9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 10 - SC - Central ExciseIrregularities in CESTAT - whistleblower -- highlighting irregularities in the appointment and some of the orders passed by the Bench - editorial in the journal - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Held that - a person like the respondent can appropriately be described as a whistleblower for the system who has tried to highlight the malfunctioning of an important institution established for dealing with cases involving revenue of the State and there is no reason to silence such person by invoking Articles 129 or 215 of the Constitution or the provisions of the Act - The petitioner is a body of professionals who represent the cause of their clients before CESTAT and may be other Tribunals and authorities. They are expected to be vigilant and interested in transparent functioning of CESTAT. However, instead of doing that, they have come forward to denounce the editorial and in the process misled the Attorney General of India in giving consent by suppressing the factum of appointment of Inquiry Committee by the President, CESTAT. We are sorry to observe that a professional body like the petitioner has chosen wrong side of the law. - Petition for contempt of court dismissed with cost of ₹ 2,00,000
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of undertaking filed in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.15 of 1997. 2. Whether the editorial constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Undertaking: The primary issue was whether the respondent violated the undertaking given to the Supreme Court in 1998 by writing an editorial in 2009. The Court noted that the respondent had previously brought serious complaints to the attention of the Finance Minister, Revenue Secretary, President CESTAT, and other authorities through several letters, but no corrective measures were taken. The Court concluded that the respondent did not violate the undertaking as he had followed the advised procedure by first bringing the issues to the notice of the concerned authorities before writing the editorial. The Court emphasized that the respondent had a history of highlighting the malfunctioning of CEGAT and CESTAT, and his actions were consistent with his past conduct of public interest advocacy. 2. Criminal Contempt: The second issue was whether the editorial intended to scandalize CESTAT or interfere with the administration of justice. The Court examined the content of the editorial and found that it highlighted irregularities in the appointment, posting, and transfer of CESTAT members and mentioned specific orders passed by the CESTAT that were criticized by the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala. The Court observed that the editorial was based on true facts and aimed at enabling the concerned authorities to take corrective measures. It was not intended to scandalize CESTAT or interfere with the administration of justice. The Court noted that fair criticism of judicial institutions is permissible and necessary for their improvement and transparency. Freedom of Speech and Expression: The Court reiterated the importance of freedom of speech and expression, emphasizing that fair criticism of judicial institutions should be allowed to ensure transparency and accountability. It referred to various precedents, including the observations of Lord Atkin and Lord Denning, highlighting that criticism of judicial institutions is permissible as long as it is made in good faith and does not impute improper motives. Whistleblower Protection: The Court recognized the respondent as a whistleblower who highlighted the malfunctioning of CESTAT, and there was no reason to silence him by invoking contempt proceedings. The Court emphasized that whistleblowers play a crucial role in exposing wrongdoing and promoting transparency in public institutions. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the contempt petition, finding that the respondent did not violate the undertaking and that the editorial did not constitute criminal contempt. The Court also criticized the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition and misleading the Attorney General of India. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 2,00,000, with Rs. 1,00,000 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the respondent. Judgment: The judgment was delivered by G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ. on August 13, 2010.
|
