Case Law Details
In Re Vijay Kurle (Supreme Court)
Conclusion: 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 4attack 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.
Held: A letter was sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society to the President of India, Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. In the said letter, reference was made to two complaints – one made by the Indian Bar Association, dated 20.03.2019 through alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Vijay Kurle, State President of Maharashtra and Goa of the Indian Bar Association, and the second complaint dated 19.03.2019 made by alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, National Secretary of the Human Rights Security Council. These letters were very lengthy and highly disrespectful, and scandalous and scurrilous allegations had been levelled against 2 Judges of this Court. The number of preliminary issues had arisen which were (i) That the Bench of Justice R. F. Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran could not have taken cognizance of the case because the case was not assigned to them by the Chief Justice and that both the Judges acted as Judge in their own cause; (ii) That the Bench had not suo motu taken notice of the contempt and therefore the Registry could not treat it as a suo motu petition; (iii) That even in suo motu contempt proceedings the consent of the Attorney General was necessary; (iv) That the proper procedure of framing a charge was not followed because the defects at the initial stage could not be cured by later orders/developments; (v) That the Judges were bound to disclose the source of information. It was held that the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society was not addressed to this Court to initiate contempt proceedings. These letters were placed in the office of the Judges of this Court and after taking note of the averments made therein they decided to issue notice of contempt. This was nothing but a suo motu action on reading the complaints and the letter of the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society and hence this could not be termed to be a contempt petition requiring the consent of the Attorney General. It was true that the Chief Justice was the master of the roster and in normal course a matter can be listed before a Bench only on the basis of orders issued by the Chief Justice. However, here the situation was totally different. The Bench took suo motu notice of the allegations made in these two complaints and directed that contempt proceedings be initiated. Thereafter, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and also the principle that the Chief Justice was the master of the roster the Bench directed that the matter might be listed before the Chief Justice for placing it before the appropriate Bench. The Chief Justice, though no doubt, master of the roster, is first amongst the equals and every Judge of the Supreme Court is as much part of this Court as Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The Judges of this Court can exercise their powers under Article 129 of the Constitution which is a constitutional power untrammelled by any rules or convention to the contrary. This, was the proper procedure. If an article, letter or any writing or even something visual circulating in electronic, print or social media or in any other forum was brought to the notice of any Judge of this Court which prima facie showed that the allegation was contemptuous or scandalises the court then that Judge could definitely issue notice and thereafter place it before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for listing it before an appropriate Bench. In the instant case, the disclosure of the information was made in the order itself where it was clearly recorded that the action had been taken on the basis of the letter in response to the complaints made by the alleged contemnors. The source of information was the letter sent by the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society, as was apparent from the order initiating contempt proceedings. Therefore, there was no merit in this plea. 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 was made on them. However, when there was 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 had 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. The entire contents of the complaints amount to contempt. As far as the complaint of Shri Vijay Kurle was concerned, it was nothing but a proxy battle for Shri Nedumpara. This Court convicted Shri Nedumpara for contempt of Court by judgment dated 12.03.2019 and directed Shri Nedumpara to appear so that punishment could be imposed on him for contempt of Court. Both these complaints were sent to the President of India with a view to browbeat this Court so that this Court was terrorised into not taking action against Shri Nedumpara. In a matter which was still pending in so far as imposition of punishment was concerned, Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan had no business sending these communications. These communications were widely circulated on social media. It was also obvious that this was done only with the active connivance and with the consent of Shri Nilesh Ojha since he was the President of the Indian Bar Association. When a member of the body of lawyers sends such a vitriolic communication making scandalous allegations against Judges the head of such body cannot shirk responsibility for the same. The head should either immediately send a contradiction or otherwise it has to be presumed that the complaint has been sent with his knowledge, consent and approval. Therefore, all three i.e. Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan and Shri Nilesh Ojha were working in tandem and making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against the Members of the Bench, probably with the intention that the Members of the Bench would thereafter not take action against Shri Nedumpara. Truth as a defence was 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 Justice R.F. Nariman was biased, there was no material placed on record to support this defence. The allegations were also scurrilous and scandalous and such allegations could not be permitted to be made against the Judges of highest Court of the country.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
A Bench of this Court while dealing with Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.1 of 2019 took note of a letter dated 23.03.2019 received by the office of the Judges of the Bench on 25.03.2019. This was a copy 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, Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. In the said letter, reference was made to two complaints – one made by the Indian Bar Association, dated 20.03.2019 through alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Vijay Kurle, State President of Maharashtra and Goa of the Indian Bar Association, and the second complaint dated 19.03.2019 made by alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, National Secretary of the Human Rights Security Council. It was mentioned that these complaints have not only been sent to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India but also have been circulated in the social media and the complaints were attached as Annexures1 and 2 to the said letter. The Bench took note of the letter and the complaints attached to the said letter and specifically noted the prayers made in both the complaints and found that both the complaints are substantially similar. The Bench on noting the allegations made in the complaints was of the view that scandalous allegations have been made against the members of the said Bench and, therefore, notice was issued to Shri Vijay Kurle, alleged contemnor no. 1, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, alleged contemnor no. 2, Shri Nilesh Ojha, alleged contemnor no. 3 and Shri Mathews Nedumpara, alleged contemnor no. 4. 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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
