MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2019 IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA versus .

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 912 · Decided: 27-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN, VINEET SARAN

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2019
IN RE:  MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA
MARCH 27, 2019
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – ‘MN’, an advocate committed contempt
of court – By judgment dated 12.03.2019, as reported in [2019] 5
SCR 313, the Court issued notice to the said advocate as to the
punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the
face of the Court – Advocate in question tendered an apology by
way of an affidavit – Held: Given the fact that ‘MN’ has now
undertaken that he will never again attempt to browbeat any judge
either of Supreme Court or of the Bombay High Court, he is
sentenced to three years imprisonment, however, the same is
suspended considering his undertaking – In addition ‘MN’ barred
from practicing as an advocate before the Supreme Court of India
for a period of one year – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s.14(1)
& (2).
Contempt of Court – A Bench of the Supreme Court convicted
one advocate ‘MN’ for committing contempt in the face of the Court
by judgment dated 12.03.2019, as reported in [2019] 5 SCR 313 –
Two complaints were filed against the said Bench of the Supreme
Court – One complaint dated 20.03.2019 was filed by the ‘Indian
Bar Association’ through one advocate ‘VK’ for passing the judgment
dated 12.03.2019 – The other complaint dated 19.03.2019 was filed
by one ‘RK’ , the National Secretary of Human Rights Security
Council for another order in another matter against the same Bench
– Both complaints sought prosecution of the Judges and withdrawl
of judicial work from them – Bombay Bar Association and the
Bombay Incorporated Law Society by letter dated 23.03.2019
alleged that both complaints were substantially similar showing prima
facie that ‘VK’ and ‘RK’ were acting in tandem – It was alleged that
advocates ‘N’ (National President of Indian Bar Association), ‘VK’
and their associates had history of making frivolous allegation
against the Judges – Also both ‘MN’ and ‘N’ have appeared for
each other in various matters including contempt matters in the High
Court – So, both are in tandem with one another – It was further
alleged that these complaints were made after the said Bench of the
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 912
912
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
Supreme Court held ‘MN’ guilty of contempt of Court and the
complaints are intended to browbeat the Court – Held: Given the
two complaints filed, it was clear that scandalous allegations were
made against the Bench of the Supreme Court – Therefore, notice
of contempt issued to ‘VK’, ‘RK’, ‘N’  and ‘MN’ – Further, given the
serious nature of the allegations levelled against the Bench – Matter
referred to the Chief Justice of India to constitute appropriate Bench
to hear and decide the Contempt case.
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency
and Reforms & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2019]
5 SCR 313 - referred to .
Case Law Reference
[2019] 5 SCR 313
referred to
Para 1
INHERENT JURISDICTION : Suo Motu Contempt Petition
(Crl.) No. 1 of 2019.
By Courts Motion
The following Order of the Court was passed
O R D E R
1. By a judgment dated 12th March, 2019 in National Lawyers
Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Ors. vs. Union
of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2019), this Bench held
that Shri Mathews Nedumpara, Advocate has committed contempt in
the face of the Court.  In the interest of justice, however, notice was
issued to Shri Nedumpara as to the punishment to be imposed upon him
for committing contempt in the face of the Court.
2. Shri Nedumpara appeared today before us both by himself and
through Advocate Shri Subhash Jha.
3. In the morning session, Shri Nedumpara did his best to see that
the matter was not heard by this Bench.  He informed us that a Transfer
Petition was filed asking the Chief Justice of India to transfer this case
from this Bench to some other Bench.  He also stated that he was going
to file an application for recall of our order dated 12th March, 2019.  He
then cited latin maxims and said that justice must be seen to be done.
He also referred to the famous Rex vs. Sussex Justices case and referred
generally to the fact that relatives of Judges should not be seen practicing
in the same Court.  He later asked the Bench to grant a “pass over” of
IN RE:  MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
his matter inasmuch as his lawyer Shri Subhash Jha was on his way
from M

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