LexRAJEEV DHAWAN versus GULSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 8 S.C.R. 930 RAJEEV DHAWAN v. GULSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN & OR$. (Contempt Petition (CRL.) No. 2 of 1994) JULY 23, 2014. [R.M. LODHA, CJI., ANIL R. DAVE, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] C CONTEMPT OF COURT: Contempt proceedings - Notice not served on alleged contemner - Derogatory remarks stated to have been made by third contemner against Supreme Court, published in a b news paper on 10.4.1994 and in a periodical (11-17 April, 1994) - Held: Court appreciates the gravity of the subject matter - It is also not oblivious of the fact that it was not satisfied prima facie with the initial response filed by third contemner and ordered on 06.05.1994 to initiate the.contempt E proceedings against first to third respondents - However, the notice accompanied by charges on third contemner has not been served so far - Thus, at this distance of time, when the subject matter remained dormant for almost two decades and third contemner is 96 years of age and is not able to respond to the charges due to old age and illness, this is not a fit case F where Court should deal with the matter further - Since contempt proceedings are not being pursued further to find out criminality against the author (third contemner who made the offending statements}, contempt matter does not deserve to be pursued as against first and second contemners as well, G who have also tendered unconditional apology - Insofar as other contemners are concerned, Court has not yet taken cognizance of criminal complaint against them - Therefore, the contempt matters deserve to be closed - Ordered H 930 RAJEEV DHAWAN v. GULSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN 931 accordingly - Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, A 1993- Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 129. Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 1994 was filed alleging that the alleged contemners made derogatory remarks with regard to the Supreme Court while constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 was being examined by it in Special Reference No.1 of 1993. The said remarks were published B in a r:iews paper on 10.4.1994 and in a periodical (11-17 April, 1994). On 06.05.1994, ·the Court took suo motu cognizance of criminal contempt against the owner, C publisher, printer and editor of the periodical, its Reporter and respondent No.3. The Court directed appropriate notices. in the prescribed form to be served on the three contemners by the Registry, fixing the date for their personal appearance in Court. Insofar as respondents 4, D 5 and 6 were concerned, the Court kept the question for examination separately. The Court further observed that there was no justification for issue of any show-cause notice or initiating proceedings against the President, . . Vishwa Hindu Parishad and dropped the proceedings as against him. On 25.03.2014, when the matters were called by the Constitution Bench, it was pointed on behalf of contemner No.3 that notices for personal appearance accompanied by charges, as directed by the Court were not served on him. The Constitution Bench, therefore, sought clarification from the office regarding service on .the contemners and also directed advocate on record for , contemner No.3 to keep him present in the Court on the E F next day, i.e., 26.03.2014. On 26.03.2014, contemner No.3 was brought to the Court on wheel chair. It was reiterated G that notice for personal appearance accompanied by charges as directed by the Court on 06.05.1994 was not served on the contemner who had by then attained 96 years of age and was not able to respond due to severe physical and mental illness. H 932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A Disposing of the matters, the Court . B HELD: The Court appreciates the gravity of -~he subject matter. The Court is also not oblivious of the fact that it was not satisfied prima facie with the initial response filed by contemner No. 3, and ordered on 06.05.1994 to initiate the contempt proceedings against respondents Nos. 1 to 3. But, the fact of the matter is that despite the order passed on 06.05.1994, the notice accompanied by charges on contemnet No. 3 has not been served so far. In this view of the matter, at this C distance of time, when the subject matter remained dormant for almost two decades and contemner' No.3 is of 96 years and is not able to respond to the charges due to old age and illness, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.