J. VASUDEVAN versus T.R. DHANANJAYA

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 08-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Rejected
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
J. VASUDEVAN 
v. 
T.R. DHANANJAYA 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1995 
B 
[K.RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India : 
Article 129-Contempt of Court-Contemnor a State Government Of-
C ficial-Wilful disobedience of order of Court-Sentence of imp1isomnent 
awarded-Application for remission of sentence invoking mercy jurisdic-
tion-Rejected in interest of administration of justice. 
Judicial ethics-Violation of-An officer of State Government sen-
tenced for committing contempt of Court-His co/legue approaching one of 
D the Judges comprising the Bench-His conduct held most reprehensible and 
disapproved-Directions given to make entries in his CCR about gross im-
propriety committed by him. 
E 
F 
The appellant-Contemnor was, on 24.8.95, awarded the sentence of 
simple imprisonment for one month by this Court for wilful disobedience 
of its orders. The applicant filed the instant applications with a prayer for 
remission of the sentence in.voking mercy jurisdiction of the Court. 
Meanwhile a collegue and friend of the appellant approached one of the 
Hon'ble Judges comprising the Bench which passed the sentence. The 
Court issued notice to him. He filed an affidavit stating that he did not 
meet the Hon'ble Judge at the instances of the contemnor. or an.ybody else. 
He sought apology for the violation he made on the judicial ethics. 
Rejecting the applications, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. While awarding sentence on a contemnor, the Court 
G does so to uphold the majesty of law, and not with any idea vindicating the 
prestige of the Court or to uphold its dignity. It is really to see that 
unflinching faith of the people in the courts remain intact. But, if the order 
of even the highest court of the land is allowed to be wilfully disobeyed and 
a· person found guilty of contempt is let off by remitting sentence on plea 
H of mercy, that would sent wrong signals to everybody in the country. It has 
438 
J. VASUDEVAN v. T.R. DHANANJAYA 
439 
been a sad experience that due regard is not always shown even to the order A 
of the highest court of the country. Now, if such orders are disobeyed, the 
effect would be that people would lose faith in the system of administration 
of justice and would desist from approaching the Court, spending time, 
money and energy to fight their legal battle. (443-B-C) 
1.2. A public officer, being a part of Government, owes higher obliga-
tion than an ordinary citizen to advance the cause of public interest, which 
requires maintenance of rule of law, for the protection of which contem-
nors are punished. [443-F) 
2. The act of meeting of the Hon'ble Judge of the Court was most 
reprehensible and has to be disapproved in the strongest terms. As, 
however, the officer has realised the gross mistake committed by him, the 
matter is closed by ordering that an entry would be made in his CCR about 
the gross impropriety committed by him in meeting the Hon'ble Judge. 
(441-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 4 & 5 of 1995. 
IN 
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 234 OF 1994 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 797 of 1993 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.1991 of the Karnataka 
Administrative Tribunal in Bangalore in A. No. 1443 of 1991. 
F.S. Nariman, KR. Nagaraja, for the Petitioner/Appellant. 
M. Veerappa, P. Mahale, M. T. George and Gopal Singh, (N.P.) for 
the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Shri S. Swatantra Rao has appeared in person and has filed an 
affidavit. He is examined. On his attention being drawn to what finds place 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
in the order of this Court passed on 1.9.1995, he states that what has been 
mentioned therein as regards his meeting one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) is 
correct. On being further asked as to whether he had met on his own or H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
at the instance of anybody, his reply is that he had done so on his own and 
then brings to our notice the statements made by him in the affidavit. 
B 
2. We have perused the affidavit which was verified at Bangalore on 
7.9.1995. It has mentioned the "sequence of events" leading to his meeting 
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy. It states that having read in the 
newspaper, while on tour to West Bengal, about the judgment of the Court 
imposing sentence on Shri J, Vasudevan, on his return to Bangalore he 
tried to contact Shri Vasudevan to console him. He was informed that shri 
Vasudevan was not available in Bangalore and that he was still in Delhi. 
C 
3. On 29
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.