1. Forgery of Supreme Court order to compel examination for ineligible students — Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 854
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Agrawal : G.B.Pattanaik
Bineet Kumar Singh
Versus
Government Of Maharashtra
Case No. : 403 of 1999
Date of Decision : 5/3/01
Important Points
Utilizing a fabricated court order, knowing it to be incorrect, to obtain undue benefits constitutes gross criminal contempt, regardless of whether the person was the author of the forgery, as such an act interferes with the administration of justice and pollutes the stream of justice.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Contempt of Court
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c) - Constitution of India, Article 129 -Criminal Contempt - Forgery of Court Order - Utilizing a fabricated order of the Court, knowing it to be incorrect, for conferring benefit on persons not entitled to the same, constitutes interference with the administration of justice and amounts to criminal contempt, irrespective of whether the person utilizing the order was the author of the fabrication. (Para 6)
(B) Contempt Jurisdiction - The sole object of wielding power to punish for contempt is to keep the administration of justice pure and undefiled and to preserve proceedings from being misrepresented. While the dignity of the Court must be maintained, contempt jurisdiction is of a special nature and should be used sparingly. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A private institution running a diploma course failed to obtain government permission for an academic year. After several failed legal attempts in the High Court and the dismissal of a special leave petition by the highest court, a forged order was created and submitted to the state government. The forged document falsely stated that while the petition was dismissed, the respondents were directed to immediately conduct examinations for the students. An inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) revealed that the Secretary of the institution and another individual, an employee of the High Court, were aware of the actual dismissal but utilized the forged order to compel the state government to hold examinations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order was proved to be forged and fabricated beyond reasonable doubt. It was established that the Secretary of the institution had utilized the forged order in correspondence with government authorities. Similarly, the High Court employee, who had been present during the dismissal of the special leave petition and had obtained certified copies of the actual order, acted in connivance to use the fabricated order to obtain favorable actions from the government.
Issues: Whether the act of utilizing a known forged order of the Court to obtain an undue advantage constitutes criminal contempt of Court.
Ratio Decidendi: User of a fabricated order to compel a government authority to grant benefits to ineligible persons pollutes the course of justice and is a grave act of contempt. When a person utilizes an order of a Court which they know to be incorrect to obtain an undue advantage, such utilization is sufficient to hold them guilty of contempt, regardless of whether they personally authored the forgery. (Paras 6 and 8)
Result: Two persons found guilty of criminal contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and sentenced to imprisonment for six months; contempt proceedings against the other noticed party dropped.
(B) Contempt Jurisdiction - The sole object of wielding power to punish for contempt is to keep the administration of justice pure and undefiled and to preserve proceedings from being misrepresented. While the dignity of the Court must be maintained, contempt jurisdiction is of a special nature and should be used sparingly. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A private institution running a diploma course failed to obtain government permission for an academic year. After several failed legal attempts in the High Court and the dismissal of a special leave petition by the highest court, a forged order was created and submitted to the state government. The forged document falsely stated that while the petition was dismissed, the respondents were directed to immediately conduct examinations for the students. An inquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) revealed that the Secretary of the institution and another individual, an employee of the High Court, were aware of the actual dismissal but utilized the forged order to compel the state government to hold examinations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order was proved to be forged and fabricated beyond reasonable doubt. It was established that the Secretary of the institution had utilized the forged order in correspondence with government authorities. Similarly, the High Court employee, who had been present during the dismissal of the special leave petition and had obtained certified copies of the actual order, acted in connivance to use the fabricated order to obtain favorable actions from the government.
Issues: Whether the act of utilizing a known forged order of the Court to obtain an undue advantage constitutes criminal contempt of Court.
Ratio Decidendi: User of a fabricated order to compel a government authority to grant benefits to ineligible persons pollutes the course of justice and is a grave act of contempt. When a person utilizes an order of a Court which they know to be incorrect to obtain an undue advantage, such utilization is sufficient to hold them guilty of contempt, regardless of whether they personally authored the forgery. (Paras 6 and 8)
Result: Two persons found guilty of criminal contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and sentenced to imprisonment for six months; contempt proceedings against the other noticed party dropped.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contemnors denied involvement in forgery, arguing lack of benefit and insufficient proof; sought investigation by CBI. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Use of a knowingly forged court order to gain advantage amounts to criminal contempt, even without proving authorship. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Using a forged court order knowing it to be forged constitutes criminal contempt, irrespective of who forged it. (Para 6 , 8 )
5. Both contemnors held guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced to six months imprisonment; proceedings against co-accused dropped. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. What constitutes criminal contempt regarding a forged court order?
Using a forged court order knowing it to be forged, to obtain a benefit, constitutes interference with administration of justice and criminal contempt. (Para 6 , 8 )
7. Is proof of authorship necessary for a criminal contempt conviction based on a forged order?
No. Knowing use of a fabricated order is sufficient for contempt, irrespective of whether the user is the actual forger. (Para 6 )
(1) ON account of a serious disquieting feature in relation to an order passed by this Court, this Court took suo motu cognizance and issued notice as to why the persons involved, should not be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Pursuant to the notice issued, show cause, being one of denial, it necessitated an inquiry and the inquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who on the basis of evidence led before him, has submitted a Report. After getting the said Report, objections were filed on behalf of contemnors and they have been heard at length being represented by their respective counsel.
(2) THE State of Maharashtra, introduced a course in Physical Education called C.P.Ed.Course. A person acquiring the said diploma would be eligible for being considered for the post of a Physical Instructor in the schools.In the recent past, there has been a mushroom growth of private institutions and the founders of such institutions make huge sum of money by admitting students from different parts of the country and by conferring degree or diploma on then. But every such institution requires permission of the concerned State Government as well as the affiliation to any University, failing which the so-called diploma/degree from the institution will be of no use. One such institution with which we are concerned in the present case is Lokmata Indira Gandhi College of Sports, Yavatmal. The institution use to run by late Savitribai Sikshan Prasarak Mandal, Yavatmal (for short referred to as the K.S.S.P. Mandal). The Government of Maharashtra did not grant permission to the institution for the academic year 1994-95 but the institution admitted several students and then persuaded the Government for grant of permission. At later stage, the Government did grant the permission for the academic year 1994-95, so that the students who have already studied in the institution could appear in the examination. An examination was conducted in the year 1996 but many of the students could not appear in the said examination, allegedly because of lack of proper information. K.S.S.P. Madal, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Nagpur High Court for a direction that the remaining students who have already studied for the academic session 1994-95, should be permitted to appear at the examination to be held by the appropriate authority. That application, however was withdrawn by the counsel appearing for the Mandal, as indicated in the order of the Court dated 21/3/1997. A fresh writ petition was filed in the Nagpur High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1005/97, entitled C.P.Ed. Vidhyarthi Sangh through Bineet Kumar Singh. That writ petition was also dismissed on 26/8/1997. An application for review was filed in the High Court, which was registered as Review Petition No. M.C.A. 225/97 and that application stood disposed of by order dated 23/10/1997. The said order stipulates that if the examination is held in future by the State of Maharashtra, then all such students who were the ex-students in the C.P.Ed. Course and who had missed their examination for any cause, would be allowed to appear in the examination and the relief would not be restricted only to those, who have approached the Court, but to the entire student community. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, as no examination was held, a fresh writ petition was filed in the year 1998, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1621/98. This writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court on 8/7/1998. Against the said order of the High Court dated 8/7/1998, a special leave petition was filed in this Court and that special leave petition was dismissed by order dated 28/8/1998. In view of the dismissal of the special leave petition, the so-called students of Mandal, would not get any chance of appearing at any future examination. But an order purported to have been passed on 28/8/1998, was sent to the State of Maharashtra, which i
