Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.L.Hansaria : K.Ramaswamy
J.Vasudevan
Versus
T.R.Dhananjaya
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 9/8/95
Advocates Appeared: George M.T. : Mahale P. : Nagaraja K.R. : Nariman F.S. : Singh Gopal : Veerappa M.
Contempt of courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Sentence of imprisonment – Condo nation of delay - On his own and then brings to our notice statements made by him in the affidavit – Court have perused the affidavit which was verified at Bangalore - It has mentioned sequence of events" leading to his meeting Justice - It states that having read in newspaper, while on a tour to West Bengal, about the judgment of this court imposing sentence on his return to Bangalore he tried to contact to console him. He was informed that was not available in Bangalore and that he was still in Delhi - It was told to the deponent that was in a shock and despair and that the sentence imposed would be implemented within a day or two - This led the deponent to feel that might not bear the punishment and something untoward could happen during his imprisonment. Being a colleague and friend of he could not curb his concern and started wondering whether something could be done to help him – Held, ) COMING to the mercy jurisdiction, let it be first stated that while awarding sentence on a the court does so to uphold the majesty of law, and not with any idea of vindicating the prestige of the court or to uphold its dignity. It is really to see that unflinching faith of the people in the courts remains intact. But, if the order of even the highest court of the land is allowed to be disobeyed and a person found guilty of contempt is let off by remitting sentence on plea of mercy that would send wrong signals to everybody in the country. It has been a sad experience that due regard is not always shown even to the order of the highest court of the country - Now, if such orders are disobeyed, the effect would be that people would lose faith in the system of administration of justice and would desist from approaching the court, by spending time, money and energy to fight their legal battle. If in such a situation mercy is shown, the effect would be that people would not knock the door of the courts to seek justice, but would settle score on the streets, where muscle power and money power would win, and the weak and the meek would suffer. That would be a death-knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow - This court cannot be a party to it and, harsh though it may look, it is duty-bound to award proper punishment to uphold the rule of law, how so high a person may be. It may be stated, though it is trite, that nobody is above the law. The fact that the petitioner is an Indian administrative service officer is of no consequence, so far as the sentence is concerned. We would indeed think that if a high officer indulges in an act of contempt, he deserves to be punished more rigorously, so that nobody would take to his head to violate the courts order - May we also say that a public officer, being a part of the government, owes higher obligation than an ordinary citizen to advance the cause of public interest which requires maintenance of rule of law, to protect which are punished - IT may be stated that while awarding the sentence of imprisonment we had considered submission of to show leniency so far as the question of sentence is concerned and it was stated in the order passed there were no extenuating circumstances", as after promoting nothing at all could have reasonably stood in the way of to get appointed to supernumerary post of Additional Chief Engineer created by the Corporation – petition dismissed
(1) SHRI S. Swatantra Rao has appeared in person and has filed an affidavit. He is examined. On his attention being drawn to what finds place in the order of this court passed on 1/9/1995, he states that what has been mentioned therein as regards his meeting one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) is correct. On being further asked as to whether he had met on his own or at the instance of anybody, his reply is that he had done so on his own and then brings to our notice the statements made by him in the affidavit.
(2) WE have perused the affidavit which was verified at Bangalore on 7/9/19955. It has mentioned the "sequence of events" leading to his meeting Honble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy. It states that having read in the newspaper, while on a tour to West Bengal, about the judgment of this court imposing sentence on Shri J. Vasudevan, on his return to Bangalore he tried to contact Shri Vasudevan to console him. He was informed that Shri Vasudevan was not available in Bangalore and that he was still in Delhi.
(3) ON 29-8-1995 it was told to the deponent that Shri Vasudevan was in a shock and despair and that the sentence imposed would be implemented within a day or two. This led the deponent to feel that Shri Vasudevan might not bear the punishment and something untoward could happen during his imprisonment. Being a colleague and friend of Shri Vasudevan, he could not curb his concern and started wondering whether something could be done to help him.
(4) THE affidavit then mentions about the long and cherished desirs of the deponent to meet Honble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy to seek his good wishes and blessings whom he had met last about four decades ago. It is the concern for Shri Vasudevan and long and cherished desire to meet Honble Ramaswamy, J. which prompted him to come to Delhi and he left Bangalore by East West Airlines on 30/8/1995 which was scheduled to depart at 8 p.m. As the flight was delayed, he reached Delhi around midnight and being of the view that if he were to go to Kamataka Bhavan, he might have to wait for long as its employees would be asleep, he proceeded to Kanishka, an ITDC Hotel, and checked in. Next day morning he rang up Shri Vasudevan at Kamataka Bhavan but he was told that Shri Vasudevan had left the room around 7 a.m. As such there was no chance for him to get in touch with him.
(5) THE deponent states that thereafter he met Honble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy at his residence and the object of this visit was to seek His Lordships blessings and good wishes and also "to beg some mercy for Shri J. Vasudevan". No sooner did he realise that Honble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy resented the prayer for mercy, then he sincerely apologised and left the place and left for Bangalore in the afternoon.
(6) IT is reiterated that neither Shri Vasudevan nor anybody else had suggested him to approach Honble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy and it was his "unsubdued concern as a colleague" which, inter alia, had prompted him to meet Honble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy.
(7) THE further averments made in the affidavit are that the deponent had no intention of influencing the Judiciary and he sought apology for the embarrassment caused to Honble Mr Justice K. Ramaswamy and for the violations made on the judicial ethics. The affidavit ends by saying that the deponent would be careful in future and has prayed "to pardon him for the improprieties" committed under the above circumstances.
(8) THE affidavit thus is clear on one aspect and the same is that the deponent had not met one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) at the instance of Shri Vasudevan. There cannot, however, be two opinions that the act of meeting K. Ramaswamy, J. was most reprehensible and has to be disapproved in the strongest terms. As, however, the deponent has realised the gross mistake committed by him, we are of the view that we may not proceed further with the matter and close the same by ordering that an entry would be made in his C
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
