LexRE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS. versus RE:
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. RE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS. (Suo Motu Contempt Petition Criminal No. 2 of 2019) APRIL 27, 2020 [DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] Constitution of India – Art. 129 and 142 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s. 15 – The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 – Powers of the Supreme Court of India in relation to dealing with contempt – The amicus curiae contended that the Supreme Court being a Court of Record is not bound by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Held: A bare reading of Art.129 clearly shows that Supreme Court being a Court of Record shall have all the powers of such a Court of Record including the power to punish for contempt itself – This is a Constitutional power which cannot be taken away or in any manner abridged by statute – Art.142 also provides that the Supreme Court can punish any person for contempt of itself but this power is subject to the provisions of law made by Parliament – The power under clause (2) of Art.142 is not the primary source of power of Court of Record which is Art.129 and there is no such restriction in Art.129 – The Supreme Court has also framed rules in this regard known as the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 and the r.3 of the same shows the 3 ways for initiating contempt proceedings i.e. a) suo motu; or (b) on a petition made by Attorney-General, or Solicitor-General; or (c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in writing of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General – S.15 of the Act, 1971 is not the source of power to issue notice for contempt and it only provides the procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated – As far as suo motu petitions are concerned, there is no requirement for taking consent of anybody because the Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue notice for contempt – This is not only clear from the provisions of the Act also clear from the Rules laid down by the Supreme Court. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 – Two letters [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1014 1014 A B C D E F G H 1015 dated 20.3.2019 and 19.3.2019 signed by alleged contemnor nos. 1 and 2 were circulated – The tenor of the letters was highly disrespectful, and scandalous and scurrilous allegations were levelled against the two Judges of the Supreme Court – A Bench issued notice to the contemnors and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to hear and decide the contempt case – The alleged contemnors filed applications for discharge of notices issued to them – The main ground for discharge was that the notice sent was not in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Held: The Supreme Court has its own Rules, i.e. The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 and Form I lays down the manner in which notice is to be issued – The only requirement of the Rules and the Form is that the brief nature of the contempt is to be stated in the Form – There is no requirement of giving all the documents with the Form – A perusal of the order whereby contempt proceedings were initiated clearly shows that the grounds for initiating contempt were reflected in the order itself – Therefore, the notice was legal and valid. Contempt of Court – Supreme Court – Challenge to suo motu proceedings – Two letters dated 20.03.2019 and 19.03.2019 admittedly signed by contemnor Nos. 1 & 2 were circulated – The tenor of the letters was highly disrespectful, and scandalous and scurrilous allegations were levelled against the two Judges of the Supreme Court – A Bench of Supreme Court issued notice to the contemnors – The contemnors contended that the proceedings are not suo motu proceedings and, therefore, should not have been entertained without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor- General – Held: Contempt is basically a matter between the Court and the contemnor – Any person can inform the Court of the contempt committed – If he is to be arrayed as a party then the contempt will be in his name but when the Court does not array him as a party, the Court can on the basis of the information itself take suo motu of the contempt – In the present case, the Court on the basis of the information itself took suo motu note of the contemp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.