Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(Mad) 392

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
G. Rajaram
Versus
T.K. Rajendran, I.P.S., Director General of Police/Chairman Thamizh Naadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Chennai & Another
Contempt Petition No.1273 of 2009 & Sub Application No.400 of 2009
Decided on : 29-01-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Dr.A.E. Chelliah Senior Counsel for M/s C. Vasanthakumari Chelliah, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R. Thirugnanam Special Government Pleader.

Ratios:
a. Under the contempt jurisdiction, the power to punish the contemnor shall be used only when his disobedience to the order of the Court is so willful which would constitute interference in the administration of justice.
b. Under Art.215 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is having an inherent and plenary powers to punish anyone for the contempt committed against it.
c. Article 215 of the Constitution of India does not restrict the power of the High Court from imposing the punishment which it considers to be appropriate and justifiable.
d. Power of the High Court under Art.215 of the Constitution of India is independent from the power available under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
e. While awarding costs or compensation to the affected party under the contempt jurisdiction, the Court must also consider the prejudice and hardship caused to the complainant due to the act of the contemner.
f. Cost or compensation may be awarded to the affected party under the contempt jurisdiction only when the prejudice and hardship to the affected party is real and the interference in the administration of justice is substantial.
g. The object of the law of contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in judiciary and judicial process.
h. The purpose of contempt proceedings is to preserve and maintain the flow of stream of justice in its unsullied form and purity.
i. Any kind of act which is apparent and amounts to depriving a person from obtaining a relief in Court would amount to interference with the administration of justice and a contempt of Court.
j. While exercising contempt jurisdiction, the Courts are to act with due circumspection making appropriate allowances for common human fallings within reasonable limits.
k. Even a possible attempted interference with or obstruction of the Courts of justice is a grave matter which demands proper consideration and action.
l. The officers of the State are to assist the Court in its justice delivery function and should be not only fair to the litigant, but also to the Court.
m. The counter affidavit filed by the officers of the State in the legal proceedings should reflect the true and correct position as borne out in the records.
n. Any statements made by way of counter affidavit in the legal proceeding which are not in conformity with the records would amount to incorrect, rather false statements and if any proceedings are disposed of by way of passing adverse orders against the person who has approached the Court on those statements, it would amount to interference with the administration of justice.

Headnote:(A)Constitution of India-Art.215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.12-Contempt-Affidavit-Falsehood-Recruitment- Compensation -Petitioner, being a head constable contested for the post of sub-inspector both in open category and also in service quota-He appeared in written test and was not called for interview-Candidates who obtained lesser mark were also called for interview-When he filed writ petition in this regard, direction was passed in his favour-Later, respondents filed review in which they stated that the petitioner did not attend written examination and another candidate called for interview belonged to another category and so the petitioner was not eligible to be called for interview-Review was allowed on such statement of the officers-All further proceedings by the petitioner upto the Supreme Court ended against him-Later, Additional Advocate General noticed that the petitioner attended written examination and another candidate also belonged to the same category and he secured less mark than the petitioner and brought the matter to the knowledge of the Court-Court suo motu took up review of the earlier order-Since the petitioner obtained less mark in the interview he could not get selected-Art.215 of the Constitution was interpreted liberally and a substantial compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was directed to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner.
        (B)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.12-Contempt-Punishment-Imposition- Under the contempt jurisdiction, the power to punish the contemnor shall be used only when his disobedience to the order of the Court is so willful which would constitute interference in the administration of justice.
        Power to punish a person shall be used sparingly only when the disobedience is so willful which would constitute interference in the administration of justice. Para 12
        (C)Constitution of India-Art.215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.12-High Court-Court of record-Contempt-Jurisdiction-Extent- Under Art.215 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is having an inherent and plenary powers to punish anyone for the contempt committed against it-Article 215 of the Constitution of India does not restrict the power of the High Court from imposing the punishment which it considers to be appropriate and justifiable-Power of the High Court under Art.215 of the Constitution of India is independent from the power available under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
        This Court being a Court of record, is empowered to punish for contempt of itself in terms of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The High Courts are the superior Courts of record and they have inherent and plenary powers independent of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The power of the High Court to punish for contempt can exclusively be based on Article 215 of the Constitution of India. As against the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act fixing a specified punishment, Article 215 does not restrict the power of the Court to impose the punishment which it considers to be appropriate and justifiable. Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, though the High Court is empowered to only impose the punishment of simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months and send the contemner to civil prison and impose a fine upto a maximum of Rs.2,000/-, under Article 215 of the Constitution, all that the High Court should consider as to whether the quantum of punishment and for that matter, the nature of the orders be it by way of cost or compensation, could meet the ends of justice. Para 16
        (D)Constitution of India-Art.215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.12-Contempt-Jurisdiction-Cost-Compensation-Prejudice- While awarding costs or compensation to the affected party under the contempt jurisdiction, the Court must also consider the prejudice and hardship caused to the complainant due to the act of the contemner-Cost or compensation may be awarded to the affected party under the contempt jurisdiction only when the prejudice and hardship to the affected party is real and the interference in the administration of justice is substantial.
        As against the imposition of punishment where the Court would consider the willful disobedience of the orders of the Court, while awarding costs or compensation, the Court must also consider the prejudice and hardship caused to the complainant due to the act of the contemner and such prejudice and hardship must be real and the interference in the administration of justice is substantial. Para 17
        (E)Constitution of India-Art.215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.12-Contempt-Object-Purpose-Court-Duty-The object of the law of contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in judiciary and judicial process-The purpose of contempt proceedings is to preserve and maintain the flow of stream of justice in its unsullied form and purity-Any kind of act which is apparent and amounts to depriving a person from obtaining a relief in Court would amount to interference with the administration of justice and a contempt of Court-While exercising contempt jurisdiction, the Courts are to act with due circumspection making appropriate allowances for common human fallings within reasonable limits-Even a possible attempted interference with or obstruction of the Courts of justice is a grave matter which demands proper consideration and action.
        The rule of law is a fundamental feature of our Constitution. The right to obtain judicial redress is a feature of its basic structure. The law of contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in judiciary and judicial process. The purpose of contempt proceedings is to preserve and maintain the flow of stream of justice in its unsullied form and purity. Any kind of act which is apparent and amounts to depriving a person from obtaining a relief in Court would amount to interference with the administration of justice. The power of contempt behoves the Court to act with due circumspection making appropriate allowances for common human fallings within reasonable limits. In the event a citizen is denied justice to which he is entitled due to the act of another, such citizen must be reasonably compensated. Even a possible attempted interference with or obstruction of the Courts of justice is a grave matter which demands proper consideration and action. Para 18
        (F)Constitution of India-Art.215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)-Sec.12-Contempt-Officers of State-Duty-Counter-Falsehood-The officers of the State are to assist the Court in its justice delivery function and should be not only fair to the litigant, but also to the Court-The counter affidavit filed by the officers of the State in the legal proceedings should reflect the true and correct position as borne out in the records- Any statements made by way of counter affidavit in the legal proceeding which are not in conformity with the records would amount to incorrect, rather false statements and if any proceedings are disposed of by way of passing adverse orders against the person who has approached the Court on those statements, it would amount to interference with the administration of justice.
        The officers who are otherwise entitled to defend the State are only in the capacity of persons assisting the Court. They should be not only fair to the litigant, but also to the Court. The counter affidavit should reflect the true and correct position as borne out in the records. Any statements made by way of counter affidavit which are not in conformity with the records would certainly amount to incorrect, rather false statements and if any proceedings are disposed of by way of passing adverse orders against the person who has approached the Court on those statements, it would amount to interference with the administration of justice on the one side and for award of compensation to such person who had visited with such orders on other side. Para 23

Judgment

D. MURUGESAN, J.

The petitioner, who is a Scheduled Caste, was appointed as Grade II Police Constable in Chennai City Range and thereafter he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable. He acquired Bachelor Degree in History in the year 1996. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) invited applications for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-98. After the said advertisement, the Board issued another memorandum indicating that the Graduate Head Constables and Constables are to be selected under the 20% quota. The procedure for selection contemplates three stages, namely, (i) physical efficiency test, (ii) written test and (iii) oral interview. To become eligible to take the written test, the candidates should pass physical efficiency test. Similarly, for a candidate to be called for oral interview, he should pass the written test. The selection was zonal wise.

2. The selection process was questioned by various candidates before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the zonal wise selection was invalid. The Tribunal allowed those original applications holding that the zonal wise selection procedure was impermissible under the special rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. That common order of the Tribunal was questioned in a batch of Writ Petition Nos.17639 to 17660 of 2000 etc., before this Court and the same were disposed of with certain directions by order dated 22. 2005. Though the Division Bench held that the zonal wise selections were invalid, it did not interfere with the selections already made, as they were made in the year 1999. The Division Bench also directed in paragraph 73(vi) of the order as follows:-

"Such of the contesting respondents who were not called for interview, shall be called for interview and after coming out successful in the interview, if their cut-off marks is more than the last cut-off marks in the respective category, they shall be directed to undergo medical test and after following the usual formality of police verification about their antecedents, and in the event of those contesting respondents ultimately coming out successful, should be placed on probation and sent for police training which should be followed by their appointment and regularization as per the prescribed regulations."

Apparently, the said directions were issued taking note of the fact that the contesting respondents therein were not called for oral interview, though they had qualified in the written test.

3. As the petitioner was also not called for oral interview, he filed O.A.No.51 of 2003 questioning the selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-98 under 20% quota for departmental candidates as well as 80% quota by way of direct recruitment. He also prayed that he should be called for oral interview for 80% quota. That application came to be transferred to the High Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.36003 of 2005. The said writ petition was allowed on 11. 2005 following the earlier Division Bench order dated 22. 2005 made in W.P.No.17639 to 17660 of 2000 etc., batch.

.4. Upto that stage, there was no problem. The State represented by the Secretary to Home Department, the Director General of Police and the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board preferred Review Application No.73 of 2006 seeking for review of the order dated 11. 2005. The review application was filed mainly on the ground that the petitioner had only competed under 20% quota and as per the conditions for selection, he should complete 100 metres running within 15 seconds. But he failed in that and therefore he was made ineligible to appear for the written test. It was also stated that the petitioner did not appear in the written test. In view of the above submission, the Division Bench found that the directions contained in paragraph 73(vi) of the order dated 22. 2005 would not be appli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document