2020 Supreme(SC) 344

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
RE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS. – ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 2 OF 2019
Decided On : 27-04-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Any citizen can comment or criticise judgment of this Court – However, that citizen must have some standing or knowledge before challenging ability, capability, knowledge, honesty, integrity, and impartiality of a Judge of highest court of land.
(2) When ability, integrity and dignity of Judges are questioned, this is an attack on institution.
(3) Powers of Supreme Court to punish for contempt committed of itself is a power not subject to provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(4) Purpose of having a law of contempt is not to prevent fair criticism but to ensure that respect and confidence which people of this country repose in judicial system is not undermined in any manner whatsoever.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 129 and 142 – Contempt petition – Power under clause (2) of Article 142 is not the primary source of power of Court of Record which is Article 129 and there is no such restriction in Article 129 – In view of fact that power to punish for contempt of itself is a constitutional power vested in this Court, such power cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment. (Para 7)

(B) Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 – Rules 3 and 6 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Constitution of India – Articles 129 and 142 – Suo Motu contempt petition – Section 15 of the Act is not a substantive provision conferring contempt jurisdiction – Powers of Supreme Court to punish for contempt committed of itself is a power not subject to provisions of Act – Only requirement is to follow a procedure which is just, fair and in accordance with rules framed by this Court – Powers of Supreme Court to initiate contempt are not in any manner limited by provisions of Act – This Court is vested with constitutional powers to deal with contempt – Section 15 is not the source of power to issue notice for contempt – It only provides procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated – As far as suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement for taking consent of anybody because Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue notice for contempt. (Paras 29 and 31)

(C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Constitution of India – Articles 129 and 142 – Suo Motu contempt petition – Section 15 of the Act is not a substantive provision conferring contempt jurisdiction – Grounds for initiating contempt were reflected in the order itself – This order was admittedly sent to alleged contemnors – Notice was strictly in accordance with Form1, which only requires that notice should briefly state nature of contempt – Once order was attached to notice that became part and parcel of notice itself – In any event, non-supply of any document would only be an irregularity and not an illegality going to root of matter – Notice was a legal and valid notice – Applications for discharge of notice dismissed – this Court after taking note of letter sent by President of Bombay Bar Association and President of Bombay Incorporated Law Society, was of the view that allegations levelled against Members of Bench were scandalous in nature – Contempt is basically a matter between Court and contemnor – Any person can inform Court of contempt committed – If he is to be arrayed as a party then contempt will be in his name but when Court does not array him as a party, Court can on the basis of information itself take suo motu notice of contempt – In present case, Court on the basis of information itself took suo motu note of contempt and matter was then placed before Chief Justice for listing it before appropriate Bench – Matter has been listed as a suo motu contempt petition right from beginning and dealt with as such. (Paras 32, 34 and 35)

(D) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Constitution of India – Articles 129 and 142 – Suo Motu contempt petition – Judges of this Court can exercise their powers under Article 129 of Constitution which is a constitutional power untrammelled by any rules or convention to the contrary – Even so, Bench in deference to principle of master of roster, after taking cognizance of scandalous allegations made in complaints of alleged contemnors and issuing notice to them directed that matter be placed before Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate Bench – This is proper procedure – If an article, letter or any writing or even something visual circulating in electronic, print or social media or in any other forum is brought to notice of any Judge of this Court which prima facie shows that allegation is contemptuous or scandalises court then that Judge can definitely issue notice and thereafter place it before Chief Justice for listing it before an appropriate Bench – Bench was fully justified in taking note of letter sent by Bombay Bar Association and President of Bombay Incorporated Law Society and documents annexed thereto. (Paras 39 and 40)

(E) Constitution of India – Articles 19(2), 129 and 142(2) – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 5 – Freedom to criticise – Every citizen is entitled to criticise judgments of this Court – Article 19 of Constitution which guarantees right of free speech to every citizen of country must be given exalted status which it deserves – However, right to freedom of speech is subject to existing laws for imposing reasonable restrictions as far as such law relates to contempt of Court – This right of freedom of speech is made subject to laws of contempt which would not only include Contempt of Courts Act but also powers of Supreme Court to punish for contempt under Articles 129 and 142(2) of Constitution – Similar powers are vested with High Courts – Purpose of having a law of contempt is not to prevent fair criticism but to ensure that respect and confidence which people of this country repose in judicial system is not undermined in any manner whatsoever – If confidence of citizenry in institution of justice is shattered then not only Judiciary, but democracy itself will be under threat – Contempt powers have been very sparingly used by Courts and rightly so – Shoulders of this Court are broad enough to withstand criticism, even criticism which may transcend parameters of fair criticism – However, if criticism is made in a concerted manner to lower majesty of institution of Courts and with a view to tarnish image, not only of Judges, but also t Courts, then if such attempts are not checked results will be disastrous – Publishing of any fair comment on merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided does not amount to contempt. (Paras 44 and 45)

(F) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Constitution of India – Articles 129 and 142 – Suo Motu contempt petition – A judge may be right or wrong and a party may criticise judgment on any ground – Any citizen of country can criticise judgments delivered by any Court including this Court – However, no party has right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question bona fides of Judge or to raise questions with regard to competence of Judge – Judges are part and parcel of justice delivery system – By and large Judges are reluctant to take action under contempt laws when a personal attack is made on them – However, when there is a concerted attack by members of Bar who profess to be members of an organization having a large following, then Court cannot shut its eyes to slanderous and scandalous allegations made – If such allegations which have not only been communicated to President of India and Chief Justice of India, but also widely circulated on social media are permitted to remain unchallenged then public will lose faith not only in those particular Judges but also in entire justice delivery system and this definitely affects majesty of law – Alleged contemnors are fighting a proxy battle – Both complaints are ex-facie contemptuous – Highly scurrilous and scandalous allegations have been levelled against two judges of this Court – Entire contents of complaints amount to contempt – Alleged contemnors have unnecessarily and without any reason questioned impartiality of Judges of this Court – Alleged contemnors could have criticised correctness of judgment, but allegation that observations of Justice Nariman amount to contempt of Court or show his poor level of understanding and lack of basic understanding of law is not language which a lawyer is expected to use against a sitting Judge of Supreme Court. (Paras 48, 49, 50, 51 and 57)

(G) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Constitution of India – Articles 129 and 142 – Contempt of Court by Lawyers – Suo Motu contempt petition – Any citizen can comment or criticise judgment of this Court – However, that citizen must have some standing or knowledge before challenging ability, capability, knowledge, honesty, integrity, and impartiality of a Judge of highest court of land – Some members of Bar cannot hold Judiciary to ransom by threatening Judges of initiating criminal action – If this trend is not dealt with firmly then any party against whom a case is decided will start filing criminal cases against Judges – Relationship between Bench and Bar should be a cordial relationship with mutual respect for each other – Lawyers who try to browbeat or threaten judges have to be dealt with firmly and there can be no ill-founded sympathy for such lawyers – Such lawyers do nothing to help legal fraternity much less Bar – Allegations that these Judges are trying to make Court their personal property and are running a syndicate and passing favourable orders to undeserving people to extort money are scandalous and scurrilous and no great discussion is required to hold that they amount to contempt of Court – When any person whether he be a party to the proceedings or not criticizes a judgment of a court he could do so as long as that party does not level allegations of malafide, ulterior motives, extraneous reasons – Alleged contemnor is guilty of having committed contempt of this Court – If Judges start recusing on any such frivolous grounds, it would lead to forum hunting – No litigant has a right to attribute motives to a Judge – No litigant has a right to question integrity of a Judge – No litigant has a right to even question ability of a Judge – When ability, integrity and dignity of Judges are questioned, this is an attack on institution – All three alleged contemnors held guilty of contempt – Matter listed for hearing contemnors on issue of sentence. (Paras 67, 68, 71, 75, 83, 86, 90, 96 and 98)

Facts of the Case:

Basis of the present contempt are the two letters dated 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 admittedly signed by alleged contemnor nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan respectively. The Bench on noting the allegations made in the complaints was of the view that scandalous allegations have been made against the members of the said Bench and, therefore, notice was issued to Shri Vijay Kurle, alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Nilesh Ojha, alleged contemnor no. 3 and Shri Mathews Nedumpara, alleged contemnor no. 4. The Bench also directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench to hear and decide the contempt case.

Findings of the Court:

Complaint sent by Shri Vijay Kurle was in connivance and at the behest of Shri Nilesh Ojha. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that all three i.e. Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan and Shri Nilesh Ojha were working in tandem and making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against Members of the Bench, probably with the intention that the Members of the Bench would thereafter not take action against Shri Nedumpara. tenor of the letters is highly disrespectful, and scandalous and scurrilous allegations have been levelled against two Judges of this Court.

Result : Contempt of Court established. Matter listed for hearing contemnors on issue of sentence.