RAJIV K. GARG AND ORS. versus SHANTI BHUSHAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 20-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, KULDIP SINGH, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAJIV K. GARG AND ORS. 
v 
SHANTI BHUSHAN AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 20, 1994 
[ 1\1.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CT, A.M. AHMADI 
AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT-Some members of legal profession, taking 
active part in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, permitted themselves 
C some statements and utterances against Judges and Judicial System-Conduct 
deprecated-However, in larger interest of Bar itself, suo motu initiation of 
proceedings for criminal contempt not considered appropriate. 
This petition has been filed for suo motu initiation of proceedings 
for contempt against the respondents who are members of the legal 
D profession. A Committee of lawyers called "Sub-Committee ou Judicial 
, Accountability" came to be formed in which the respondents took an active 
part and pe~itted themselves some statements and utterances against 
Judges and the judicial system. Certain statements attributed to them were 
the subject 111atter of the proceedings for initiation of proceedings of 
E contempt against the respondents. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 It Is a matter of deep regret that there should have been 
any cause fot such an unfortunate controversy. While the concern of the 
F 
'Sub-committee on Judicial Accountability', for maintenance of purity in 
the administration of justice, probity and rectitude of conduct, both private 
and public, of the Judges is understandable, (however), the means by which 
such objectives are achieved, should be consistent with and conform to 
permissible legal and constitutional means and limitation. It would be a 
G great pity if the activities of such a body of persons, imbued with high and 
laudable motives, do things which incur the criticism that their actions 
have overstepped the limits of law and propriety or that they have become 
selective. The point to emphasise is that the corrective measures should not 
themselves be incorrect and that such efforts at ensuring the maintenance 
of judicial standards must themselves conform to highest standards of 
H dignity and propriety. Agitational stances, in the ultimate analysis, become 
642 
R.K GARG v. SHANTI BHUSHAN 
643 
counter productive and detract from the main objectives. In the ultimate A 
analysis nothing enduring can be achieved by measures which are unin-
formed by propriety, dignity and good grace. Justice is the most precious 
concern of mankind. Its achievement through judicial institutions and 
processes is, at once, sensitive and fragile. The delicate balance is to be 
maintained by concerted and devoted efforts both by the Bench and the bar. B 
However deep their comniitment to the cause of purity in the administra-
tion of jnstice, members of the Bar cannot disregard propriety. The aver-
ments made in this petition indicate that perhaps, at some stage, the mies 
of the game were forgotten. Respondents will, no doubt, realise that indig-
nation, however righteous, should no be susceptible to the perception that 
it bas become riotous indignation. (645-E] 
C 
1.2 However, it is not appropriate in the larger interest of the Bar 
itself to suo-motu initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against the 
respondents. (645-F] 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 
Contempt Petition D 
(Crl.) No. 4 of 1992. 
Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
Rajiv K. Garg, Adv.-In-person and R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioners. 
Dipankar Gupta, Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhasbini, Ms. Niran-
jana Singh, Anil Srivastava and Sunil Kr. Singh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
E 
In this petition for suo motu initiation of proceedings for contempt F 
against the respondents, the petitioners, who are the members of the legal 
profession, express their concern over the manner in which certain slec-
tions of the Bar, in particlllar the respondents, have permitted themselves 
some statements and utterances against judges and the judicial system. 
Annexures I, II, III and III-A are said to contain rep.arts and statements G 
of the first respondent and the same are referred•to as evidence of a trend 
which, if permitted, would seriously impair the public image of and scan-
dalise the judicial system. 
These proceedings are the fall-out of certain events that culminated 
in initiation of proceedings for the removal of a sitting Judge. A Committee H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
of lawyers called "Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability" came to be 
for

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