LexDR. D.C. SAXENA versus HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DR. D.C. SAXENA v. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA JULY 19, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, N.P. SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, .TJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : A1tic/e 121}-Contempt of Cowt-Wiit petition filed before Supreme Corat-Disn1isscd sununalily by the Bench co1nprising Chief Justice of India as one of the Judges~Pctitimzcrfiling a second w1it petition against the Chief Justice of India levelling allegations against and imputing motives to the CJ I for disn1issing his fiJ:r;t 1vn·t petition-Mi/it petition containing inten1perate language and scunilous accusations against the CJI---c.rl allocating the peti- A B c tion to a Bench for hearin5fl'rit petition disn1issed--Conten1pt proceedings D initiated against the petitiollo~Held, allegatiolls made ill respect of the CJ/ in pofonna!lce of his judicial fu!lctioll intc!lded to lower the authmity of a!ld respect for the Cowt a!ld office of the Judge--The allegations sca!ldalise the C'o1ut-Sca11dalising judge or corut tends to b1ing autho1ity and adn1i11istra- tion of justice into disrespect and disregard and tantan1ounts to con- tenzpt-Scrurilous abuse of a judge or cou1t, or attacks on personal chqracter of a Judge are acts of contempt-It is duty of the Chief Justice of a Cowt to assign judicial work to his brother Judges-By assigning the second w1it petition to a Bench, CJ! ~vould not beconie a judge in his own caus~ Petitioner conunitted contenipt of Co1at-Sentenced to sbnple ilnprisonnient for three n1onths. A11icles 19(1) a!ld 19(2), 129 and 2I~Freedom of speech and expres- sion-Held, is subject to A1tic/es 19(2), 129 and 215, in relation to contempt E F of Court, defan1ation or incitelnent to an offenc~Any citizen is entitled to express his opinion about the co1rectness of the judg111ent, order or sentence within dignified alld moderate language, but motives to Judges should not be G attJibuted; it b1ings the adn1inistration of justice into disrespect. Article 32-Writ petitio11-Summa1y disposal of-Heid, it is not obligato1J' to give reasons for disniissing a vv1it petition. Contempt of Cowts Act, 1971 : H 677 A B 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. S. 2(c)-<_'rimi11a/ comempt-W1it petitin11 filed before S11preme Cowt-Co11fai11ini; allq,11tio11s against the Chief Justice nf India for dismissillf? petitioner's earlier ivrit petition-Held, the allegations scandalise the Colu1-Scanda/ising the Court 1-vould n1ea11 hostile c1iticisn1 of jlldf.tCS or co1u1-Tendency to scandalise the co1ut or tendency to loiver the autho1ity or to obstruct the adnzinistration of justice in any 1nan11er or tc11de11cy to challenge the authmity or majesty of j11stice, wo11/d be a uiminal contempt. Me11s rea-He/d i11 comempt proceedings proof of mens rea is 11ot relevant-ft is not necessa1y to establish actual intention on the pa1t of contenuzer to inte1fere ivith adn1inistration ofjustice-lf'lzat is relevant is that the offending act produces interference ~vith or tendency to i11te1fere ~vith the C course of justice. Ss. 4 and 5-Repo11 of judicial proceedings and oiticism of judicial act-Held, a citizen is entitled to b1ing to the notice of puhlic at !arie infi1111itics fro111 1vhich any institution including judicia1y suffers jl·o111, but D personal attack upon a judge in connection 1vith the office he holds is not protected by la1v-171c allegations n1ade by the co11te111ner in the second YPit petition are neither a fair and accurate rcpo11 of the proceedings in the earlier ivrit petition nor a fair criticisn1 thereof-bnputation of i111proper 111otives or bias cannot be justified on the 1uinciple of fair conunent. E Contenipt of Court-Punislunent-Held, contenzpt jraisdiction is in- tended to uphold the aulh01ity and digniO' of coll!1s of law and protect public confidence reJJosed in then1-Punis/11nent is inflicted not for p1uposes of protecting either the coll!t or an individual judge b11t for the lJli!pose of protecting the p11blic. F Practice and Procedure : Pleadings-Held, a pa1tly-in-person or an Ad11ocate has lihe1ty of ex- pression-But they equally oa:e counte1vailing duty to nzaintain dignity, deconan and order in the cou1t proceedings and judicial process-T71ey should not indulge in 1t·1iting in the pleadings scunilous accusations against G a judge or cowt. The contemner, a Professor of English, tiled before this Court a "Tit petition seeking: a direction to the Union of India to recover fron1 the then P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.