IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER versus *

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 25-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 580 
A 
IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 23 of 2008) 
·~ 
..,. 
AUGUST 25, 2009 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJI., P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. 
B 
B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Letters Petition - Criminal intimidation of judicial officer, 
of CAT - By police officials - Suo motu writ petition and 
~ 
criminal contempt proceedings before High Court - Criminal 
c Contempt before Patna Bench of CAT - Judicial member's 
letter to Chief Justice of India narrating the incident treated 
as criminal writ petition - State Government accepting the 
a/legation stating that incident occurred because the senior 
police official suffered from mental disarder - Held: The 
D allegations are not without substance - Direction to the High 
Court and Tribunal to proceed with the pending writ petition 
,._ 
....., 
and contempt proceedings - State authorities to decide the 
suitability of the senior police official to be in service -
Direction to Central and State Governments to provide 
E minimum courtesy and adequate security to Members of 
CAT. 
A Judicial Member of Central Administrative Tribunal 
(CAT) during his official stay in a Guest House of the 
~· 
State was criminally intimidated by a high police official 
F (respondent No. 3) and eight other police officials. FIR 
was lodged in this respect. A writ petition and criminal 
contempt was initiated before Jharkhand High Court. 
Patna Bench of CAT also initiated criminal contempt 
proceedings against the police officials. The Judicial 
G Officer wrote letter to the Chief Justice of India narrating 
the incident and requested to take appropriate steps to 
protect members of CAT. The letter was treated as -
~ ... 
criminal writ petition. Respondent-State Government 
........
admitted all the allegations and stated that respondent 
H 
580 
IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER 
581 
-. 
'"' 
No. 3 had acted in haste and under the effect of mental A 
disorder. State Government also state.d that the eight 
police officials had been suspended. Respondent No. 3 
gave unconditional apology stating that the incident was 
unintentional and under the effect of mental disorder. 
' 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. Allegations of criminal intimidation and 
humiliation of the judicial member of CAT at the hands 
8 
of respondent No. 3 and eight other police personnel 
along with her, cannot be said to be without any C 
substance. As the State of Jharkhand had conducted a 
full-fledged enquiry and submitted the report and, 
considering the fact that the writ petition and criminal 
contempt petition are pending in Jharkhand High Court 
and in CAT Bench at Patna, this court does not consider D 
it proper to express any opinion as to what action is 
required to be taken against the erring officers in respect 
of the said incident. [Para 15) [587-C-E] 
2. The concerned Court/Tribunal would proceed in 
accordance with law. It is for the State Authorities to E 
decide as to whether respondent No. 3 fit to render any 
service to the State and if so, in what capacity. [Para 15) 
[587-E] 
3. It is directed that the Union of India and respective F 
States would provide minimum courtesy required and 
adequate security to all the Members of the CAT. 
Necessary instructions be issued to all the authorities/ 
persons concerned under the control of State 
Governments and Union Territories. [Para 16] [587-G-H] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition 
(Crl.) Nos. 23 of 2008. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
H 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
U.U. Lalit, (AC.), Raju Ramachandran, Manish Kumar (for 
!! 
..... 
Gopal Singh), Naresh Kaushik, Subhash Kaushik, Rupesh 
Kaushik (for Sushma ~uri), Anil K. Jha, Manoranjan Kumar Jha, 
Rajiv Kumar Singh, Alok Kumar for the appearing parties. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. e;s. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This case i~ an eye opener 
as it reveals that those who have been assigned the solemn 
~ 
duty to dispense justice are facing criminal intimidation at the 
ljlands of the authorities which have the responsibility to 
c maintain the law and order. 
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition 
are that Shri B.V. Rao, Judicial Member of Central 
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'CAT') was asked by 
D the Hon'ble Chairman of the CAT to hold the Circuit Court at 
Ranchi, Jharkhand from 18.2.2008 to 22.2.2008. After 
,.. 
receiving intimati

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