LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1171

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, A.K. GANGULY

Case summary

LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 4 S. C. R. 1171 LEILA DAVID v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Writ Petition No. (D 22040 of 2008) MARCH 20, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK Kl,JMAR GANGULY, JJ. ] CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 : s. 14 - Contempt in the face of Supreme Court - During the hearing of a case four litigants committed contempt in the face of the Court - Held : Per Pasayat. J - Conduct of the contemnors is contemptuous - There is no need to issue notice, as contemnors stated in open Court that they stood by what they had said and done in Court - Registrar would take the contemnors into custody - The contemnors shall suffer three months' simple imprisonment - Per Ganquly, J- This is prima facie an incident when provision of s. 14 of the Act can be invoked - The four steps enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of s. 14(1) are mandatory in nature - Under s.

14 though Court may temporarily cause the alleged contemnor to be detained in custody but it cannot imprison him by way of punishment without following the safeguards u/s 14(1) which give effect to fundamental guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution - Court's power is under Article 142 of Constitution is to be exercised in its jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 21, 129 and 142. Dr. LP Misra vs. State of UP (1998) 7 SCC 379- relied on. B. K. vs. TheQueen(1996) 129DLR(4th)500-referredto. "Arlidge, Eady and Smith on Contempt Second Edn. 1999 paragraph 14 - 106" - referred to. By the Court : In view of the difference about the procedure to be adopted matters to be placed before CJ/ - In the meantime, contemnors to remain in custody till the matter is heard by an appropriate Bench. Case Law Reference (1996) 129 DLR (4th) 500 referred to para 20 (1998) 1 sec 379 relied on para 21 Criminal Original Jurisdiction : Writ Petition (Crl. ) 0.

No (S) (022040/2008)................ Of 2009 UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. WITH Writ Petition (Crl. ) No .......................... of 2009 (02428112008) Writ Petition (Crl. ) No....................... Of 2009 (025985/ 2008) Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl. ) No. 3/2008 @ Writ Petition (Crl. ) Nos...................... Of 2009 (022040, 24281 & 25985/2008) Suo Motu Cont. Pet. © No. 225/2008 in SLP(C) 8573/ 2006 .. Suo Motu Cont. Pet. © No. 226/2008 in SLP(C) 9434/2006 Suo Motu Cont. Pet. © 228/2008 in SLP(Crl. ) ....... CRLMP553/2007 G. E. Vahanvati, SGI (A. C. ), Petitioner-in-Person, for the Petitioner. Respondent in Person. The orders of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J. "Today when these matters were taken up suddenly the DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J contemnors started shouting and used very offensive, intemperate and abusive language and even one had gone to the extent of saying that the Judges should be jailed for having initiated proceedings against them.

They said that Judges are not interferring with orders by various Judges of the Bombay 8 High Court, are to be punished for not taking care of their socalled fundamental rights. Even one of them threw a chappal at the Judges. This happened in the presence of the learned Solicitor General of India, two learned Additional Solicitor General and a large number of learned counsel including the President of the Supreme Court Advocate of Record Association. This conduct is contemptuous. There is no need for issuing any notice as the contemnors stated in open Court that they 0 stand by what they have said and did in Court. The Registrar is directed to take the following four persons into custody from the Court premises: 1. Annette Kotian D/o A. Kotian, Rio 1. Madhav Baug, Brahim Society, Naupada Thana - 400602; (aged 23 years) · 2. Dr, Sarita Parikh D/o Kishore Bansilal R/o F. 16, Juhu Apartments, Juhu Road, Juhu Mumbai -49; (aged 31 years) " 51 3.

Leila David W/o Neil David R/o 22, West View 1 Pastalane, Colaba, Mumbai -5; (aged 75 years) 4. Pavithra Murali D/o Murli R/o Jeevan Akash Forjett Street, Tardev, Mumbai -36 ( aged 23 years) They shall suffer three months simple imprisonment. Rest of the matters shall be listed after three weeks. " ASOK KUMAR GANGULI, J. Today in open Court when Item No. 37 was called on, the petitioners appeared in person. Several ladies appeared along with a gentleman and they addressed the Court in very intemperate and offensive language. The address was more against the Members of the Bench than on the merits of the case. To say the least, this is unfortunate. The persons who appeared, became very agitated and one of them threw a footwear at the Bench. At the time the learned Solicitor General 1 of India was present in Court and two other learned Additional Solicitors General were also present along with a large number of advocates.

Ultimately, those agitated persons were actually taken out of the Court by some other Advocates and by security personnel. To my mind this is prima facie an incident where provisions " of Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter the Act) can be invoked. Learned Justice Pasaya! called for the Registrar (Judi. ) of this Court and was pleased to pass an order to the following effect: "Today when these matters were taken up suddenly the contemnors started shouting and used very offensive, ,.. intemperate and abusive language and even one had gone to the extent of saying that the Judges should be jailed for having initiated proceedings against them. They said that Judges are not interferring with orders by various Judges of the Bombay High Court, are to be punished for not taking care of their so-called fundamental rights. Even one of them threw a chappal at the Judges.

This happened ~ in the presence of the learned Solicitor General of India, two learned Additional Solicitor General and a large number of learned counsel including the President of the Supreme Court Advocate of Record Association. This conduct 1s contemptuous. There is no need for issuing .. any notice as the contemnors stated in open Court that they stand by what they have said and did in Court. The Registrar is directed to take the following four persons into custody from the Court premises: 1. Annette Kotian D/o A. Kotian, R/o 1. Madhav Baug, Brahim Society, Naupada Thana - 400602; (aged 23 years) 'lo 2. Dr, Sarita Parikh D/o Kishore Bansilal R/o F. 16, Juhu Apartments, Juhu Road, Juhu Mumbai -49; (aged 31 years) 3. Leila David W/o Neil David R/o 22, West View 1st Pastalane, Colaba, Mumbai -5; (aged 75 years) 4. Pavithra Murali D/o Murli R/o Jeevan Akash Forjett Street, Tardev, Mumbai -36 ( aged 23 years) " They shall suffer three months simple imprisonment.

Rest of the matters shall be listed after three weeks. " His Lordship by this order directed the Registrar (Judi. ) to send persons named above to prison, as according to His Lordship, they have acted in an indecent manner which is •i> apparently contumacious in the face of the Court. His Lordship thus also sentenced them as above. Just before that, the learned Solicitor General has addressed the Court and suggested that instead of taking those persons into custody, the Court may restrain them from entering any Court premises except in cases where they have to answer any charge or defend themselves. In support of the said -. contention the learned Solicitor General of India relied on Arlidge, Eady and Smith on Contempt, Second Edn. 1999 paragraph 14- 106: "14-106: Against that background, the Vice- Chancellor concluded that it would be quite inappropriate to deal with SUPRErvlE COURT REPORTS 1176 [2009] 4 S. C. R.

the matter by way of imprisonment, the purpose of which in such a case "would be to mark the displeasure of the Court about the contempt that had been committed and to punish the perpetrator"". He said that a person suffering from the mental infirmity in question did not require punishment, and the Court's displeasure had been connoted by the judgments the Vice- Chancellor had given. He focused therefore rather upon the need to protect court officials in the future, both in the High Court and in county ~ courts generally, and granted injunctions restraining the bringing of any action of making any claim in an action already brought except by a next friend, the persons were also restrained by injunction from "entering any court premises save as may be necessary to answer subpoenas. " ,/ ra 6 page 381 of the report). Those rules and the provisions of .. Section 14 (1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the said Act are almost similar in • terms.

This Court also held that the power of the High Court under Article 215 has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law (Para 12 page 382 of the repo. rt). The safeguards statutorily engrafted under Section 14 of the Act are basically reiterating the fundamental guarantee given under Article 21 of the Constitution. This guarantee which possibly protects the most precious fundamental right rs against .. deprivation of one's personal liberty "except according to procedure established by law". This Court, being the guardian of this right, cannot do anything by which that right is taken away or even abridged and especially when the Court is acting suo motu.

For these reasons in the instant case, with great respect to His Lordship Justice Pasayat, I cannot agree with His Lordship's view of sending these persons to prison for having ' allegedly committed contempt in the face of the Court without following the mandate of Law under Section 14(1) (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the Act. I am of the view that this Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution is not meant to circumvent clear statutory requirements. The opening words ofArticle 142 shows that the Supreme I, Court shall exercise its power under the said Article "in exercise of its jurisdiction". Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in initiating proceeding for contempt under Section 14 of the said Act must be exercised following the statutory dispensation. In other words, Supreme Court cannot, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142, render salutary provisions of Statute nugatory and otiose.

These provisions as ~ noted above give effect to the fundamental guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, in this view of the matter, I cannot agree with the view expressed in the order of His Lordship, Justice Pasayat, for sending the alleged contemnors to prison for allegedly committing the contempt in the face of the Court without following the mandate of the Statute under Section 14. I, therefore, cannot at all agree with His Lordship's order by which sentence has been imposed. I am of the view that the liberty of those persons cannot be affected in this manner without proceeding against them under Section 14 of the Act. In my opinion Section 14 is in consonance with a person's fundamental right under Article 21. By the Court: In view of the ditterence about the procedure to be adopted the matters may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. In the meantime the contemnors to remain in custody till the matter is heard by an appropriate Bench. R. P.

Referred to larger Bench ' •'