INRE: ROSHAN LAL AHUJA versus .

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 26-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
A 
INRE: 
ROSHAN LAL AHUJA 
NOVEMBER 26, 1992 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S.C. AGRAWAL AND 
DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Ac4 1971: Section 15-Criminal Contempt-Use 
of abusive language in Writ Petition under Art.32 and in representation to 
President of India with copies to JudgeS-Unf ounded and unwa"anted asper, 
sions on the impartiality and ability of Judges-Effect of scandalising the Court 
and undermining its dignity-Though offered unconditional apology, no. 
remorse or regret shown in subsequent communications-Persistently a"ogant 
defiant and Contemptuous attitude aimed at browbeating the Court-Dete"ent 
punishment-Need for-Criticism of Judgments-Limit of. 
The Contemnor who was an employee in the Ministry of Defonce was 
reduced in rank from Draftsman Grade II to Draftsman Gr. III. He 
challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court which 
A 
B 
c 
D 
was dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by the Division 
Bench. Special Leave Petition was rejected and the Review Petitions also E 
failed. Thereafter, the Contemnor filed a Writ Petition under Art.32 before 
this Court challenging his reduction in rank. However, the Writ Petition 
was subsequently withdrawn by him. 
In the meantime, he was convicted by the Sessions Court for an 
offence of attempt to commit the murder of his wife. The conviction was 
F 
confirmed by the High Court. Special Leave Petition filed against his 
conviction and sentence was dismissed. Consequent upon his conviction, 
the contemnor was dismissed from service. 
The contemnor filed a Writ Petition before this Court again raising 
the issues of reduction in rank, loss of monetary benefits and also dismiss- G 
al from service. Various interim orders were issued, one of which directed 
the Government to consider the question of entitlement of the contemnor 
to arrears of salary and other benefits and another ordering his reinstate-
ment, but only as a fresh entrant. Accordingly, the Government reinstated 
him in service during the pendency of the Writ Petition. He, however, filed H 
257 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
another Writ Petition before the High Court claiming certain benefits on 
his reinstatement. That Writ Petition came to be transferred to this Court, 
and was dismissed. The Writ Petition pending in this Court regarding 
dismissal from service was also dismissed. 
B 
c 
The contemnor filed another Writ Petition before this Court raising 
identical points and seeking similar relief as prayed for in the earlier ·Writ 
Petitions. The matter was heard by a three-Judges Bench and by virtue of 
a majority judgment, the contemnor was directed to be paid a sum of 
Rs.30,000 and a finality was given to the matter. 
After receiving the said sum of Rs.30,000, the contemnor filed yet 
another Writ Petition praying for restoration of the earlier Petitions. This 
Writ Petition was couched in highly objectionable language. The contem-
nor also addressed a representation to the President of India with copies 
to all the Judges of this Court and some othei- authorities as also to the 
Press. In this representation, apart from the unfounded and uncalled for 
D aspersions which have the tendency to scandalise this Court, the contem-
nor also stated that he has been heavily damaged by the Union of India 
and subsequently by this Court by its deliberate, fraudulent, conspired and 
.wilfully pronounced wrong judgm!!nts against al[ the existing provisions of 
law. He~ce t~is Court initiated contempt proceedings against him. 
E 
In response to the contempt notice, the contemnor expressed his 
regret and withdrew the objectionable statements in the petition as also in 
the letter addressed to the President of India. He also offered uncondition-
al apology .. Before the apology could be entertained by this Court, the 
. Contemnor, however, circulated a "note for directions". The implication of 
F 
~he note was that th~ contemnor no more stood by his earlier apology. He 
also di~ not recognise the position of the amicus curiae appointed by this. 
,Court, to defend the contemnor. 
. In response to an opportunity afforded to him by this Court the 
G 
~ontemnor stated that his offence was only technical and sought indul-
gence of this Court to drop the contempt proceed~ugs against him. 
Finding the contemnor guilty of having committed gross criminal 
contempt, this Court, 
H 
. HELD: 1. The' image and personality of the apex Court is an in

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