Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Indirect Tax Practitioners Association
Versus
R.K. Jain
CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.9 OF 2009 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.15 OF 1997
Decided on : 13-08-2010
(1993) 4 SCC 119 – Relied upon
AIR 1993 SC 1769 – Referred
(b) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) r/w section 2(c), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Freedom of expression – A cherished and zealously guartded right – Any member of public has fundamental right to criticize the functioning of judicial institutions if within bounds – Only when such criticism transgresses all limits of decency and fairness or there is total lack of objectivity or there is deliberate attempt to denigrate the institution – Court would use the power of contempt. (Para 15)
AIR 1936 PC 141; (1978) 3 SCC 339; (1988) 3 SCC 167 – Relied upon
(c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) – Respondent expressing his appreciation for the steps taken by the new President of CESTAT to cleanse the administration – At the same time highlighting irregularities in the transfer and postings of some members and appointment of one member – Editorial, in no way attempting to lower the authority of CESTAT or ridicule it in the eyes of the public (Para 19, 21)
(1999) 8 SCC 308 – Relied upon
50 LJQB 214 – Referred
(d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 13 r/w Articles 129 or 215, Constitution of India – Editorial based on true facts – Truth is valid defence in contempt proceeding – Further, respondent is a whistleblower – He cannot be punished by way of contempt (Para 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
Whether by writing editorial, which was published in Excise Law Times dated 1.6.2009 with the title "CESTAT PRESIDENT SETS HOUSE IN ORDER - ANNUAL TRANSFERS FOR MEMBERS INTRODUCED -REGISTRY IN LINE", the respondent violated the undertaking filed in this Court in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.15 of 1997 and whether contents of the editorial constitute criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, `the Act’) are the questions which need consideration in this petition filed by Indirect Tax Practitioners’ Association, Bangalore under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court;
This petition lacks bona fide and is an abuse of the process of the Court.
Result:
Petition dismissed with cost.
Judgment :-
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Whether by writing editorial, which was published in Excise Law Times dated 1.6.2009 with the title "CESTAT PRESIDENT SETS HOUSE IN ORDER - ANNUAL TRANSFERS FOR MEMBERS INTRODUCED -REGISTRY IN LINE", the respondent violated the undertaking filed in this Court in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.15 of 1997 and whether contents of the editorial constitute criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, `the Act') are the questions which need consideration in this petition filed by Indirect Tax Practitioners' Association, Bangalore under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
2. This Court had, after taking cognizance of letter dated 18.9.1997 written by Justice U.L. Bhat, the then President of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to the Chief Justice of India pointing out that the respondent had published objectionable editorials in 1996 (86) Excise Law Times pages A169 to A179, 1996 (87) Excise Law Times pages A59 to A70 and 1997 (94) Excise Law Times pages A65 to A82 containing half truths, falsehoods and exaggerated versions of the alleged deficiencies and irregularities in the functioning of the Tribunal, initiated contempt proceedings against the respondent which came to be registered as Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.15 of 1997. On 25.8.1998, the respondent filed an undertaking, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below:
"I realize that my approach and wordings in the Impugned Editorials of ELT have given the impression of scandalising or lowering the authority of CEGAT. I state that I had no such intention as I had undertaken the exercise in good faith and in public interest. I sincerely regret the writing of the said Editorials which have caused such an impression.
That I have been advised by my senior counsel -Mr. Shanti Bhushan that in future whenever there are any serious complaints regarding the functioning of CEGAT, the proper course would be to first bring those matters to the notice of the Chief Justice of India, and/or the Ministry of Finance and await a response or corrective action for a reasonable time before taking any other action. I undertake to the court to abide by this advise of my counsel in future."
After taking cognizance of the same, the Court passed the following order:-
"Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent (alleged contemnor) tenders a statement in writing signed by the respondent. We accept the regret tendered by the respondent in the said statement. We also accept the undertaking to Court given by the respondent in the said statement. Having regard to the aforesaid, the contempt notice is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
We express our gratitude to Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina who as assisted the Court at our request."
3. During the pendency of the aforementioned contempt case, the respondent had written detailed letters dated 2.6.2008, 7.7.2008, 23.7.2008, 26.7.2008, 9.8.2008 and 12.8.2008 to the Finance Minister, Government of India highlighting specific cases of irregularities, malfunctioning and corruption in the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). After the notice of contempt was discharged, the respondent wrote two more letters dated 21.10.2008 and 28.2.2009 to the Finance Minister on the same subject and also pointed out how the appointment and posting of Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member CESTAT were irregular. He drew the attention of the addressee to the fact that some of the orders pronounced by CESTAT had been changed. He wrote similar letters to the Revenue Secretary, President, CESTAT, Registrar, CESTAT and the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The particulars of these letters as contained in the reply affidavit filed by the respondent are as under:
LETTERS TO THE FINANCE MINISTER
Letter Date Subject
02-06-2008
CESTAT - Member-Advocate Nexus 07-07-2008 Gold Smuggling - Carrying of gold in soles of the s
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
