who has passed the order and the learned Single Judge was arraye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders are set aside by Higher Benches for his misuse of power with strict harsh observation.[Trident Steel and Engineering Co. Vs. Vallourec 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 4060]. The said Justice Kathawala who is caught in sting opertation his corrupt practices are under scrutiny before (Five Judge Bench of Hon ble Bombay High Court). Hence it is clear that Justice Rohington Fali Nariman tried to save an accused Judge and in both the eventuality he is unfit to work as a Judge of a Highest Court and is liable to be removed forthwith by using powers under In HouseProcedure as done in Justice Karnan s case. Again, the allegations made are totally scandalous. Alleging that a judge has passed an order as an outcome of his frustrated mind is, in our opinion, a highly scandalous allegation. The other allegation that the order was passed with a view to help Justice Kathawala is equally scandalous. These allegations also amount to contempt. 73. On Page 93 of the first letter the following allegations have been made: So Division Bench of Hon ble Bombay High Court which decided the Writ Petition of Mr. Nedumpara did not find it as Contempt. Full Bench of Supreme Court did not find i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nner of doubt that Shri Vijay Kurle is guilty of having committed contempt of this Court. 76. On Pages 150 154 of the first complaint Shri Vijay Kurle has stated as follows: XIII) #CHARGE# PASSING ORDER WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVE TO SAVE ACCUSED JUDGE S.J.KATHWALA AGAINST WHOM INDIAN BAR ASSOCIATION GOT DEEMED SANCTION MAKES JUSTICE ROHINGTON FALI NARIMAN LIABLE FOR PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 218 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. xxx xxx xxx This being the position, there was no occasion or reason for Justice Rohington Fali Nariman to make such irrelevant, unlawful and uncalled for observation. It is clear that said observations are made with ulterior motive to save his friend Justice S.J. Kathawalla and therefore liable to be prosecuted under section 218 of Indian Penal Code. XIV) CHARGE # INABILITY TO INTERPRET THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT: In para 9 of the judgment Justice Rohington Fali Nariman relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454 to interpret that as per said ruling the Judge who is personally attacked has to hear the matter himself. In fact the law laid down in the said judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he allegations read as follows: That the another complaint by Human Right (N.G.O.) in other matter against Justice Rohington Fali Nariman Justice Vineet Saran, is self explanatory about incapacity, poor level of understanding, tendency to undermine the authority of Supreme Court and bringing the rule of law into disrepute and committing fraud on power to grant unwarranted relief to the undeserving accused and denying relief to the deserving victim woman. xxx xxx xxx That accused Justice Rohington Fali Nariman Vineet Saran in Criminal Appeal No.387 of 2019 [Aarish Asgar Qureshi vs. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi 2019 SCC OnLine SC 306] had with malafide intention to help accused had observed that police report have no evidentiary value for directing enquiry against the accused husband on the application given by wife. xxx xxx xxx But accused Judges in a hurry to help accused entertained the appeal against the order directing the compliant and passed order in utter disregard and defiance of law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court and also against the statutory provisions of Section 341 of Criminal Procedure Code and acted unconstitutionally. Not only are the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dges by using phrases such as judges deliberately ignored the settled legal position or deliberately and conveniently ignored reference to certain observations, and deliberately misinterpreted certain judgments cited before the Court. Further, it is alleged that the fact that the Bench acted in defiance of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Court is sufficient to prove the mala fide of the accused Judges. First of all, it is not for Shri Rashid Khan Pathan to decide whether the judgment is correct or not. There is a legal procedure established whereby a review petition or a curative petition could be filed. We cannot go into the merits of the judgment but even assuming that the judgment is not in consonance with the judgment of the Constitution Bench then also that is no ground to allege mala fide against the Judges comprising the Bench. He has also made allegations that the Judges have breached the oath of office and acted in a biased manner. 83. One of the reasons given by Shri Rashid Khan Pathan forfiling the complaint is that he had filed a complaint against Shri Fali S. Nariman, Senior Advocate of this Court, alleging antinational activities being committed by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vesaid two judgments are referred in para 21 (Page No. 185 of S.L.P.) Para 22 (Page No. 186 of S.L.P.) But Respondent Judges deliberately ignored the said legal position settled by Hon ble Supreme Court and Therefore the said order dated 26th February, 2019 is not only per incurriam but Contempt of Hon ble Supreme Court. Pg. 43 But the Respondent Judges deliberately ignored to reproduce these paras in their order with ulterior motive to help the accused. Moreover how the said case law is either applicable or not applicable is not discussed in the judgment except referring it in a cursory manner. Pg. 52 But Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman acted in utter disregard and difiance of Constitution Bench s judgment even if it was brought to his notice. This is sufficient to prove the malafides of the accused Judges i.e. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Justice Vineet Saran. Pg. 62 But here the Respondent Judges breach the oath taken as a Judge by acting contrary to law and in a biased manner and therefore they forfeited their right to sit on the chair of highest Court of the Country. Pg. 71 38). POOR LEVEL OF UNDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of regret in any of the affidavits filed by them. 87. We now examine the context in which these allegations have been made. The first complaint by Shri Vijay Kurle dated 20.03.2019 is basically in relation to the order dated 12.03.2019. Shri Nedumpara was held guilty of contempt vide order dated 12.03.2019. Notice was issued to him for being heard on the issue of punishment. This notice was made returnable within two weeks and the record shows that this notice was actually made returnable on 27.03.2019. In the meantime, both Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan sent these complaints praying that action be taken against the Members of the Bench. This, in our opinion, is the grossest form of contempt because the intention was to intimidate the Judges so that they should desist from taking action against Shri Nedumpara. Shri Nedumpara in his affidavit filed in this Court stated that he barely knew Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Nilesh Ojha. According to him, he did not know Shri Rashid Khan Pathan at all. On the basis of the statement we have discharged Shri Nedumpara. He, in fact, stated that he came to know about these complaints only after notice was issued and his colleagu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of scandalous allegations have to be dealt with sternly and nipped in the bud. As far as Shri Rashid Khan Pathan is concerned, he professes to be the National Secretary of an NGO. Other than that, it does not even appear that he is a lawyer. What was the public interest in raking up issues with regard to a litigation which had no element of public interest? It deals mainly with quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court against a party under Section 340 of the CrPC. There is no explanation as to what the case of Aarish Asgar Qureshi (supra) has got to do with this case. It is not as if somebody has been put behind bars or the human rights of any person had been violated. Shri Rashid Khan Pathan is basically waging a war against the Members of the Bench and against this Court at the instance of Shri Nilesh Ojha, if not Shri Nedumpara because in his complaint he states that Shri Nilesh Ojha was the lawyer for the respondent before the Court and could be the only person who could have supplied the material to Shri Rashid Khan Pathan. Alleged Contemnor No. 3 Shri Nilesh Ojha 91. This brings us to Shri Nilesh Ojha, alleged contemnor no. 3. At the outset, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake reference to the allegations in the complaint made by Shri Rashid Khan Pathan and support the same unless he had read them. 93. As far as the complaint of Shri Vijay Kurle is concerned, it is nothing but a proxy battle for Shri Nedumpara. If Shri Nedumpara did not know Shri Vijay Kurle, how could such a detailed complaint running into 183 pages have been filed by Shri Vijay Kurle on 20.03.2019 when the matter of Shri Nedumpara was still pending in this Court. This Court convicted Shri Nedumpara for contempt of Court by judgment dated 12.03.2019 and directed Shri Nedumpara to appear so that punishment could be imposed on him for contempt of Court. The matter was listed on 27.03.2019. In our opinion, both these complaints were sent to the President of India with a view to browbeat this Court so that this Court is terrorised into not taking action against Shri Nedumpara. In a matter which was still pending in so far as imposition of punishment was concerned, Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan had no business sending these communications. These communications were widely circulated on social media, as is apparent from the affidavit of Mrs. Rohini M. Amin filed in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd scandalous allegations against the Members of the Bench, probably with the intention that the Members of the Bench would thereafter not take action against Shri Nedumpara. Defence of Truth 95. Though not so much in the oral arguments but in the written arguments the alleged contemnors have also raised the plea of truth as a defence. Truth as a defence is available to any person charged with contempt of Court. However, on going through all the written arguments and the pleadings, other than saying that the Judges had misinterpreted the judgments of this Court or had ignored them or that Justice R.F. Nariman was biased, there is no material placed on record to support this defence. The allegations are also scurrilous and scandalous and such allegations cannot be permitted to be made against the Judges of highest Court of the country. 96. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we hold all three alleged contemnors i.e. Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, and Shri Nilesh Ojha, guilty of contempt. 97. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Siddharth Luthra, amicus curiae. We also reject all the baseless allegations le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
