CHARAN LAL SAHU versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 09-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
CHARAN LAL SAHU 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
OCTOBER 9, 1987 
A 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
13 
Contempt of Court Act, 1971: s.15-Writ Petition by way of public 
interest litigation-Couched in unsavoury language with a designed 
attempt to lower the prestige of the Court-Petitioner issued show cause 
for contempt of Court. 
f--
The petitioner, an advocate, filed the application by way of a 
public interest litigation alleging that the working of the J odges of the 
apex Court was cocktail, based on Western Common Law and Ameri· 
can techniques; that the Court had become a constitotioual liability 
without having control over the illegal acts of Government, and that the 
c 
Court was sleeping over the issues. 
D 
Dismissing the writ petition, 
HELD: The petitioner is prima facie guilty of contempt. The 
petition is clearly intended to denigrate the Court in the esteem of 
the people of India. The allegations are clumsy. It is an intentional E 
attempt at lowering the prestige of the Court as the apex J11dicial Insti· 
tution. [442G, D; 443Al 
The Registry to draw up an appropriate proceeding for contempt 
of court and issue notice to the petitioner. [443Cl 
. .{, 
The petition is an act against public interest. The petitioner has 
certainly overstepped the limit of self restraint so much necessary 
in such litigation. The Registry directed not to entertain any 
public interest litigation application filed by the petitioner in 
future. [443E] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 849 of 
1987. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution ofindia). 
F 
G 
Petitioner·in·person and M.S. Ganesh for the petitioner. 
H 
441 
A 
a 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] I S.C.R. 
K. Parasaran, Attorney General and Ms. A. Subhashini for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
This application has been filed by an Advocate of this Court by 
way of a public interest litigation. It had been listed earlier and learned 
Attorney General had entered appearance on behalf of the Union of 
India. 
c 
We have heard the petition. It has been couched in unsavoury 
language and the petitioner seems to have made an intentional attempt ......J. 
to indulge in mud-slinging against the advocates, this Court in particu-
I 
lar as also other constitutional institutions. Many of the allegations in 
D 
his writ petition are likely to lower the prestige of this Couri as the 
apex judicial institution. At one place in the writ petition, he has 
alleged:-
"Thus the working of the Judges are cocktail based on 
Western Common Laws and American techniques, as such 
unproductive and out dated according to socio-economic 
conditions of the country." 
I.. ,.-. 
E 
At one another place, the petitioner has stated that: 
"This Court has become a constitutional liability without 
having control over the illegal acts of the Government 
...... Thus the people for whom the Constitution is meant 
p 
have now turned down their faces against it which is a 
did-illusionment for fear that justice is a will of the Wisp." 
Yet at another place the petitioner has stated that this Court is 
sleeping over the issues like 'Kumbhkama.' The reading of the writ 
petition gives the impression that it is clearly intended to denigrate this 
q 
Court in the esteem of the people of India. We are of the priam facie 
view that the petition has been drawn up with a designed purpose of 
bringing the Court into contempt and the petitioner is, therefore, 
prima facie guilty of contempt. 
The writ petition has been drafted in a careless manner. At 
H several places the pleadings are meaningless. At several other places 
( 
} 
-
CHARAN LAL v.U.0.1. 
443 
they are contradictory. The allegations are clumsy and several irrele· A 
vant facts have been put into the petition to inflate its size. 
The petitioner has left out no institution from his attempt of 
mud-slinging. We have a feeling that while drawing up the petition the 
petitioner has considered himself to be the only blemishless person 
and everyone else including social institutions to be blame-worthy. We 
are surprised that an advocate practising in this Court with consi· 
derable experience has choosen to act in such an irresponsible manner. 
The writ petition, in our opinion, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 
We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. 
We direct the Registry to draw up an appropriate proceeding for 
contempt and issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him 

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