Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – An advocate ‘MN’, appearing on behalf of the petitioners attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of the Supreme Court – Held: It was not the first time the advocate in question attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of the Supreme Court – Considering, the course of behaviour of the advocate before Tribunals, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, it was clear that the said advocate embarked on a calculated course of conduct to defeat the administration of justice in this country – In the interest of justice, notice issued to the advocate as to the punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the face of the Court – Advocates Act, 1961.
Constitution of India – Art.32 – Second review – Writ petition, in essence, sought a second review of the judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 766 – Held: Second review petition is barred by Or.XLVII, r.5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Even otherwise, it is settled law that an Art.32 petition does not lie against the judgment of the Supreme Court – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Or.XLVII, r.5. Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. When contempt is committed in the face of the Court, judges’ hands are not tied behind their backs. The majesty of this Court as well as the administration of justice both demand that contemptuous behavior of this kind be dealt with sternly. An early judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, proceeded cautiously, but made it clear that where a judge is personally attacked, it would be proper for the judge to deal with the matter himself, in cases of contempt in the face of the Court. [Para 9] [334-E-F]
2. In Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra, two learned Judges differed on whether contempt in the face of the Court can be dealt with summarily, without any need of issuing notice to the contemnors, and whether punishment can be inflicted upon them there and then. Pasayat, J. held that this is, indeed, the duty of the Court. Ganguly, J. differed. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in Leila David (6) v. State of Maharashtra, settled the law, making it clear that Pasayat, J.’s view was the correct view in law. [Para 10] [335-D-E]
3. Conduct of this kind deserves punishment which is severe. Though this Court could have punished the advocate by this order itself, in the interest of justice, notice issued to advocate in question as to the punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the face of the Court. [Para 13] [339-B-C]
4. Insofar as the Writ Petition is concerned, the Writ Petition, in essence, seeks a second review of the judgment reported in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors. Even otherwise, it is settled law that an Article 32 petition does not lie against the judgment of this Court. Further, Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a provision which cannot be said to be unconstitutional and the designation of Senior Advocate cannot be as a matter of bounty or as a matter of right. [Para 15] [339-B-C]
Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh [1954] SCR 454; Leila David (6) v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 337 : [2009] 15 SCR 317; R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 : [2009] 11 SCR 1026 – relied on.
Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 4 SCC
578 : [2009] 4 SCR 1171; Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 766 : [2017] 10 SCR 478; Ram Niranjan Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2014) 12 SCC 11 : [2014] 4 SCR 583 – referred to.
High Court on its own Motion v. Nedumpara Mathews, Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 9 of 2012 (order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Bombay High Court); Lalita Mohan Tejwani v. Special Recovery Officer, Notice of Motion (L) No. 175 of 2013 in Writ Petition (L) No. 2772 of 2012 (Order dated 20.06.2013 passed by the Bombay High Court); International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Phoenix Alchemy Pvt. Ltd., Company Petition No.
423 of 2010 (order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Bombay High Court); Brian Castellino v. Official Liquidator of M/s. RTec Systems Pvt. Ltd., Official Liquidators Report No. 347 of 2014 in Company Petition No. 452 of 2010 (order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the Bombay High Court); Lalita Mohan Tejwani v. Special Recovery Officer and Sales Officer, Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors., Writ Petition No. 2334 of 2013 (order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court); Anand Agarwal and Anr. v. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar and Ors. Notice of Motion (L) No. 706 of 2017 in Commercial Suit No. 614 of 2017(Order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the Bombay High Court) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.