Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N. Venkatachaliah, S.C. Agrawal, A.S. Anand, JJ.
Roshan Lal Ahuja - Contemnor
Versus
ABC - Respondent
Con. Pel. No. 289 of 1990
Decided On : 26-11-1992
Undergo simple imprisonment - Claiming the same relief arising – Claim of compensation – Tenant - A special leave petition against his conviction and sentence was filed in this Court and the same was dismissed. However, some observations were made while dismissing the special leave petition in the criminal case, which according to the contemner had absolved him of any moral turpitude in the matter. Consequent upon his conviction, the contemner, after notice, was dismissed from service. He filed Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978 and various interim applications in the said writ petition putting in issue once again his reduction in rank and loss of monetary benefits. He later on amended the writ petition with a view to challenge the order of dismissal also. In the said Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978, rule nisi was issued. Various interim orders also came to be made. One of the interim orders in the writ petition directed the Government to consider the question of entitlement of the contemner to arrears of salary and other benefits and by yet another interim order his reinstatement was ordered with the stipulation that he be so reinstated but only as a fresh entrant. That order reads thus – Held, aspersions and allegations made by the contemner in the offending documents, including the ?note for directions? undoubtedly have the effect of scandalising the Court in relation to its judicial functioning and undermining its dignity. They are an affront to the majesty of law. He has permitted himself the liberty of casting aspersions, wholly unjustified and uncalled for, on the integrity and fairness of the Judges of this Court in the discharge of their judicial functions. He has, thereby, attempted to interfere with the administration of justice. The contemner appears to be addicted to using contemptuous language so as to browbeat the Court. We find, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the contemner guilty of having committed a gross criminal contempt of this Court - If a person committing such gross contempt of court were to get the impression that he will get off lightly it would be a most unfortunate state of affairs. Sympathy in such a case would be totally misplaced ? mercy has no meaning. His action calls for deterrent punishment so that it also serves as an example to others and there is no repetition of such a contempt by any other person - While orders were reserved, after hearing the parties in this contempt petition, the contemner has addressed another communication dated November 18, 1992 along with an annexure titled "Honesty is the worst policy" dated February 18, 1989. We have carefully gone through the contents and the tenor of the communication dated November 18, 1992 and find that it is no way different than the earlier representation and the memorandum of writ petition or the note for directions. The communication is consistent with the persistent defiant attitude of the contemner. The use of the expressions in this communication like "Our courts only prefer and relies to hear the Advocates, the businessmen in the courts who made the courts defunct in this case of the petitioner.... When the Hon?ble Judges closed their eyes and ears then what this small petitioner-in-person, an ordinary powerless citizen, can do except to write and cry for justice ...." are in tune with the earlier contemptuous writings of the contemner. We need not reproduce other expressions, which are equally objectionable and couched in intemperate language. We are satisfied that the criticism by the contemner in this latest communication also is motivated and a calculated attempt to bring down the image of the judiciary in the estimation of the public and it also tends to bring the administration of justice into disrepute – Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Anand, J. - Permissiveness of the judicial system which enabled the contemner to file innumerable petitions claiming the same relief arising out of the same cause of action undeterred by its refusal, on various occasions by this Court, coupled with the indulgence and sympathy shown by this Court, appears to have emboldened the respondent-contemner to cast unfounded and unwarranted aspersions and make scurrilous and indecent attacks against this Court and its Judges in wild, intemperate and even abusive language. Narration of facts to point out the extent to which the contemner has abused the process of the Court and how indulgence and sympathy shown by this Court has been ?exploited? by him is not only desirable but necessary to appreciate how and why contempt proceedings have been initiated against him.
2. Shri Roshan Lal Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as the ?contemner?) was appointed as a Draftsman Grade II in the pay scale of Rs 205-7-240-8-280 in 1964 with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. On June 28, 1970, he was reduced in rank to the post of Draftsman Grade III in the scale of Rs 150-5-175-6-205-EB-7-240. The contemner filed Writ Petition No. 194 of 1970 in the Delhi High Court challenging his reduction in rank. On August 16, 1974, the writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. A letters patent appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Division Bench on December 3, 1974. Special leave petition was preferred in this Court which also failed. The contemner then sought a review of the order in the special leave petition on two different occasions and both the petitions were dismissed. Though the matter should have ended here, the contemner filed yet another Writ Petition No. 32 of 1977 under Article 32 of the Constitution once again putting in issue his reduction in rank from Draftsman Grade II to Draftsman Grade III. That writ petition was, however subsequently withdrawn. It transpires that the contemner was convicted by the Sessions Judge for an offence of attempting to commit murder by shooting at his wife. The conviction was confirmed by the High Court. A special leave petition against his conviction and sentence was filed in this Court and the same was dismissed. However, some observations were made while dismissing the special leave petition in the criminal case, which according to the contemner had absolved him of any moral turpitude in the matter. Consequent upon his conviction, the contemner, after notice, was dismissed from service. He filed Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978 and various interim applications in the said writ petition putting in issue once again his reduction in rank and loss of monetary benefits. He later on amended the writ petition with a view to challenge the order of dismissal also. In the said Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978, rule nisi was issued. Various interim orders also came to be made. One of the interim orders in the writ petition directed the Government to consider the question of entitlement of the contemner to arrears of salary and other benefits and by yet another interim order his reinstatement was ordered with the stipulation that he be so reinstated but only as a fresh entrant. That order reads thus:
In obedience to the interim order (supra) the contemner was reinstated in service during the pendency of the writ petition. He, however, filed another writ petition in the Delhi High Court for the benefits to which he claimed to be entitled consequent on his reinstatement. That writ petition was, at the request of the contemner, transferred to this Court and heard along with Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978. Chinnappa Reddy, J. constituting the Bench with Ranganath Misra, J. (as Hi
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
