Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 96
2009 (II) OLR (SC) — 1
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND A.K. GANGULY, JJ.
Leila David... Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others... Respondents
Writ Petitions (Crl.) No.... of 2009 (D22040 of 2008) with Nos... of 2009 (D24281 of 2008), No... of 2009 (D25985) of 2008), Suo Motu CP (Crl.) No.3 of 2008, Suo Motu(CPs (C) Nos.225 of 2008 in SLP (C) No.8573 of 2003, 226 of 2008 in SLP (C) No.9434 of 2006 and 228 of 2008 in SLP (Crl.) No... CRLMP No.553 of 2007.
Decided on 20th March, 2009.
Headnote:1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Arts. 129, 142 - Contempt proceedings - The Supreme Court has inherent power under Article 179 of the Constitution to punish for contempt of itself - Court also has power under Article 142 of the Constitution - Four persons using offensive, intemperate and abusive language inside Courtroom and one of them even throwing footwear (Chappal) at the Bench.
Per Pasayat, J. - Conduct is contemptuous - No need for issuing any notice - Three months simple imprisonment imposed on contemnors and Registrar directed to take them in custody.
Per A.K.Ganguly, J. - Disagreeing, it was mandatory to follow procedure prescribed in Sec. 14 (1) of the 1971 Act before punishing alleged contemnors - Liberty of those persons cannot be affected in this manner without proceeding against them under Sec.14 of the Act - Sec. 14 is in consonance with a person's fundamental right under Art. 21. (Paras - 1 and 20)
2. CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - Sec. 14 (Per A.K.Ganguly, J.) In initiating a contempt proceeding and when contempt is allegedly committed in the face of the Court, the Court has to inform the alleged contemnors in writing the charge of contempt and then afford them an opportunity to make their defence to the charge and thereafter on taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by the persons and after hearing them, proceed either forthwith or after adjournment to determine the matter of the charge and may make such order for the punishment or discharge of such persons as may be just - Mandatory in nature.
(Paras - 9 and 10)
3. CONTEMPT - (Per A.K.Ganguly, J.) - Court must act with utmost restraint and caution and must follow all the procedural requirements since the liberty of persons is involved.
(Para - 10)
4. CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - Sec. 14(4), 14(1) - (Per A.K.Ganguly, J.) - Under Section 14(4) of the Act, the Court may temporarily take the alleged contemnor in custody but it cannot imprison him/her by way of punishment without following the safeguards under Section 14(1) of the Act.
JUDGMENT
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — Today when these matters were taken up suddenly the contemnors started shouting and used very offen¬sive, intemperate and abusive language and one had even gone to the extent of saying that the Judges should be jailed for having initiated proceedings against them and not interfering with orders by various Judges of the Bombay High Court. They said that Judges are to be punished for not taking care of their so-called fundamental right. One of them even threw a chappal at the Judges. This happened in the presence of the learned Solicitor General of India, two learned Additional Solicitors General and a large number of learned counsel including the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association. This conduct is contemptuous. There is no need for issuing any notice, as the contemnors stated in open Court that they stand by what they have said and did in the Court.
2. The Registrar is directed to take the following four persons into custody from the Court premises :
1. Annettee Koitan d/o A. Kotian r/o 1, Madhav Baug, Brahmin Society, Naupada Thana 400 602; (aged 23 years)
2. Dr. Sarita Parikh d/o Kishor Bansilal r/o F.16, Juhu Apartments, Juhu Road, Juhu, Mumbai 49; (aged 31 years)
3. Leila David w/o Neil David r/o 22, West View, Ist Pasta¬lane, Colaba, Mumbai 5; (aged 75 years)
4. Pavithra Murali d/o Murali r/o Jeevan Akash, Forjett Street, Tardev, Mumbai 36; (aged 23 years)
They shall suffer three month’s simple imprisonment.
3. Rest of the matters shall be listed after three weeks.
A.K. GANGULY, J. (disagreeing) — Today in open Court when Item 37 was called on, the petitioners appeared in person. Sever¬al ladies appeared along with a gentleman and they addressed the Court in very intemperate and offensive language. The address was more against the Members of the Bench than on the merit of the case. To say the least, this is unfortunate. The persons who appeared became very agitated and one of them threw a footwear at the Bench. At the time the learned Solicitor General of India was present in the Court and two other learned Additional Solicitors General of India was present in the Court and two other learned Additional Solicitors General were also present along with a large number of advocates. Ultimately, those agitated persons were actually taken out of the Court by some other advocates and by security personnel.
5. To my mind this is prima facie an incident where provi¬sions of Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (herein¬after “the Act”) can be invoked.
6. Learned Pasayat, J. called for the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and was pleased to pass an order to the following effect (in paras 1 to 3 above) :
“1. Today when these matters were taken up suddenly the contemnors started shouting and used very offensive, intemperate and abusive language and one had even gone to the extent of saying that the Judges should be jailed for having initiated proceedings against them and not interfering with orders by various Judges of the Bombay High Court. That said that Judges are to be punished for not taking care of their so-called funda¬mental rights. One of them even threw a chappal at the Judges. This happened in the presence of the learned Solicitor General of India, two learned Additional Solicitors General and a large number of learned counsel including the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association. This conduct is contemptu¬ous. There is no need for issuing any notice, as the contemnors stated in open Court that they stand by what they have said and did in the Court.
2. The Register is directed to take the following four persons into custody from the Court premises :
1. Annettee Kotian d/o A.Kotian r/o 1, Madhav Baug, Brahmin Society, Naupada Thana 400 602; (aged 23 years)
2. Dr. Sarita Parikh d/o Kishore Bansilal r/o F.16, Juhu Apartments, Juhu Road, Juhu, Mumbai 49; (aged 31 years)
3. Leila David w/o Neil David r/o 22, West View, Ist Pasta¬lane, Co
