Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 865

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Seema Sapra – Appellant
Versus
Court On Its Own Motion – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S).1238 of 2019 (Diary No.10342 of 2016) With (Interlocutory Application Nos.128666 of 2017, 123144 of 2017, 122625 of 2017, 127773 of 2017, 30030 of 2018, 112422 of 2018 and 110313 of 2019) With Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018 (alongwith C.M.P. No.4015 of 2018 and Interlocutory Application Nos.62789 of 2019, 99303 of 2019 and 61232 of 2019) & Writ Petition (C) No.1027 of 2018 (alongwith C.M.P. Nos.122904 of 2018 and 97450 of 2018)
Decided on : 14-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Seema Sapra In-person (NP)
For the Respondent(s) Annam D. N. Rao, A. Venkatesh, Rahul Mishra, Avni Sharma, Sangeeth M.R., Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
Prayer for recusion cannot be accepted merely for asking.
Prayer of referring matter to a Five Judge Constitution Bench cannot be made even before admission of the appeal.

Headnote:
(a) Administration of justice - Recusion of Judge - 28 Judges of High Court recusing before deciding the writ petition filed by the appellant - Similarly at least three Judges of Supreme Court recusing themselves - Appellant also objecting to appointment of two advocates as amicus curie - Prayer for recusion cannot be accepted merely for asking - Prayer declined. (Para 4, 7, 8, 9, 23)
       (b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19(1) - High Court restraining appellant from appearing before it and its subordinate courts for two years - Prayer for stay of the order - Two years period already over - Prayer for stay granted. (Para 11)
       (c) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - Referring matter to a Five Judge Constitution Bench - Prayer made even before admission of the appeal - Rejected, being premature - Liberty given to appellant to persuade the Court for his prayer at the time of final hearing of the appeal. (Para 17)
       (d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19(1) - Appellant praying for call of record of instant Contempt Case (Crl.) No.2/2014 from the High Court - Appellant also praying for calling of record of two more cases - Registry directed to take steps as per rules in regard to instant case - Prayer for other case records shall be considered at the time of final hearing of instant appeal. (Para 18)
       (e) Practice and procedure - On the basis of some clerical error in the order passed by this Court in the past appellant seeking direction to the registry for proper maintenance of records - Held, no general direction warranted - It is always open to parties to bring it to the notice of the Court for appropriate direction. (Para 20)
       (f) Contempt case arising out of appellant’s utterances before the High Court - No other issue involved - Appellant seeking to bring certain documents on record - Prayer rejected being not relevant. (Para 22)
       (g) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Petitioner praying for action against police officials harassing and assaulting her sexually and seeking protection of her life - Court earlier directed her to file FIR and pursue that remedy - Instead, she filed a writ petition in the High Court - Petitioner given liberty to pursue that remedy and modify the petition or file fresh writ petition if fresh cause of action arises. (Para 25)

       Facts of the case:
       High Court held the appellant guilty of having committed contempt of Court and imposed punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only).
       Finding of the Court:
       Prayer for recusion rejected.
       Result: All writ petitions, Cr. Appeals and I.A.s disposed of.

ORDER :

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 assailing the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 17th December, 2015 holding the appellant guilty of having committed contempt of Court and imposing punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only) to be deposited within a period of three months from the date of the order, failing which undergo a further term of imprisonment of one month with a further direction restraining the appellant to argue as an advocate or -in-person, except in her defence, before any Bench of the High Court of Delhi or any Court or Tribunal subordinate to the High Court of Delhi for a period of two years from the date of passing of the impugned judgment dated 17th December, 2015.

2. The appellant had been exempted from surrendering vide order of the Chamber Judge dated 9th October, 2017. Notice was issued on the applications as well as on the appeal vide order dated 26th March, 2018, which has been duly served.

3. We have heard the parties. During the course of hearing, the appellant-in-person made an oral request that this Bench ought to recuse from hearing the matter which fact has been noted in our order dated 11th April, 2019 while reserving the order. The same reads thus:

“We have heard the petitioner -in-person.
She is at liberty to file additional documents, which were referred to during the course of argument or any further document(s) which she intends to file.
She prays for four weeks’ time to do so.
Appropriate order will be passed after the additional document(s) are filed.
After hearing the petitioner -in-person for almost two hours and this order being dictated, the petitioner submits that this Bench should not hear these matters.
Even this submission will be considered in the order that we may pass after considering the document(s).
Orders reserved.”

4. Instead of filing additional documents in terms of the liberty given to the appellant in the aforementioned order, she moved an I.A. No.62789 of 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018 on 12th April, 2019. We will take it up for consideration while dealing with the main writ petition in which the same has been filed. For the present, suffice to point out that one of the reliefs claimed in the said application is that the cases be listed before a Bench not comprising of one of us (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.). The appellant, however, mentioned the matter on 6th May, 2019 to inform the Court about filing of the said application. Since the mentioning was done before a different Bench, the application could not be taken up for hearing and was directed to be listed on 2nd July, 2019. Again, on 2nd July, 2019, the cases were listed before a different Bench and not the same combination which had heard the matters on 11th April, 2019. It was, therefore, ordered that the cases be listed before the same Bench which had heard the matter on 11th April, 2019 and reserved order therein. Accordingly, the cases were listed on 12th July, 2019 before the specially constituted Bench. After hearing the appellant-in-person, the Court passed the following order:

“We have heard the petitioner-in-person on the applications for issue of appropriate directions/order and for modification of previous Court order, for over one hour.
After hearing the petitioner-in-person for quite some time, we asked her to confine her arguments to the issues which may require our consideration. She submitted that one of us (A. M. Khanwilkar, J.) should recuse. For that, she invited our attention to the averment made in I.A. No.62789 of 2019 in particular. Such request cannot be accepted merely for asking by the petitioner-in-person. Reasons for not accepting that prayer will be elaborated in the order to be passed as noted in our previous order dated 11.04.2019.
It is open to the petitioner to file list of dates and/or any other relevant document(s), if she so desires. That be fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 865

IMPORTANT POINTSPrayer for recusion cannot be accepted merely for asking.Prayer of referring matter to a Five Judge Constitution Bench cannot be made even before admission of the appeal.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Prayer for recusion cannot be accepted merely for asking.
Prayer of referring matter to a Five Judge Constitution Bench cannot be made even before admission of the appeal.