NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 12-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN, VINEET SARAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
                NATIONAL LAWYERS CAMPAIGN  FOR
 JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS & ORS.
 v.
                             UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No.191 of 2019)
MARCH 12, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – An advocate ‘MN’, appearing
on behalf of the petitioners attempted to browbeat and insult Judges
of the Supreme Court – Held: It was not the first time the advocate
in question attempted to browbeat and insult Judges of the Supreme
Court – Considering, the course of behaviour of the advocate before
Tribunals, the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, it was
clear that the said advocate embarked on a calculated course of
conduct to defeat the administration of justice in this country – In
the interest of justice, notice issued to the advocate as to the
punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the
face of the Court – Advocates Act, 1961.
Constitution of India – Art.32 – Second review – Writ petition,
in essence, sought a second review of  the  judgment in  Indira
Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and
Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 766 – Held: Second review petition is barred by
Or.XLVII, r.5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Even otherwise, it
is settled law that an Art.32 petition does not lie against the judgment
of the Supreme Court – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Or.XLVII, r.5.
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. When contempt is committed in the face of the
Court, judges’ hands are not tied behind their backs. The majesty
of this Court as well as the administration of justice both demand
that contemptuous behavior of this kind be dealt with sternly. An
early judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief
Justice S. Teja Singh, proceeded cautiously, but made it clear that
where a judge is personally attacked, it would be proper for the
judge to deal with the matter himself, in cases of contempt in the
face of the Court. [Para 9] [334-E-F]
 313
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 313
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
2.  In Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra, two learned
Judges differed on whether contempt in the face of the Court can
be dealt with summarily, without any need of issuing notice to the
contemnors, and whether punishment can be inflicted upon them
there and then. Pasayat, J. held that this is, indeed, the duty of
the Court. Ganguly, J. differed. A three-Judge Bench of this
Court, in Leila David (6) v. State of Maharashtra, settled the law,
making it clear that Pasayat, J.’s view was the correct view in
law. [Para 10] [335-D-E]
3. Conduct of this kind deserves punishment which is
severe. Though this Court could have punished the advocate by
this order itself, in the interest of justice, notice issued to advocate
in question as to the punishment to be imposed upon him for
committing contempt in the face of the Court. [Para 13]
[339-B-C]
4. Insofar as the Writ Petition is concerned, the Writ
Petition, in essence, seeks a second review of  the judgment
reported in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through
Secretary General and Ors.  Even otherwise, it is settled law that
an Article 32 petition does not lie against the judgment of this
Court. Further, Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is a
provision which cannot be said to be unconstitutional and the
designation of Senior Advocate cannot be as a matter of bounty
or as a matter of right. [Para 15] [339-B-C]
Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh
[1954] SCR 454; Leila David (6) v. State of
Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 337 : [2009] 15 SCR 317;
R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 :
[2009] 11 SCR 1026 – relied on.
Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 4 SCC
578 : [2009] 4 SCR 1171; Indira Jaising v. Supreme
Court of India through Secretary General and Ors.
(2017) 9 SCC 766 : [2017] 10 SCR 478; Ram Niranjan
Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2014) 12 SCC 11 :
[2014] 4 SCR 583 – referred to.
High Court on its own Motion v. Nedumpara Mathews,
Criminal Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 9 of 2012
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
315
(order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Bombay High
Court); Lalita Mohan Tejwani v. Special Recovery
Officer, Notice of Motion (L) No. 175 of 2013 in Writ
Petition (L) No. 2772 of 2012  (Order dated
20.06.2013 passed by the Bombay High Court);
International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.
v. Phoenix Alchemy Pvt. Ltd., Company Petition No.
423 of 2010 (order dated 01.03.201

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