Sebastian M. Hongray vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1984 Supreme(SC) 121

COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Sebastian M. Hongray, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 148 of 1983
Decided on 23-4-1984.
Advocates appeared
Ms. Nandita Haksar and Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Advocates, for Petitioner; Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. V. C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. N. Puri, Mr. S. K. Mehta and Mr. Balhir Singh Shant, Advocates with him, for Respondent.

Advocates:
A.Subhashini, Balbir Singh Shant, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, NANDITA HAKSAR, P.N.PURI, S.K.MEHTA, URMILA KAPUR, V.C.MAHAJAN

Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2 (a) and 2 (b) - Affidavit - Custody or control - Army authorities -First respondent-Union of India, second respondent-Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and 4th respondent-Commandant, 21st Sikh Regiment - Pursuant to writ, it was obligatory upon respondents 1, 2 and 4 to file return and to produce C. Daniel and C. Paul - A return on affidavit by one Director, Ministry of Defence dated was produced in Court on stating therein "that with all will and best efforts, respondents are unable to produce for reasons set out in affidavit and crave for indulgence of Honble Court for their inability to produce abovenamed individuals due to circumstances beyond their control - One, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs had also filed return stating that are neither in custody or control of respondent No. 2 - It was stated that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) have been directed to conduct enquiries to locate aforementioned two persons and to intimate the result thereof - Matter was adjourned to enable respondents to pursue their efforts - Nothing fruitful came up even though matter was twice adjourned at request of learned Attorney General who entered appearance on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 - Whether this disobedience is wilful? - Held, Mere failure to obey writ may not constitute civil contempt depending upon facts and circumstances of the case - Court has rejected this submission as untenable and incorrect - On that conclusion one can say that there is a wilful disobedience to writ of habeas corpus by misleading Court by presenting a distorted version of facts not borne out by record - As Court are inclined to direct registration of an offence and an investigation, Court express no opinion as to what fate has befallen to missing two persons in respect of whom the writ of habeas corpus was issued save and except saying that they have not met their tragic end in an encounter as is usually claimed and the only possible inference that can be drawn from circumstance already discussed is that both of them must have met an unnatural death. Prima facie, it would be an offence of murder - Who is individually or collectively perpetrator of crime or is responsible for their disappearance will have to be determined by a proper, thorough and responsible police investigation - Not necessary to start casting a doubt on anyone or any particular person - But prima facie there is material on record to reach an affirmative conclusion that both - If this inference is permissible which Court consider reasonable in facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the Registrar (Judicial) shall forward all the papers of case acompanied by a writ of mandamus to Superintend of Police State to be treated as information of a cognizable offence and to commence investigation as prescribed by relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure - Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT

DESAI, J. :—On Nov. 24, 1983#, the Court by its judgment and order directed that a writ of habeas corpus be issued. The operative portion of the order reads as under (para 34):

# Reported in AIR 1984 SC 571

"Accordingly, this petition is allowed and we direct that a writ of habeas corpus be issued to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 commanding them to produce C. Daniel, retired Naik Subedar of Manipur Riffles and Headmaster of the Junior High School of Huining Village and C. Paul, Assistant Pastor of Huining Baptist Church, who taken to Phungrei Camp by the jawans of 21st Sikh Regiment on March 10, 1982 before this Court on Dec. 12, 1993 and file the return."

The Registry issued the writ and served the same upon first respondent-Union of India, second respondent-Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and 4th respondent-Commandant, 21st Sikh Regiment, Phungrei Camp. Pursuant to the writ, it was obligatory upon respondents 1, 2 and 4 to file the return and to produce C. Daniel and C. Paul. A return on affidavit by one Ajai Vikram Singh, Director, Ministry of Defence dated December 9, 1983 was produced in the Court on December 12, 1983 stating therein "that with all the will and the best efforts, the respondents are unable to produce S/Shri C. Daniel and C. Paul for the reasons set out in the affidavit and crave for indulgence of the Honble Court for their inability to produce the abovenamed individuals due to circumstances beyond their control". It was reiterated that C. Daniel and C. Paul were not in the custody or control of respondents 1, 2 and 4. To this return several affidavits and messages were annexed saying that the Army authorities conducted an extensive search for tracing C. Daniel and C. Paul but nothing fruitful has been achieved. One Surendra Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs had also filed the return stating that C. Daniel and C. Paul are neither in the custody or control of respondent No. 2. It was stated that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) have been directed to conduct enquiries to locate the aforementioned two persons and to intimate the result thereof. The matter was adjourned to enable the respondents to pursue their efforts. Nothing fruitful came up even though the matter was twice adjourned at the request of learned Attorney General who entered appearance on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The writ petition was posted for further hearing and orders on April 19, 1984. On that day, a summary of enquiry made by CBI was submitted to the Court in which it was stated that the field enquiries made by the CBI and the efforts made to locate the two persons have yielded no results and it has not been possible to locate Sri Daniel and Sri Paul. The report was submitted by the Dy. Inspector General of Police (S).

2. It is now necessary to deal with the failure of respondents 1, 2 and 4 to file the return to the writ of habeas corpus. After a preliminary enquiry and after hearing the respondents and after negativing their contentions that Shri C. Daniel and Shri C. Paul were not seen last alive in the custody of the 4th respondent, the Court directed to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus was issued and was served on respondents 1, 2 and 4. In compliance with the mandatory direction contained in the writ of habeas corpus, the person to whom it is, directed is under a legal obligation to produce the body of the person alleged to be unlawfully detained before the Court on the day specified and to make a formal return to the writ (Halsburys Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 11,para 1492 at page 791). Such a writ has been issued and there has been failure to produce the missing persons in respect of whom writ is issused and to file the return as mandated by law.

3. The next question therefore, is: what is the appropriate mode of enforcing obedience to a writ of habeas corpus ?

4. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines Contempt of Court in S. 2 (a) to mean civil c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document