LEILA DAVID versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 21-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 317 
LEILA DAVID 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Crl) No. D 22040 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 21, 2009 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 129 and 142 - Contempt in the face of the c 
Supreme Court - During the course of hearing, writ petitioners 
disrupting court proceedings, using offensive, intemperate 
and abusive language - One of the petitioners throwing an 
object at Judges - Presiding Judge finding the behaviour of 
-1 
petitioners as contemptuous, held them guilty of criminal D 
contempt of the Court and sentenced them to three months' 
imprisonment - The other Judge comprising the Bench being 
of the view that petitioners could not have been punished for 
contempt without due compliance of s.14 (a) to (d) of the 
Contempt of Courts Act, matter referred to 3 Judge Bench -
E 
HELD: The Presiding Judge was well within his jurisdiction in 
passing a summary order having regard to Articles 129 and 
142 of the Constitution - Though s. 14 of the Act contemplates 
..._ + 
issuance of notice and an opportunity to contemnors, it does 
not preclude the court from taking recourse to summary F 
proceedings in appropriate case, like the incident of the 
instant nature which took place within the presence and sight 
of Judges of the Court, and the public at large and amounted 
to contempt in the face of the Court and, as such, required to 
be dealt with at the time of incident itself - The procedure 
adopted by the Presiding Judge and the sentence imposed G 
on contemnors upheld - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 14. 
Words and Phrases: 
317 
H 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
,_ 
A 
Expression "Contempt in the face of the Supreme Court" 
as occurring in s. 14 of the Contempt of Court Act -
\ 
Connotation of. 
Writ petitions filed by the petitioners/contemnors 
B under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, and the 
..., 
supporting affidavits were found to have contained 
allegations to be per se contempt of the Court. The 
r 
petitioners were asked to withdraw the allegations but 
they refused to do so and stated that they stood by the 
')< 
)&. 
said averments. Ultimately, contempt proceedings were 
c initiated against the writ petitioners. On the date fixed 
when the hearing commenced, the writ petitioners 
'1-c 
disrupted the proceedings by. using very offensive, 
intemperate an~ abusive language at a high pitch. The 
D 
Presiding Judge recorded in his order that one of the 
r
petitioners stated that the Judges should be jailed for 
r-
. 
having initiated the proceedings against them and that 
' 
they should be punished for not taking care of their 
fundamental rights; yet, another petitioner went to the 
extent of throwing a footwear at the Judges. The 
)=
E Presiding Judge recorded that all of this happened in the 
presence of Solicitor General of India, the other senior law 
officers, and a large number of advocates including the 
President of the Supreme Court Advocates~n-Record 
+-' 
Association. The behaviour of the petitioners as held by 
F 
the Presiding Judge as contemptuous in the· face of the 
' 
~
Court. Since the petitioners stood by what they had said 
and done.in,th~ Court, the Presiding Judge felt that.there 
was no need to issue any further notice, and holding 
them guilty of criminal contempt of the Court, inflicted a 
G punishment of three month's simple imprisonment on 
them1• However, the said course of action did not meet 
the approval of the other Judge comprising the Bench, 
who by a separate order of even date observed that the 
writ petitioners could not have been punished for 
H '1. 
(2009) 4 SCR 1171. 
LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 319 
_, 
i 
contempt without due compliance with the provisions of A 
J 
s.14(1) (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 
1971. He was of the view that Court's power under Article 
142 of the Constitution of India was not meant to 
circumvent the statutory requirements. In view of the 
difference of opinion as to the procedure to be adopted B 
before the petitioners should be found guilty of contempt 
of court and sentenced, the matter was directed to be 
placed before the Chief Justice of India and a direction 
~ 
was given that the contemnors would remain in custody 
till the matter could be heard by an appropriate Bench. The c 
matter alongwith an application for intervention filed by 
the Supreme Court Bar Association w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.