Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI., D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.
Suraz India Trust - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2016
Decided On : 01-05-2017
(b) Judges Enquiry Act, 1968 – Section 3 – Suraz India Trust challenging validity – Praying for its striking down – Incomprehensible as to why the trust should pursue such a cause? (Para 22)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 129 – On dismissal of writ petition the petitioner Suraz India Trust repeatedly filing contempt petitions against Secretary General and sitting Chief Justice of Supreme Court among others – Wholly groundless, baseless and ill-founded – None of 64 petitions succeeding – All petitions filed by Registry being not maintainable – Not unjustified – Petitioner wasting judicial time of Supreme Court – Serious matter – Suraz India Trust restrained from filing any cause in public interest, before any Court in the country – Similarly, its Chairman Mr. Rajiv Daiya restrained from filing any cause in public interest, either directly or through any other individual, hereinafter, in any Court – Suraz India Trust and/or Mr. Rajiv Daiya directed to place instant judgment on record of all pending matters initiated by them, before Supreme Court or before any other High Court, if they do not decide to withdraw the same unilaterally – Exemplary cost of Rs.25 lakhs imposed for wasting judicial time. (Para 23, 24, 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner Suraz India Trust had filed PIL for striking down section 3 of the Judges Enquiry Act, 1968. Two Judge Bench directed the matter to be placed before larger Bench. Matter was placed before three Judge Bench whereas in petitioners’ perception it should have been placed a Bench of 11 Judges.
Petitioners filed contempt petitions against six Judges of Rajasthan High Court as also its Chief Justice.
Petitioners also filed 64 petitions before Supreme Court alleging contempt against three Judges and the Chief Justice as also the Secretary General.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners should refrain themselves fro filing any PIl in any court in the country. They should unilaterally withdraw any such petition filed in any court in the country.
Result: Writ petition and all other petitions dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25 lakhs.
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.
1. The application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.
2. When the instant writ petition originally came up for hearing on 27.3.2017, this Court passed the following order:
“1. Mr. Rajiv Daiya has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. He is not a qualified advocate, but he appears in this case in-person, on behalf of the Suraz India Trust, in his capacity as its Chairman. We have had the opportunity to hear him on some occasions. In the above view of the matter, the Registry was required to furnish to this Court, details of all the petitions filed by Suraz India Trust. In compliance thereof, the same have been provided to us, in a separate compilation.
2. One set of the aforesaid compilation has been handed over to Mr. Daiya in the Court today. We would request him to respond to the same, so as to enable us to determine whether he should be permitted to file petitions in public interest, on account of the apparent indication in the compilation furnished to him, that he has never succeeded in any petition despite the long list of cases filed on behalf of Suraz India Trust. He may respond, within four weeks from today.
3. Post of hearing on 24th April, 2017.” (emphasis is ours)
3. It is necessary to record, that the details of all the petitions, filed by Suraz India Trust, were placed on the record of this case, by the Registry, on the asking of the Chief Justice (in his administrative capacity). The information had been sought by him, because on earlier occasions, petitions filed by Suraz India Trust (-all raising causes in public interest), were found to be devoid of any merit, and were summarily dismissed. A brief summary thereof, is being extracted hereunder:
“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PIL (WRIT) SECTION
The status of matters filed by Suraz India Trust is given below:
The matters summarized above, were taken up for hearing, in 64 different proceedings. The summary extracted hereinabove, affirms the position, that Suraz India Trust, has not been successful in any matter.
| Sl. No. | Nature of Matter | Date of Filing | Relief Sought | Status/ Remarks |
| 1 | (i) W.P.(C) No. 136/2009 | 26.3.2009 | (a) Direct the respondent Election Commission of India to follow the mandatory provisions of rule 49-B(1) of the Rules of 1961 meant for preparation of balloting unit of voting machine in the forthcoming MP election of 2009 containing such particulars and such language which may enable the Elector to formally express his choice by ballot in case he decides to refrain from voting | Dismissed on 4.5.2009 |
| (ii) R.P.(C) No. 1041/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 136/2009 | 19.5.2009 | (a) The order impugned dated 4.5.2009 may kindly be recalled and reviewed, and the written submissions may kindly be ordered to be taken on record and the same may kindly be ordered to be treated as part and parcel of the review petition, and the notice may kindly be issued to the Election Commission as the onus to prove their action shift upon the respondent in view of the settled proposition of law laid down in the cases and as averred hereinabove in para 6(E), and the writ petition may kindly be ordered to be tagged and adjudicated with the Writ Petition No. 161 of 2004 (PUCL & anr. vs. UOI & anr.) | Dismissed on 15.9.2009 | |
| 2 | (i) W.P.(C) No. 241/2009 | 4.5.2009 | (a) Declare the provisions of rule 2(1)(c), 4(1), 5(3), 5(5)(ii), 6, 7(1)(b), 9(1), 10(1), 10(2) and 12 of the Rajasthan Right to Information (High Court & Subordinate Court) Rules, 2006 as ultra virus same being inconsistent with and in contravention to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 | Dismissed as withdrawn on 14.9.2009 |
| 3 | (i) W.P.(C) No. 280/2009 | 25.6.2009 | (a) Declare the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules | |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
