LEILA DAVID versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1171 · Decided: 20-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1171 
LEILA DAVID 
v 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
Writ Petition No. (D 22040 of 2008) 
A 
MARCH 20, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK Kl,JMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 : 
s. 14 - Contempt in the face of Supreme Court - During C 
the hearing of a case four litigants committed contempt in the 
face of the Court - Held : Per Pasayat. J - Conduct of the 
contemnors is contemptuous -
There is no need to issue 
notice, as contemnors stated in open Court that they stood by 
what they had said and done in Court - Registrar would take D 
the contemnors into custody - The contemnors shall suffer 
three months' simple imprisonment - Per Ganquly, J- This is 
prima facie an incident when provision of s. 14 of the Act can 
be invoked - The four steps enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of 
s. 14(1) are mandatory in nature - Under s. 14 though Court E 
may temporarily cause the alleged contemnor to be detained in 
custody but it cannot imprison him by way of punishment without 
following the safeguards u/s 14(1) which give effect to 
fundamental guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution -
Court's power is under Article 142 of Constitution is to be 
F 
exercised in its jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 
21, 129 and 142. 
Dr. LP Misra vs. State of UP (1998) 7 SCC 379- relied on. 
B.K. vs. TheQueen(1996) 129DLR(4th)500-referredto. G 
"Arlidge, Eady and Smith on Contempt Second Edn. 
1999 paragraph 14 - 106" - referred to. 
By the Court : In view of the difference about the 
1171 
H 
1172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
procedure to be adopted matters to be placed before CJ/ - In 
the meantime, contemnors to remain in custody till the matter 
is heard by an appropriate Bench. 
Case Law Reference 
B 
(1996) 129 DLR (4th) 500 referred to 
para 20 
(1998) 1 sec 379 
relied on 
para 21 
Criminal Original Jurisdiction : Writ Petition (Crl.) 0. No 
(S) (022040/2008) ................ Of 2009 
c 
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 
WITH 
Writ Petition (Crl.) No .......................... of 2009 
D 
(02428112008) 
Writ Petition (Crl.) No ....................... Of 2009 (025985/ 
2008) 
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 3/2008 @ Writ 
Petition (Crl.) Nos ...................... Of 2009 (022040, 24281 
E & 25985/2008) 
F 
Suo Motu Cont. Pet. © No.225/2008 in SLP(C) 8573/ 
2006 
.. 
Suo Motu Cont. Pet.© No.226/2008 in SLP(C) 9434/2006 
Suo Motu Cont. Pet. © 228/2008 in SLP(Crl.) 
....... CRLMP553/2007 
G.E. Vahanvati, SGI (A.C.), Petitioner-in-Person, for the 
Petitioner. 
G 
Respondent in Person. 
H 
The orders of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J. 
"Today when these matters were taken up suddenly the 
LEILA DAVID V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
1173 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J 
contemnors started shouting and used very offensive, A 
intemperate and abusive language and even one had gone to 
the extent of saying that the Judges should be jailed for having 
initiated proceedings against them. They said that Judges are 
not interferring with orders by various Judges of the Bombay 8 
High Court, are to be punished for not taking care of their so-
called fundamental rights. Even one of them threw a chappal at 
the Judges. This happened in the presence of the learned 
Solicitor General of India, two learned Additional Solicitor 
General and a large number of learned counsel including the c 
President of the Supreme Court Advocate of Record 
Association. 
This conduct is contemptuous. There is no need for issuing 
any notice as the contemnors stated in open Court that they 0 
stand by what they have said and did in Court. The Registrar is 
directed to take the following four persons into custody from the 
Court premises: 
1. 
Annette Kotian D/o A. Kotian, Rio 1. Madhav Baug, 
Brahim Society, Naupada Thana - 400602; (aged 
E 
23 years) 
· 
2. 
Dr, Sarita Parikh D/o Kishore Bansilal R/o F.16, Juhu 
Apartments, Juhu Road, Juhu Mumbai -49; (aged 
31 years) 
F 
" 
3. 
Leila David W/o Neil David R/o 22, West View 151 
4. 
Pastalane, Colaba, Mumbai -5; (aged 75 years) 
Pavithra Murali D/o Murli R/o Jeevan Akash Forjett 
Street, Tardev, Mumbai -36 ( aged 23 years) 
They shall suffer three months simple imprisonment. 
Rest of the matters shall be listed after three weeks." 
G 
H 
1174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
ASOK KUMAR GANGULI, J. 
Today in open Court when Item No. 37 was called on, the 
petitioners appeared in person. Several ladies appeared alo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.