CAPTAIN VIRENDER KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 550 · Decided: 16-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, S. MOHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CAPTAIN VIRENDER KUMAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 1993 
B 
(AM. AHMADI AND S. MOHAN, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
Contempt of Coult-Undignified language, unwanmited adjectives in 
petition-Aggressive behaviour in Registry of Cowt-Having regard go his age 
C and physical condition, apology of petitioner accepted. 
The petitioner, an advocate, moved a public interest petition claim-
ing to be motivated to cleanse the judiciary. The petition was found not to 
have been drafted in dignified language and to abound in the use of 
unwarranted adjectives. He was given an opportunity to file a revised 
D petition, but he effected only a change of words in the original petition. He 
was reported to have turned aggressive and issued threats in the Registry, 
and to have insisted that the Court had permitted him to make such 
changes. In a revised petition, he made allegations against the Registry, 
and the Registrar General's report was challenged as false, frivolous and 
E highly mischievous. 
F 
On the Court expressing its displeasure at the language used, he 
tendered an apology. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD: 1. Having regard to his age and his physical condition, his 
apology is accepted notwithstanding the fact that his petition abounds in 
language which is far from dignified. The petitioner in his zeal to project 
himself as a saviour of the judiciary has made allegations against one and 
sundry and sought reliefs which betray confused thinking. Suo motu action 
G is not necessary on such allegations. (552-B-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Diary No. 1705/91. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
H 
Petitioner in person. 
550 
.. 
CAPT. V. KUMAR v. U.0.1. 
551 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
The petitioner, an Advocate of this Court, claiming to be motivated 
by a desire to cleanse the judiciary, moved this petition by way of a public 
interest litigation for certain reliefs directed against Respondents Nos. 1 to 
A 
7 but principally against Respondent No. 3 for suo motu contempt action. B 
When this petition came up for admission before us on 11th February, 1992 
we found that the petition was not drafted in dignified language and 
abounded in the use of unwarranted adjectives. With a view to giving the 
petitioner an opportunity to present a properly drafted revised petition, we 
directed the Registry that if a revised petition is filed, the same may be 
annexed to this petition. Thereafter the petitioner instead of presenting a C 
revised petition replaced a couple of words in the original petition itself. 
On 27th February, 1992 this Court observed that this action was not 
consistent with the order of 11.th February, 1992 by which only a revised 
petition was permitted and amendments in the original petition had not 
been allowed. The report of the Registry was called tu explain why the D 
amendments were allowed. The report filed by the Registry dated 5th 
March, 1992 revealed that the concerned Section Officer had objected to 
the petitioner effecting change of words but the petitioner became aggres-
sive and give threats and insisted on filing the revised petition later and 
reiterated that he was permitted by the Court to correct a few words in the 
present petition. On 6th March, 1992 when the petition came up before E 
the Court, this Court observed that it would like the petitioner to explain 
his conduct as emanating from the Registry's report dated 5th March, 1992. 
A copy of the report was also supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter the 
petitioner filed a revised petition and submitted his explana_lion in the form 
of an affidavit along with Annexures which we did not consider to be F 
satisfactory. Allegations were also made against the Registry and the 
Registrar General's report was challenged as false, frivolous and highly 
mischievous. After hearing the petitioner on 22nd March, 1993, we drew 
his attention to the language used as well as the allegations made therein 
and expressed our displeasure in that regard. Thereafter the petitioner 
filed another affidavit dated 24th March, 1993 to the following effect: 
G 
'That, the petitioner, to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court, has 
the highest respect, faith and regard in the majesty of this Hon'ble 
Court. Tu preserve and pursue this end, he had since 1970s 
invariably taken active part, in npkeeping this citadel of justice - H 
552 
A 
B 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1993)SUPP.1S.C.R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.