Contempt of Court – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Constitution of India – Articles 129, 142 – Petitioner – Trust filed a large number of cases in Rajasthan and Delhi, canvassed in person by its Chairman – Mr. ‘D’ – 64 different proceedings in the 12 cases filed in the Supreme Court alone – Litigation initiated by the Trust was found to be frivolous – Direction issued to the Trust and Mr. ‘D’ to refrain from filing any cause in public interest before any Court in the country, exemplary costs of Rs.25 lakhs imposed on Mr. ‘D’ – Application filed by him for waiver of the costs, dismissed – Registry was directed to proceed for recovery of costs – Mr. ‘D’ inter alia addressed letter to the Attorney General of India seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against three judges including the then Chief Justice of India and also against certain Registry officers/officials – Continued to scandalise the Court and prevent it from taking action to ensure recovery of costs – Contempt notice issued to Mr.‘D’ – Bailable warrants issued – Apology filed – Held: So-called unconditional apology is again a recital of his alleged grievances in the earlier proceedings seeking to canvas that the proceedings for recovery of costs had actually come to an end which is not correct as it was his endeavour to seek modification of the order of costs – Contemnor has made a profession of filing public interest petitions of subjects he may not know much of and then scandalise the Court to grant him relief failing which he will continue to scandalise the Court – He is guilty of contempt of this Court – His actions to scandalise the Court cannot be countenanced – He continues with his contumacious behaviour – Apologies submitted are only endeavours to get out of the consequences again followed by another set of allegations, thus, a charade – Last apology can hardly be called an apology – There is no remorse on the part of the contemnor – It is a contempt on the face of the Court, however one more chance given to hear him on the question of final sentence.
Directing the listing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The raison d’etre of contempt jurisdiction is to maintain the dignity of the institution of judicial forums. It is not a vindictive exercise nor are inappropriate statements by themselves capable of lowering the dignity of a Judge. These are often ignored but where despite all latitude a perennial litigant seeks to justify his existence by throwing mud at all and sundry, the Court has to step in. [Para 1][1067-B-C]
1.2 The so-called unconditional apology is again a recital of his alleged grievances in the earlier proceedings. It seeks to canvas that the proceedings for recovery of costs had actually come to an end, which was factually not so as it was his endeavour to seek modification of the order of costs. The same was declined while permitting the Registry to take action for recovery. Since the recovery did not take place, the Registry had placed the matter before the Court. The Court has penned down all the details in the present judgment not only to record the conduct of Mr. ‘D’ as Chairman of the Trust prior to the order being passed in WP(C) No.880/2016, but continuously thereafter. In the submissions he sought to suggest that he was compelled to take this course of action to ensure that the proceedings he files in different courts are not interceded or terminated on account of his inability to pay costs. This can hardly be a course of action which is permissible. The State counsel referred to communications addressed by him to the State Government, once again, seeking to threaten the officers who had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. But for the fact that Mr. ‘D’ appears in person and seeks to canvas his case with such clear understanding, it could possibly have given rise to the apprehension that he was not all there. It also appears that he is under constant legal advice beyond his abilities to address the Court by the very nature of pleadings he files. Insofar as Miscellaneous Application No.1630/2020 is concerned, nothing more has to be directed than what was already stated on 06.05.2021, i.e., the State Government should take steps to commence process of recovery of costs as ‘arrears of land revenue’ and the recovery amount be remitted to the beneficiary as per the order already passed in WP(C) No.880/2016 on 01.05.2017. In the direction passed by this Court on 01.05.2017 it was observed “failing deposit, the above costs shall be recoverable from Mr. Rajiv Daiya, its Chairman, through his personal proceeds, if necessary.” In fact, if Mr. ‘D’ had just merely expressed his inability to pay the amount as per his affidavit, the matter could have been left at that, with, of course, the natural consequences as contained in the order dated 01.05.2017 which disabled him from filing public interest litigations. There cannot be a birthright to file public interest litigations and the level of assistance and the nature of causes as canvassed has already been adversely commented upon in the order dated 01.05.2017. M.A. No.1630/2020 is closed with the aforesaid order. [Paras 18, 20-23][1073-C-D, F-H; 1074-A-F]
1.3 There is no absolute licence when appearing in person to indulge in making aspersions as a tendency to scandalise the Court in relation to judicial matters. Motivated and calculated attempts to bring down the image of the judiciary in estimation of public and impair the administration of justice must bester themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law. In the current context if seen, the grievance arises on account of the inability of the contemnor to file public interest petitions on account of costs being imposed, which he claims to be unable to pay and the consequences thereof of not being able to prosecute his petitions, which are large in number. The contemnor has apparently made a profession of filing public interest petitions of subjects of which he may not know much and then seeking to scandalise the Court to grant him relief failing which he will continue to scandalise the Court. [Para 29][1077-B-D] Roshan Lal Ahuja, In Re: (1993) 4 Suppl. SCC 446 – relied on.
1.4 The power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this Court which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment. The notice issued on 09.07.2021 was a composite notice issued to proceed against him as well as to sentence him for his endeavour to scandalise the Court. The contemnor is clearly guilty of contempt of this Court. His actions to scandalise the Court cannot be countenanced. He continues with his contumacious behaviour. The apologies submitted by him are only endeavours to get out of the consequences again followed by another set of allegations, thus, a charade. The last apology can hardly be called an apology seeing the contents. There is no remorse on the part of the contemnor. It is a contempt on the face of the Court by the reason of the pleadings filed by him. This Court is not mandated in view of the aforesaid to give him a hearing on the issue of sentence but would still give him one more chance and, thus, consider it appropriate to list the petition to hear the contemnor on the question of final sentence. [Paras 31-34][1078-F-G; 1079-A-E]
In Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. (2020) SCC Online SC 407; Mathews Nedumpara, In Re, (2019) 19 SCC 454;
Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P (2011) 7 SCC 776 : [2011] 8 SCR 105 – relied on.
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.