LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS (2)

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 317

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, G.S. SINGHVI, H.L. DATTU

Case summary

LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS (2).pdf

Judgment text

(2009] 15 (ADDL. ) S. C. R. 317 LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Crl) No. D 22040 of 2008) OCTOBER 21, 2009 [ALTAMAS KABIR, G. S. SINGHVI AND H. L. DATTU, JJ. ] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 129 and 142 - Contempt in the face of the Supreme Court - During the course ofhearing, writ petitioners disrupting court proceedings, using offensive, intemperate and abusive language - One of the petitioners throwing an object at Judges - Presiding Judge finding the behaviour of petitioners as contemptuous, held them guilty of criminal -1 contempt of the Court and sentenced them to three months' imprisonment - The other Judge comprising the Bench being of the view that petitioners could not have been punished for contempt without due compliance of s.

14 (a) to (d) of the Contempt of Courts Act, matter referred to 3 Judge Bench - HELD: The Presiding Judge was well within his jurisdiction in passing a summary order having regard to Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution - Though s. 14 of the Act contemplates ... _ + issuance of notice and an opportunity to contemnors, it does not preclude the court from taking recourse to summary proceedings in appropriate case, like the incident of the instant nature which took place within the presence and sight of Judges of the Court, and the public at large and amounted to contempt in the face of the Court and, as such, required to be dealt with at the time of incident itself - The procedure adopted by the Presiding Judge and the sentence imposed on contemnors upheld - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 14. Words and Phrases: ,_ Expression "Contempt in the face of the Supreme Court" \ as occurring in s. 14 of the Contempt of Court Act - Connotation of.

Writ petitions filed by the petitioners/contemnors under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, and the ... , supporting affidavits were found to have contained allegations to be per se contempt of the Court. The r petitioners were asked to withdraw the allegations but they refused to do so and stated that they stood by the ') , • .! "'. " ,0. - '"' -: ,. presided over by Dr. " JUstice Pasayat wa·s Withiri"the· confines ¥~'"! .. ':'J\""":~~ '"'. ' •· ~ ·~1. ' ; ' • ~. -. •""'. ·'"'"·, ·, --r. ,. ... ~ ·• -~- -'l ... ,. _. ~, .. ... _. ,,. ,. , of the--court room· and ·was witnessed b_y a large numbe·r of :""! : • . ;;. ? ' ::'1 "'\ "'. '·,.. ::-- '- -~ ·~. ; : ~ '! ;•'·. '"' '. ~ ·- .! : ..? " 1 + ~":· • -. '• - ~ ". • .. , n - t people and the ·throwing of the footwear was·also aamttted by • _,- ·- •T~, ~· """: ,..... ••... ..... . ' ~ ' r. ,,J ,- '• ,,.. _ ~r '1' '"f'' - ~> ..... ' ~ • ", \ Dr.

Sarita· Parikh, who :without expressing ·any-regret 'for her co-nciuct:sto6lf-by 'wffatslle had cione. , and· was· supported by the-'l ottler~'contemnot~:·' ln'·fhe~llgh(of 's;uch admission; the· ~.. ·. :t~ ~~':" •... ~ ~· .... - .... ~. · . • ,.. ,,. , _.. , =--. (,.. - ...... ~·· "': ........ ,~ ~ ·-- ... ,. ... summa~ procedure followed ·byDr:... Justice Pasayat cannot'be . :Y, 1• • ~"! '.... . '_,:;. ·- l t';.. ~ ~ . ... -.. I , ' "' ,.. ·~ ' .. ~. ')- , ~\ ~ - • , "'" " " f ' fauUed:~•,. - -· ~ · ··-· '-, --- · . : :. . ,.. ,_· c-... ·. -· '- · • ~-s~ ~ ::. :1()•~ .. ·a,,:. t ~V/ :. ;... ~ ~·. . 3. ,.. r -·:-~~.. ~~ ~ --~ ;··1 -•.. . : · . :_; ·... ::. -. :1:·~~ (· ! ;;. -- ; -18. Se'ctiorl' 14'of the Contemptof'Courts Act, 1971, deals: with~contempt ·in·~he·face'of':the. iSuprenie CourFor.. the. High; Court~~ifhe· expression 'fContempt·. in:the face:-Of. the! Supreme:: Court:• has'beetr,interpreted,to mean~. an. incident taking ;place.

within'the·sight'of;the,learned Judges and others presentat the" -E timef'of fhe-. jncrdentr-who had'. witnessed such inciden~: ln~re: Nand Lal Balwani ((1999) 2 SCC 743], it was:held,that. where. an Advocate shouted slogans and hurled a shoe towards the "~ir. ~~-,.... . ,. ~•5- , ..... ... -. • iP- ·- . -f". '. i•"'• "'i'"":·~. 4r -- · "'> ,,. ,. .. ... ,,.. · •· • - Court causing inte_rterence with judicial prpceedings and did not ·:. :~,f:! ;;;>~·-· ' - ~-•L"";. i '.. °'.. ,, ~·,, - . · . , : £ - - .. ,. .. • • . - "'1-r '. ;. ~ ,.... .. lf ... _. _ ~ -'. ~"J. -- . -, ~"' lo-r- "-. ... "' '• •- -·1 ... '1: . ,t. - - P" - ,.. , which heard fhe· matter that 'law ·'does not give- a' lawyer, ·,, ,_.. ,'! '. f"'":-7'•~···~ •. •-? '.... ,, _~ ·1·. ·····-. -"1- . •. •. ,:t! r···~· '· _,.. , "' r- UrlSatisfied with the ·resu1t~of·any litigation;iicence to permit him. ~e'fFtfie=iib~'rty. :tifcauslhg? dis. respect iorthe -court~or- . .... , ............ ,. , ..... lt ~"•..... . : . ~ . ,...

~. ,..... ,' '',p ~. rii'· --. •-4 ,.. •~I " Rs. 2. -000/-. In another deCisibn of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu ;... -, ..... ',,. ~··~~-·('\' . -·, ~' ~ . ,, . ·~- ... ·_ ~ .. ~. -~ . - 'H v~ 'Unlod'of India "iind~ariother [{1988) 3 'SCC 255]; a··petition: I filed by an experienced advocate of this Court by way of a public f interest litigation was couched in unsavoury language and an intentional attempt was made to indulge in mudslinging against the advocates, the Supreme Court and other constitutional ,,.. institutions. Many of the allegations made by him were likely to lower the prestige of the Supreme Court: It was also alleged that the Supreme Court had become a constitutional liability without having control over the illegal acts of the Government.

This Court held that the pleadings in the writ petition gave the- ~ impression that they were clearly intended to denigrate the Su-preme·court in the esteem of the people of India: In the facts of the case, the petitioner therein was prima facie held to be - ~ - ~ '- . guilty of contempt of Court. ,. , 19. Section 14 of the Contempt of, Courts Act no doubt_ contemplates issuance of notice and an opportunity to the 4' D· contemnors t6 answer the charges in the notice to satisfy the principles of natural justice. However, where an incident of the instant nature takes place within the presence and sight of the learned Judges, the same amounts to contempt in-the face of the Court and is required to be dealt with at the time of the inCident itself: This· is necessary for the dignity and majesty of the Courts to be maintained. When an object, such as a footwear, is thrown at the Presiding Officer in a Court ~ + proceeding, the object is not to merely scandalize o-r humiliate +.

L ; < \ the Judge, but to ·scandalize the institution itself and thereby l . . - -. lower its dignity in the eyes of the public. In the instant case, after being giver,i an. opportunity to explain their conduct, not only have the contemnors shown no remorse for their unseemly behaviour, but they have gone even further by filing a fresh writ petition in which apart from repeating the scandalous remarks made earlier, certain new dimensions in the use of unseemly and intemperate language have been resorted to to further denigrate and scandalize and over-awe the Court. This is one of such cases where no leniency can be shown as the contemnors have taken the liberal attitude shown to them by the_. Court as licence for indulging in indecorous behaviour and ( making scandalous allegations not only against the judiciary, but -\. those holding the highest positions in the country.

The writ proceedings have been taken in gross abuse of the process of Court, with the deliberate and wilful intention of lowering the image and dignity not only of the Court and the judiciary, but to ' vilify the highest constitutional functionaries. 20. In such circumstances, while agreeing with the procedure adopted by Dr. Justjce Pasayat in the facts of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the sentence which has been imposed on the contemnors. The order dated 23rd March, 2009, granting bail to the contemnors is hereby recalled. The Secretary General is directed to take the contemnors into custody forthwith and to arrange to have them sent to the appropriate jail to serve out the sentence. 21. Let arrest warrants be issued against Leila David and ~ Pavithra Murali, who are not present in Court today, despite our directions.

The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, is directed to take steps to execute the arrest warrants and to take them into custody and to arrange for their detention in prison in terms of the order passed on 20th March, 2009; and the order being passed today. 22. Let copies of this order be made available to the + ~ Registry for communication to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, forthwith. R. P. Matters disposed of.