1. Petitioners made allegations appearing to be contempt of court and sought arrest of judges. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2008 Supreme(SC) 1951
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM, J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.
Leila David (1) - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra And Others - Respondent
WPs (Crl.) D No. 22040 of 2008 with No. D24281 of 2008.
Decided on : 29-08-2008
Refusal to withdraw prima facie contemptuous allegations in court filings, especially while demanding the arrest of judicial officers, justifies the issuance of notice for the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court - Allegations in petitions and supporting affidavits appearing prima facie to be per se contempt - Refusal to withdraw such allegations and demand for arrest of judicial officers - Issuance of notice for initiation of contempt proceedings. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed petitions and affidavits containing certain allegations. The Court observed that these allegations appeared prima facie to be per se contempt of the Court. Despite being asked to withdraw the allegations, the petitioners refused and instead urged the Court to issue process for the arrest of twelve judges of a High Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court noted the obstinate stand taken by the petitioners in refusing to withdraw the contemptuous averments.
Issues: Whether the conduct of the petitioners in making and refusing to withdraw prima facie contemptuous allegations warrants the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Where allegations in petitions and supporting affidavits are prima facie contemptuous and the parties refuse to withdraw them, the Court is justified in issuing notice to the concerned parties to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them.
Result: Notice issued to petitioners as to why contempt proceedings shall not be issued against them.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners refused to withdraw allegations and insisted on arrest of twelve High Court judges. (Para 2 )
3. Allegations appeared prima facie per se contempt; petitioners took obstinate stand. (Para 2 )
4. Obstinate refusal to withdraw contemptuous allegations warrants issuance of contempt notice. (Para 2 )
5. Notice issued to petitioners to show cause why contempt proceedings not be initiated. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. When may a court issue contempt notice against a litigant?
When allegations made appear prima facie per se contempt and the litigant obstinately refuses to withdraw them. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT :
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.I
Exemption from filing OT is granted.
2. Petitioners, M/s. Leila David and Ms. Annette Kotian are present in this Court. Some of the allegations made in these petitions as well as in supporting affidavit appear prima facie to be per se contempt of this Court. The petitioners were asked to withdraw the allegations, but they refused to do so and submitted that they stand by these averments and strongly urged that this Court should issue process to arrest the twelve Judges of the High Court of Bombay. In view of the obstinate stand taken by these petitioners, there is no other way, but to issue notice to them as to why contempt proceedings shall not be issued against them. Reply, if any, be filed by the petitioners on or before 10-9-2008.
3. Place the matters before an appropriate Bench presided over by Hon'ble Arijit Pasayat, J.
