Re : Vijay Kurle & Ors. vs Re:

1 and 2 were circulated – The tenor of the letters was highly disrespectful, and scandalous and scurrilous allegations were levelled against the two Judges of the Supreme Court – A Bench issued notice to the contemnors and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to hear and decide the contempt case – The alleged contemnors filed applications for discharge of notices issued to them – The main ground for discharge was that the notice sent was not in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Held: The Supreme Court has its own Rules, i.e. The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 and Form I lays down the manner in which notice is to be issued – The only requirement of the Rules and the Form is that the brief nature of the contempt is to be stated in the Form – There is no requirement of giving all the documents with the Form – A perusal of the order whereby contempt proceedings were initiated clearly shows that the grounds for initiating contempt were reflected in the order itself – Therefore, the notice was legal and valid.

Contempt of Court – Supreme Court – Challenge to suo motu proceedings – Two letters dated 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 admittedly signed by contemnor Nos. 1 & 2 were circulated – The tenor of the letters was highly disrespectful, and scandalous and scurrilous allegations were levelled against the two Judges of the Supreme Court – A Bench of Supreme Court issued notice to the contemnors – The contemnors contended that the proceedings are not suo motu proceedings and, therefore, should not have been entertained without the consent of the Attorney-General or SolicitorGeneral – Held: Contempt is basically a matter between the Court and the contemnor – Any person can inform the Court of the contempt committed – If he is to be arrayed as a party then the contempt will be in his name but when the Court does not array him as a party, the Court can on the basis of the information itself take suo motu of the contempt – In the present case, the Court on the basis of the information itself took suo motu note of the contempt and the matter was then placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for listing it before the appropriate Bench – The matter listed was a suo motu contempt petition right from the beginning. Contempt of Court – Supreme Court – Suo motu proceedings – Judge in their own cause – Two letters dated 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 admittedly signed by contemnor Nos. 1 & 2 were circulated – The tenor of the letters was highly disrespectful, and scandalous and scurrilous allegations were levelled against the two Judges of the Supreme Court – A Bench of Supreme Court issued notice to the contemnors – 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 – The contemnors contended that the Bench could not have issued the notice without the matter being placed before it and further that this amounted to them acting as judges in their own cause – Held: The Bench was already dealing with Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019 – The said letters were placed before the Bench – After issuing notice, the bench directed that the matter be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice for placing before the appropriate Bench – This is valid and proper procedure and the Bench did not act as Judge in their own cause – Only notice was issued and thereafter the matter was assigned to another Bench. Constitution of India – Freedom to criticise the judgments of the Court – Held: Any citizen of the Country can criticise the judgments delivered by any Court including the Supreme Court – However, no party has the right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question the bonafides of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to the competence of the Judge – Judges are part and parcel of the justice delivery system.

Contempt of Court – Supreme Court – Suo motu proceedings – Two letters were circulated – The tenor of two letters dated 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 admittedly signed by contemnor Nos.

1 & 2 was highly disrespectful, and scandalous and scurrilous allegations were levelled against the two Judges of the Supreme Court – The notice was issued to all the four alleged contemnors – The contemnor no. 4 filed an application for discharge and his application was allowed – Held: The first letter dated 20.03.2019 by contemnor No. 1 is basically in relation to the order dated 12.03.2019 in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.1 of 2019, in which contemnor No. 4 was held guilty of contempt and notice was issued to contemnor No. 4 for hearing him on issue of punishment – In the meantime, both the contemnors No. 1 and 2 sent these letters praying that action be taken against the members of the Bench of the Supreme Court – The contemnor no. 3 indicated in his discharge application that the letters sent by contemnors no. 1 and 2 were sent with the knowledge and consent of contemnor no. 3 – Also, the contemnor no. 3, while arguing the matter was supporting each and everything said in letters by contemnors no. 1 and 2 – Therefore, all three alleged contemnor nos. 1, 2 and 3 were working in tandem and making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against the members of the Bench of Supreme Court, probably with intention that the members would thereafter not take action against contemnor no. 4 in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.1 of 2019 – Thus, all three alleged contemnors no. 1, 2 and 3 are guilty of contempt.

Holding all three contemnors guilty of contempt, the Court HELD: Powers of the Supreme Court

1.1. A bare reading of 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. [Para 7][1026-F]

1.2 Article 142 also provides that this Court can punish any person for contempt of itself but this power is subject to the provisions of any law made by parliament. A comparison of the provisions of Article 129 and clause (2) of Article 142 clearly shows that whereas the founding fathers felt that the powers under clause (2) of Article 142 could be subject to any law made by parliament, there is no such restriction as far as Article 129 is concerned. The 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. [Para 7] [1027-C-D]

1.3 This Court has framed rules in this regard known as The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. A bare perusal of Rule 3 shows that there are 3 ways for initiating contempt proceedings. The first is suo motu, the second is on a petition made by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, and the third is on the basis of a petition made by any person and where criminal contempt is involved then the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General is necessary. [Paras 17 and 18][1032-G][1033-B-C]

1.4 In exercise of the aforesaid powers the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted by Parliament. Section 15 deals with cognizance of criminal contempt and the opening portion of Section 15 clearly provides that the Supreme Court or the High Courts may take action (i) suo motu (ii) on a motion moved by the Advocate General in case of High Court or Attorney General/Solicitor General in the case of Supreme Court and (iii) on a petition by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General as the case may be. [Para 23][1035-B-D]

1.5 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India held that Section 15 is not a substantive provision conferring contempt jurisdiction and, therefore, is only a procedural section especially in so far as suo motu contempts are concerned. It is thus clear that the powers of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt committed of itself is a power not subject to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the only requirement is to follow a procedure which is just, fair and in accordance with the rules framed by this Court. [Para 29][1039G-H]

2. This Court is clearly of the view that the powers of the Supreme Court to initiate contempt are not in any manner limited by the provisions of the Act. This Court is vested with the constitutional powers to deal with the contempt. Section 15 is not the source of the power to issue notice for contempt. It only provides the procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated and this procedure provides that there are three ways of initiating a contempt – (i) suo motu (ii) on the motion by the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General and (iii) on the basis of a petition filed by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General. As far as suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement for taking consent of anybody because the Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue notice for contempt. This is not only clear from the provisions of the Act but also clear from the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 laid down by this Court. [Para 31][1040-G-H][1041-A-B]

Objections as to issuance of notice

3.1 The only requirement of the Rules and the Form is that the brief nature of the contempt is to be stated in the Form. There is no requirement of giving all the documents with the Form. A perusal of the order whereby contempt proceedings were initiated clearly shows that the grounds for initiating contempt were reflected in the order itself. This order was admittedly sent to the alleged contemnors. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the notice was strictly in accordance with Form-1, which only requires that the notice should briefly state the nature of the contempt. Once the order was attached to the notice that became part and parcel of the notice itself. [Para 32][1042-B-D] Whether these proceedings can be termed suo motu?

4.1 As far as the present case is concerned, the order passed by this Court clearly shows that this Court after taking note of the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society, the annexures attached to this letter and after specifically noting the prayers made in the complaints of alleged Contemnor nos. 1 and

2 along with the allegations made in both the complaints was of the view that the allegations levelled against the Members of the Bench were scandalous in nature and therefore, notice was issued to the alleged contemnors and against Contemnor no. 4 who has since been discharged. [Para 34][1044-B-C]

4.2 When this Court reads the order dated 27.03.2019 in suo motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019 as a whole, it is more than obvious that the Court itself took cognizance of the complaints and the documents thereto as well as the allegations levelled therein. Contempt is basically a matter between the Court and the contemnor. Any person can inform the Court of the contempt committed. If he is to be arrayed as a party then the contempt will be in his name but when the Court does not array him as a party, the Court can on the basis of the information itself take suo motu notice of the contempt. In the present case, the Court on the basis of the information itself took suo motu note of the contempt and the matter was then placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for listing it before the appropriate Bench. The matter has been listed as a suo motu contempt petition right from the beginning and dealt with as such. [Paras 34 and 35] [1044-C-G]

Judge in their own Cause

5. This Court is clearly of the view that the Bench was fully justified in taking note of the letter sent by the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society and the documents annexed thereto which included the complaints sent by alleged Contemnors no. 1 and 2. After issuing notice the bench directed that the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for placing before the appropriate bench. This is valid and proper procedure and the bench did not act as judge in their own cause. Only notice was issued and thereafter the matter was assigned to this bench. [Para 40][1047-F-H] Source of Information

6.1 In the instant case, the disclosure of the information is made in the order itself where it is clearly recorded that the action has been taken on the basis of the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India in response to the complaints made by the alleged contemnors. The complaints of contemnor nos. 1 and 2 were also attached with the letters and after taking note not only of the letter of the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society but also the prayer clauses of both the complaints sent by the alleged contemnors and the scandalous allegations made in the complaints, the notice was issued. The source of information is the letter sent by the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society, as is apparent from the order initiating contempt proceedings. [Para 43][1048-G-H] [1049-A-C]

Freedom to criticise

7.1 There can be no manner of doubt that any citizen of the country can criticise the judgments delivered by any Court including this Court. However, no party has the right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question the bona fides of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to the competence of the Judge. Judges are part and parcel of the 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 the Bar who profess to be the members of an organization having a large following, then the Court cannot shut its eyes to the slanderous and scandalous allegations made. If such allegations which have not only been communicated to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India, but also widely circulated on social media are permitted to remain unchallenged then the public will lose faith not only in those particular Judges but also in the entire justice delivery system and this definitely affects the majesty of law. [Para 48][1051-G-H][1052-A-B]

Defence of Truth

8.1 Truth as a defence is available to any person charged with contempt of Court. However, on going through all the written arguments and the pleadings, other than saying that the Judges had misinterpreted the judgments of this Court or had ignored them or that Judge of the Supreme Court was biased, there is no material placed on record to support this defence. The allegations are also scurrilous and scandalous and such allegations cannot be permitted to be made against the Judges of highest Court of the country. [Para 95][1077-A-C]

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998)

4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795 – followed.

Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Through Registrar 1992 (1) SCALE 416; Pallav Sheth v. Custodian & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 549 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 387; Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 677; In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) 3 SCC 343 : [2002] 2 SCR 213 – relied on.

Biman Basu v. Kallol Guha Thakurta & Another. (2010)

8 SCC 673 : [2010] 10 SCR 631 – inapplicable.

Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court [1954] SCR 454; Shri C. K. Daphtary and Others v. Shri O.P. Gupta and Others (1971) 1 SCC 626 : [1971] Suppl. SCR 76; P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Others (1988) 3 SCC 167 : [1988] 3 SCR 547; Anil Kumar Gupta v. K. Subba Rao and Ors. ILR (1974) 1 Del 1; Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 406 : [1991] 3 SCR 936; In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584 : [1995]

2 SCR 638; Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 254 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 477; Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Others. (2008)

3 SCC 542 : [2008] 4 SCR 701; Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi and Anr. 2019 (4) SCALE

606 – referred to.

The Law of Contempt: Contempt of Courts and

Legislatures, Fifth Edn., Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur (2013) – referred to.