2009 Supreme(SC) 1659

2009(7) Supreme 154
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Leila David — Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (CRL) No.D 22040 of 2008
Decided on : 21-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, deals with contempt in the face of the Supreme Court or the High Court. The expression “Contempt in the face of the Supreme Court” has been interpreted to mean an incident taking place within the sight of the learned Judges and others present at the time of the incident, who had witnessed such incident.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971– Section 14(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) – Writ petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India, for Writ of Mandamus directing army protection to BOSS School members and their families in India, and for directing criminal proceedings and strongest punishment to judges of Bombay High Court, for being party to the Genocide – Court observed that some of allegations made in the two writ petitions, appeared prima facie to be per se contempt of Court – Court initiated proceedings for contempt – When the hearing commenced, writ petitioners disrupted the proceedings by using very offensive, intemperate and abusive language at a high pitch – One of the writ petitioners, went to the extent of throwing a footwear at the Judges – Since petitioners stood by what they had said and done in Court, His Lordship felt that there was no need to issue any notice and holding them to be guilty of criminal contempt of this Court, inflicted a punishment of three months’ simple imprisonment on them-The said course of action did not meet the approval of the other Judge, who by a separate order of even date, observed that the writ petitioners could not have been punished for contempt without due compliance with the provisions of Section 14(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of Act – Validity – Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act no doubt contemplates issuance of notice and an opportunity to the contemnors to answer the charges in the notice to satisfy the principles of natural justice- However, where an incident of the instant nature takes place within the presence and sight of the learned Judges, the same amounts to contempt in the face of the Court and is required to be dealt with at the time of the incident itself- When an object, such as a footwear, is thrown at the Presiding Officer in a Court proceeding, the object is not to merely scandalize or humiliate the Judge, but to scandalize the institution itself and thereby lower its dignity in the eyes of the - In such circumstances, while agreeing with procedure adopted by Dr. Justice Pasayat in facts of case, no interference called for with sentence imposed on the contemnors (Paras 19 to 21)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Writ petition was filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India,herein in the instant case for Writ of Mandamus directing army protection to BOSS School members and their families in India, and for directing criminal proceedings and strongest punishment to judges of Bombay High Court, for being party to the Genocide .

        2. Court observed that some of allegations made in the two writ petitions, appeared prima facie to be per se contempt of Court . Court initiated proceedings for contempt and observed that charges would be framed- When the hearing commenced, the writ petitioners disrupted the proceedings by using very offensive, intemperate and abusive language at a high pitch.One of the writ petitioners, went to the extent of throwing a footwear at the Judges.

        3. Since petitioners stood by what they had said and done in Court, His Lordship felt that there was no need to issue any notice and holding them to be guilty of criminal contempt of this Court, inflicted a punishment of three months’ simple imprisonment on them.The said course of action did not meet the approval of the other Judge, who by a separate order of even date, observed that the writ petitioners could not have been punished for contempt without due compliance with the provisions of Section 14(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of Act.

       Findings of the Court :

        Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act no doubt contemplates issuance of notice and an opportunity to the contemnors to answer the charges in the notice to satisfy the principles of natural justice. However, where an incident of the instant nature takes place within the presence and sight of the learned Judges, the same amounts to contempt in the face of the Court and is required to be dealt with at the time of the incident itself. This is necessary for the dignity and majesty of the Courts to be maintained. When an object, such as a footwear, is thrown at the Presiding Officer in a Court proceeding, the object is not to merely scandalize or humiliate the Judge, but to scandalize the institution itself and thereby lower its dignity in the eyes of the public. In the instant case, after being given an opportunity to explain their conduct, not only have the contemnors shown no remorse for their unseemly behaviour, but they had gone even further by filing a fresh writ petition in which apart from repeating the scandalous remarks made earlier, certain new dimensions in the use of unseemly and intemperate language have been resorted to to further denigrate and scandalize and over-awe the Court. No leniency could be shown as the contemnors had taken the liberal attitude shown to them by the Court as licence for indulging in indecorous behaviour and making scandalous allegations not only against the judiciary, but those holding the highest positions in the country. The writ proceedings had been taken in gross abuse of the process of Court, with the deliberate and wilful intention of lowering the image and dignity not only of the Court and the judiciary, but to vilify the highest constitutional functionaries. In such circumstances, while agreeing with the procedure adopted by Dr. Justice Pasayat in the facts of this case, no interference called for with the sentence imposed on the contemnors.