KALYANESHWARI versus U.0.I. & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 12-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Heard
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 774 
KALYANESHWARI 
v. 
U.0.1. & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 260 of 2004) 
MAY 12, 2011 
[S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND 
SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Contempt petition against 
C public interest litigant-NGO and its official - On the ground 
that they had abused the process of law by fifing petitions 
under the guise of public interest, against one business rival 
at the behest of another - Issuance of show cause notice -
Contemners hardly disputed the observations made by 
o Supreme Court in the show cause notice - Contemners only 
attempted to tender an unconditional apology for their acts 
and omissions - Held: Though unconditional apology was 
tendered but the bonafide and intent of the contemnors 
tendering such an apology is not < ertain - Contemnors are 
E liable to be punished for their offensive and contemptuous 
behaviour which undermined the dignity of the courts of law 
and justice administration system and also prejudicially 
affected the rights of parties who were not even impleaded as 
parties in the public interest litigation - Certain directions 
F issued - Administration of Justice. 
Contempt of Court - Power of Court to punish for 
contempt - Explained. 
Contempt of Court - Circumstances where court can 
G reject an apology that has been tendered - Explained. 
'BK', Secretary of the petitioner NGO had filed a writ 
petition before the Gujarat High Court and prayed that the 
respondents' asbestos manufacturing unit be closed and 
H 
774 
KALYANESHWARI v. U.0.1. & ORS. 
775 
demolished. The same was rejected since the petition had 
A 
been filed at the behest of rival industrial groups and was 
not bona fide. The said judgment of the Gujarat High Court 
had attained finality but 'BK' disregarding the said fact 
filed a Writ Petition before this Court to brush aside the 
I 
judgment of the High Court stating that the Gujarat High 
B 
Court had failed to apply its mind. This Court disposed 
of the Writ Petition with certain directions. 
Besides disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court also 
noticed the contemptuous behaviour of the petitioner C 
NGO and its officials and issued show-cause notice to the 
petitioner NGO and its Secretary 'BK' in his personal 
capacity, to show cause why proceedings under the 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against 
them. 'BK' filed a response affidavit on behalf of the 
petitioner NGO as well as himself and tendered his D 
unconditional apology and prayed for dropping of the 
contempt proceedings. 
Issuing certain directions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The apology tendered even at the outset 
of proceedings has to be bona fide, should demonstrate 
repentance and sincere regret on the part of the 
contemner lest the administration of justice is permitted 
E 
F 
to be crudely hampered with immunity by the persons 
involved in the process of litigation or otherwise. An 
apology which lacks bona fides and is intended to 
truncate the process of law with the ulterior motive of 
escaping the likely consequences of such flagrant 
violation of the orders of the Court and disrespect to the 
administration of justice, cannot be accepted. [Para 
G 
6][782-H; 783-A-C] 
Prem Surana v. Additional Munsif and Judicial 
Magistrate (2002) 6SCC 722: 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 524 -
referred to. 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2 The rule of law has to be maintained whatever be 
the consequences. The 'welfare of people' is the supreme 
law and this enunciates adequately the ideal of 'law'. This 
could only be achieved when justice is administered 
lawfully, judiciously, without any fear and without being 
B hampered or throttled by unscrupulous elements. The 
administration of justice is dependent upon obedience or 
execution of the orders of the Court. The contemptuous 
act which interfered with administration of justice on one 
hand and impinge upon the dignity of institution of justice 
c on the other, bringing down its respect in the eye of the 
commoner, are acts which may not fall in the category of 
cases where the Court can accept the apology of the 
contemner even if it is tendered at the threshold of the 
proceedings. [Para 7] [783-D-F] 
D 
Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union 
(1970) 3 SCC 98; M. Y. Shareef v. The Hon'ble Judges of the 
High Court of Nagpur AIR 1955 SC 19: 1955 SCR 757; L.D. 
Jaikwal v. State of U.P. (1984) 3 SCC 405: 1984 (3) SCR 
833; Advocate-General, State of Bi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.