2006 (5) TMI 550 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt petition - Application for grant of licenses - Disobedience of this Court s order - closure of all un- licensed saw mills veneer and plywood industries - intention of manipulation or interpolation of the official records - Whether the note had missed the attention of members of CEC - HELD THAT - The inevitable conclusion is that both the contemnors 1 and 2 deliberately flouted the orders of this Court in a brazen manner. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was no mens rea involved. The fact situation clearly shows to the contrary. Learned counsel appearing for contemnor No. 1 and 2 stated that they have tendered unconditional apology which should be accepted. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. As was noted in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1984 (5) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the slap-say sorry-and forget school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying sorry does not make the slipper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. For it is one thing to say sorry-it is another to feel sorry. Proceedings for contempt are essentially personal and punitive. This does not mean that it is not open to the Court as a matter of law to make a finding of contempt against any official of the Government say Home Secretary or a Minister. While contempt proceedings usually have these characteristics and contempt proceedings against a Government department or a minister in an official capacity would not be either personal or punitive (it would clearly not be appropriate to fine or request the assets of the Crown or a Government department or an officer of the Crown acting in his official capacity) this does not mean that a finding of contempt against a Government department or minister would be pointless. The very fact of making such a finding would vindicate the requirements of justice. In addition an order for costs could be made to underline the significance of a contempt. A purpose of the court s powers to make findings of contempt is to ensure the orders of the court are obeyed. This jurisdiction is required to be co-extensive with the courts jurisdiction to make the orders which need the protection which the jurisdiction to make findings of contempt provides. In civil proceedings the court can now make orders (other than injunctions or for specific performance) against authorized Government departments or the Attorney General. On applications for judicial review orders can be made against ministers. In consequence such orders must be taken not to offend the theory that the Crown can supposedly do no wrong. Equally if such orders are made and not obeyed the body against whom the orders were made can be found guilty of contempt without offending that theory which could be the only justifiable impediment against making a finding of contempt. This is a case where not only right from the beginning attempt has been made to overreach the orders of this Court but also to draw red-herrings. Still worse is the accepted position of inserting a note in the official file with oblique motives. That makes the situation worse. In this case the contemnors deserve severe punishment. This will set an example for those who have propensity of disregarding the court s orders because of their money power social status or posts held. Exemplary sentences are called for in respect of both the contemnors. Custodial sentence of one month simple imprisonment in each case would meet the ends of justice. Considering the high positions held by the contemnors more stringent punishment is called for and therefore we are compressing custodial sentence. The contempt petition with WP (C) are disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rule of Law and Judicial Authority
2. Disobedience of Court Orders
3. Contempt of Court (Civil and Criminal)
4. Unauthorized Permissions by State Officials
5. Interpolation and Manipulation of Official Records
6. Mens Rea and Bona Fide Actions
7. Apology and Punishment for Contempt

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rule of Law and Judicial Authority:
The judgment emphasizes the supremacy of law in a democratic polity, stating, "THE LAW IS SUPREME. Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law." It underscores that disobedience of court orders undermines the rule of law, which is foundational to a democratic society. The judiciary is described as the guardian of the rule of law, and its authority must be respected to maintain the constitutional scheme.

2. Disobedience of Court Orders:
The case involves two contemnors, a Principal Secretary and a Minister, who acted in defiance of the Supreme Court's orders. The Court had directed the closure of unlicensed saw mills, veneer, and plywood industries, and prohibited opening new ones without prior permission from the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). Despite this, the State of Maharashtra permitted six units to operate. This action was taken deliberately and consciously, despite being fully aware of the Court's orders.

3. Contempt of Court (Civil and Criminal):
The contemnors were charged with civil and criminal contempt for willful disobedience of the Court's orders and for actions that lowered the Court's authority and obstructed the administration of justice. The charges included granting permissions in direct contravention of the Court's orders and interpolating official records.

4. Unauthorized Permissions by State Officials:
The contemnors granted permissions to six units to operate, which was in direct violation of the Supreme Court's orders. This was done despite the Deputy Secretary's note advising that permissions should be considered only after obtaining approval from the State Government and the Court. The Principal Secretary ignored this advice and recommended granting permissions, which the Minister approved.

5. Interpolation and Manipulation of Official Records:
The Principal Secretary made a handwritten note in Marathi on the official file, which was in English, during the hearing before the CEC. This note was made after the file had been handed over to the CEC, indicating manipulation of the records. The Court found this act deliberate and intended to mislead.

6. Mens Rea and Bona Fide Actions:
Both contemnors claimed their actions were bona fide and without mens rea. The Principal Secretary argued that his opinion was based on a High Powered Committee's decision and that there was no intention to disobey the Court's orders. The Minister claimed he relied on the advice of senior officials due to his limited educational background. However, the Court found these claims unconvincing and noted that the actions were deliberate and intended to favor the units.

7. Apology and Punishment for Contempt:
The contemnors tendered unconditional apologies, which the Court rejected, stating that an apology should be genuine and offered at the earliest opportunity. The Court emphasized that contempt proceedings are personal and punitive, and that exemplary sentences are necessary to uphold the authority of the judiciary. Both contemnors were sentenced to one month of simple imprisonment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the contemnors had deliberately flouted its orders, manipulated official records, and acted with mens rea. The judgment underscores the importance of respecting judicial authority and the rule of law, and it imposes custodial sentences to set an example for others who might disregard court orders due to their power or status.