A.M. MATHUR v. PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 110

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, R.M. SAHAI

Case summary

That policy decision was challenged before the High Court by way of writ petitions. The Writ Petitions were allowed by the Division Bench consisting of the Acting Chief Justice Mr.

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special leave granted. Mr. B . M. Lal, J. of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while dismissing an apparently unsustainable review petition has, however, made certain derogatory remarks against Mr. A. M. Mathur. senior Advocate and also the Ex-Advocate General of the State. Mr. Mathur has appealed to this C•>urt for setting aside that order. This matter pertains to a case which has come to be known as M. P. Liquor case. It was with regard to the grant for construction of new distillaries by the policy decision of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. That policy decision was challenged before the High Court by way of writ petitions. The Writ Petitions were allowed by the Division Bench consisting of the Acting Chief Justice Mr. J. S. Verma (as he then was) and Justice B. M. Lal. In those writ petitions, A. M. MATHUR v. P. K. GUPTA [SHETIY, J. [ 113 Mr.

Mathur as Advocate-General appeared and argued for the State Government. Learned Acting Chief Justice delivered the main judgment in the writ petitions invalidating the decision of the Government on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Justice B . M. Lal delivered a separate concurring opinion in which he made highly disparaging remarks attributing mala /ides and underhand dealing to the State Government. Against the judgment of the High Court, several appeals including one by the State of Madhya Pradesh were filed before this Court. The appeal preferred by the St. ;te was argued by the then Attorney General of India assisted by the appellant. This t Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The decision of this Court has since been reported in 1987 1 SCR 1(State ofM. P. v. Nandla! Jaiswal & Ors. ,). Bhagwati, CJ. , speaking for the Court in that case while expressing strong disapproval of the strictures made by B. M. Lal, J.

observed ~ (at p. 66): "We may observe in conclusion that Judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties of their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. Here, in the present case, the observations made and strictures passed by B. M. Lal, J. were totally unjustified and unwarranted and they ought not to have been made. " On or about 3rd June 1988 i. e. after a delay of 738 days Mr. Promod Kumar Gupta, Advocate who had no connection whatsoever with the _ earlier litigation in the writ petitions or appeals, filed a review petition before the High Court. He was representeu by Mr. S. Dixit, Advocate.

In the review petition it was inter alia alleged that the State Government by committing fraud has procured the judgment from the Supreme Court, thereby vitiating the most solemn proceedings of the Apex Court of the Nation. He has also filed an application No. 3858 of 1988 for interim findings on the question of fraud. On 29 October, 1988, the matter was listed for admission before a Bench consisting of learned Judges Mr. C. P. Sen and Mr. B. M. Lal. After arguments, C. P. Sen, J. , seems to have dictated his order in the open Court dismissing the review petition. He expressed the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition a'nd the economically well-to-do parties to the writ petitions who lost their case before this Court did not choose to file any review petition. He also held that the petition for review was not maintainable before the High Court since the decision of the High Court was reversed by this Court.

The petition was also held to be hopelessly barred by limitation and there was no sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay. B. M. Lal, J. did not pass any order on 29 October, 1988. He pronounced his order on 6th February 1989. In this interregnum there was another application from Mr. Gupta. On 25 January 1989, he filed an application in the aforesaid review petition requesting the Court to take judicial notice of some extract of the Vidhan Sabha proceedings and to pass approprite strictures against the appellant. According to him, that extract of the proceedings of the Vidhan Sabha would lend credence to his contention that the State has practised fraud on the Court. That application was not served on the appellant nor the Court gave him any opportunity to file his counter. It may be mentioned that Mr. Mathur has tendered his resignation as Advocate General on 25 January 1989.

On 6 February 1989, the said application was taken on record along with the documents annexed thereby. On the samy day B . M. Lal, J. pronounced his order dismissing the review petiton. The relevant portion of that order is as under: "While briefing about the application for amendment of the return to the Chief Minister Shri Arjun Singh, had Shri A. M. Mathur, Advocate-General acted in bona fide and honest manner, the fraud on the Court would have been avoided. So also the misleadng press statement by the Chief Minister to the Blitz would have been on true facts and this situation would not have arisen; putting the Courts ~ in an embarrassing position. " Continued: "It is the moral duty of a lawyer, much less the Advocate General, to act faithfully for the cause of his client and to furnish information about the Court's proceedings correc- . ' tly.

In the past the chair of Advocate General was adorned by glorious and eminent lawyers who never showed any sycophancy and never suffered from mosaifi. As such, the