2020 (5) TMI 94 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Statute - applicability of Code of Criminal Procedure in the matters of contempt triable by the High Court - Whether contempt proceedings could said to be the proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) and the Supreme Court had the power to transfer the proceedings from one court to another under the Cr.PC.? HELD THAT - A careful analysis of the Constitution Bench decision leaves no 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 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 - The Court also held that Section 15 is not a substantive provision conferring contempt jurisdiction and, therefore, is only a procedural section especially in so far as suo moto contempts are concerned. It is thus clear that the powers of the Supreme Court 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 as to issuance of notice - HELD THAT - There are no merit in the argument of the alleged contemnors that the notice was not in consonance with the Rules of this Court or in consonance with the principles of natural justice or fair procedure - the notice was a legal and valid notice - the applications for discharge of notice are also dismissed. Whether these proceedings can be termed suo motu? - HELD THAT - 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 made therein they decided to issue notice of contempt. This is nothing but a suo motu action on reading the complaints and the letter of the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society and hence this cannot be termed to be a contempt petition requiring the consent of the Attorney General. Judge in their own Cause - HELD THAT - The Bench was fully justified in taking note of the letter sent by the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society and the documents annexed thereto which included the complaints sent by Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan. After issuing notice the bench directed that the matter be placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice for placing before the appropriate bench. This is valid and proper procedure and the bench did not act as judge in their own cause. Only notice was issued and thereafter the matter was assigned to this bench. Source of information - HELD THAT - The disclosure of the information is made in the order itself where it is clearly recorded that the action has been taken on the basis of the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India in response to the complaints made by the alleged contemnors. The complaints of Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan were also attached with the letters and after taking note not only of the letter of the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society but also the prayer clauses of both the complaints sent by the alleged contemnors and the scandalous allegations made in the complaints, the notice was issued. The source of information is the letter 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 also in the entire justice delivery system and this definitely affects the majesty of law. The complaint sent by Shri Vijay Kurle was in connivance and at the behest of Shri Nilesh Ojha. Therefore, there are no doubt that all three i.e. Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan and Shri Nilesh Ojha were working in tandem and making scurrilous and 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 - HELD THAT - 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 - all three alleged contemnors i.e. Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, and Shri Nilesh Ojha, guilty of contempt. The matter be now listed on 01.05.2020 for hearing the contemnors on the issue of sentence, through video conferencing.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of the Bench to take cognizance of the contempt case.
2. Whether the proceedings were rightly treated as suo motu contempt.
3. Necessity of Attorney General’s consent in suo motu contempt proceedings.
4. Procedural validity of framing charges.
5. Requirement for Judges to disclose the source of information.
6. Examination of the powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution.
7. Analysis of the contemptuous nature of the complaints and the defense of truth.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Bench:
The alleged contemnors argued that the Bench of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran could not have taken cognizance of the case because it was not assigned by the Chief Justice and that the Judges acted as judges in their own cause. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Bench was already dealing with a Suo Motu Contempt Petition and took note of the scandalous allegations, issuing notice accordingly. The matter was then placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate listing, adhering to the principle that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster.

2. Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings:
The alleged contemnors contended that the proceedings were not suo motu and required the Attorney General's consent. The Court clarified that the order dated 27.03.2019 indicated that the Court took cognizance of the complaints and issued notice on its own, thus rightly treating the matter as suo motu contempt. The Court emphasized that contempt is a matter between the Court and the contemnor, and any person can inform the Court of the contempt committed.

3. Consent of Attorney General:
The alleged contemnors argued that even in suo motu contempt proceedings, the consent of the Attorney General is necessary. The Court held that in suo motu petitions, there is no requirement for the consent of the Attorney General, as the Court exercises its inherent powers to issue notice for contempt.

4. Procedural Validity of Framing Charges:
The alleged contemnors raised objections regarding the procedural validity of framing charges. The Court held that the notice issued was in accordance with Form I of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, which only requires a brief statement of the nature of the contempt. The order initiating contempt proceedings was attached to the notice, fulfilling the requirement.

5. Source of Information:
The alleged contemnors argued that the Bench should have disclosed the source of information. The Court referred to the order initiating contempt proceedings, which clearly stated that the action was based on the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society. The source of information was thus disclosed in the order itself.

6. Powers of the Supreme Court:
The Court discussed its powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the Supreme Court, being a Court of Record, has the inherent power to punish for contempt. This constitutional power cannot be abridged or taken away by statute. The Court referred to various judgments, including Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court and Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, to affirm that the Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt is not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

7. Contemptuous Nature of the Complaints and Defense of Truth:
The Court examined the complaints filed by Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, finding them to be highly disrespectful, scandalous, and containing scurrilous allegations against the Judges. The complaints were seen as an attempt to intimidate the Judges and lower the dignity of the Court. The Court rejected the defense of truth, finding no material to support the allegations. The Court held all three alleged contemnors—Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, and Shri Nilesh Ojha—guilty of contempt, noting that the complaints were sent in coordination with each other and with the intention to browbeat the Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent powers under Articles 129 and 142, found the alleged contemnors guilty of contempt for making scandalous and scurrilous allegations against the Judges. The Court emphasized that such actions undermine the authority and dignity of the judiciary and must be dealt with sternly. The matter was listed for hearing on the issue of sentence.