2021 Supreme(SC) 527

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
SURAZ INDIA TRUST – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA – RESPONDENT
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1630 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.880 OF 2016
DECIDED ON : 29-09-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Raison d’être of contempt jurisdiction is to maintain dignity of institution of Judicial Fora – It is not a vindictive exercise nor are inappropriate statements by themselves capable of lowering the dignity of a Judge.
(2) Power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this Court which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment.

Headnote:

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Constitution of India – Articles 129 and 142 – Contempt of Court – Raison d’être of contempt jurisdiction is to maintain dignity of institution of judicial fora – It is not a vindictive exercise nor are inappropriate statements by themselves capable of lowering the dignity of a Judge – These are often ignored but where despite all latitude a perennial litigant seeks to justify his existence by throwing mud at all and sundry, Court has to step in – There is no absolute licence when appearing in person to indulge in making aspersions as a tendency to scandalise Court in relation to judicial matters – Motivated and calculated attempts to bring down image of judiciary in estimation of public and impair administration of justice must bester themselves to uphold their dignity and majesty of law – Contemnor has apparently made a profession of filing public interest petitions of subjects of which he may not know much and then seeking to scandalise Court to grant him relief failing which he will continue to scandalise Court – Power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this Court which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment – Contemnor is clearly guilty of contempt of this Court – His actions to scandalise Court cannot be countenanced – He continues with his contumacious behaviour – Apologies submitted by him are only endeavours to get out of consequences again followed by another set of allegations, thus, a charade – Last apology can hardly be called an apology seeing contents – Apology cannot be a defence, a justification can be accepted if it can be ignored without compromising dignity of Court – It is a contempt on face of Court by reason of pleadings filed by him – Petition listed to hear contemnor on question of final sentence. (Paras 1, 29, 31, 33 and 34)

Facts of the case:

Court formed a prima facie view that the litigation initiated by the Trust was thoughtless and frivolous. Liberty was granted to Mr. Daiya to make a voluntary statement, if he considered it appropriate that Suraz India Trust will henceforth not file any petition urging a cause in public interest. Thereby, the Court made it clear to him that if he did so the matter would be closed and no further consequences would follow. In the alternative, he was asked to file a response to establish the bona fides of the Trust. Mr. Daiya wanted to prosecute the matter without filing a written response despite opportunity. He claimed to have been dissatisfied by the Court, both on administrative and judicial side, with their manner of dealing with his representations. Thereafter, he forwarded a disparaging communication to residential offices of Hon’ble Judges. so-called unconditional apology is again a recital of his alleged grievances in the earlier proceedings. It seeks to canvas that the proceedings for recovery of costs had actually come to an end, which was factually not so as it was his endeavour to seek modification of the order of costs. The same was declined while permitting the Registry to take action for recovery. Since recovery did not take place, the Registry had placed the matter before Court. Thereafter, he had made a grievance about the charge-sheet served on him by the State Government in terms of his employment, an aspect with which we are not directly concerned with.

Findings of Court:

Article 129 clearly shows that this Court being a Court of Record shall have all the powers of such a Court of Record including the power to punish for contempt of itself. This is a constitutional power which cannot be taken away or in any manner abridged by statute.

Result : Petition listed to hear contemnor on question of final sentence.