SEBASTIAN M. HONGRAY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 23-04-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
• 
n 
E 
F 
G 
• 
544. 
SEBASTIAN M. HONGRAY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .. 
. 
. 
Apri( 23, 1984 
'[D.A.I)esAI AND 0. CIUNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
. 
. 
. 
· 
Writ :of Habeas Corpus served on Respondent3· dire.ctl~g· 1hem to produce_ 
t~e t_wo ·_nanted per.~ons-Re.\pondent.i.fail to file .a return bpt exPtdin the reaS<ilt.<J 
for not producing 1hem-Appropd'ate mr.uf.e of_e-nforci'ng _abedience to a Writ of 
Habeas Co1pus, explained-·Contempt of <..1ourt A_ct, .]971 Sections 2 (a) a1id 
·. J (b} Hciv(l ~onte1npt" and wilful. di obedience~', explained Examplary Cost 
by way of Compensation ordered under Ru/eh of order KLVII oj Supreme 
,Court Rules, 1966. 
· 
· 
·· 
O.n· Novmber 24, 1983, the Court by its iudgmen t and .order directed 
that ~ writ of Habeas Corpus be issued-Though the 1st, 2nd and 4th 
tesponderJs·°"e.re served, .they failed· to file.a-re.turn to the _Writ. ·However 
8.re,urn on affida·vif by one Aja.i Vikram Singh Dir~ctor, .Ministry of 
Defence was filed on 12.12.1983 expr.essing their inability to produ.ce the 
two nS:t'ned officets duo to circutristance! be}tond· their control arid thCir · 
failure· tO trace the~ ev.en with·. the. assistance of. Cent.raI Bureau of Jiives· 
tigati<i.J. 
This was supported by a copy of the report by the Dy. Inspector 
GeneraJ-0f i'olice (s) . 
. Making the Rule absolute .the Court, 
.HELD :i. ·10 complianc·~ whb thC mandatory direction contained ii:t 
the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the pers.on to whom it·is dir"ec~ed is .under a 
legal .obiigation to produce 1be body cif the. person alleged to be l!nlawfully 
detained.before the Court on the day specified and to mak~ a form.al ·returri 
to the wri.t. 
Here, ~uch a Writ' has been issued.and there.bas be"en f~i!Ure 
to p'rodu-;e the .missing persons in respect ·of whoni _writ. js isstieid and to file 
the re.tur.n as mandated by law. [547B.F] 
. 
· 
· 
· 
· 
.z:l 
·'fh"e ·Contempt ··or Courts Act,. 19·11 define_s 
,·collt~mpt of court•. 
· i.n Sec. 2(a) io me~ll 'civil ·contempt ot criminal.con.teinpt'. 'Civil Conte~pt' 
is_-defined in Sec. 2(b) to mean. ~wilful disobed_ience: t.o. any judgment decree~ 
direction, order, .writ or ot.her. process ()fa Court or wilful breach· .. of.an · 
undert.aking .. given to a c.ourt' .. Wilful .disObedi~nce .. to a·wr.it 
issu~d by tne 
Court constitutes civil conte'!'pt. [547H; .548A] 
·2:2 
Mere failure to obey th_e Writ inay not.constitut.e civil contempt 
depending upOn th_e facts and· circumStanCes· Of.the Case. Bt1t wllful disobe .. 
dierice-·to a writ issµed -by fl. Court 
constitute~ .. ·civil .contem.pt. 
Again it ·is· 
wen-Settled· that tbe·appropriate mode .of cnfd"rciflg ·obeditnce :t.o a writ of 
ln\be~S COtPll;, is by. ~om,mitt~J for ~ontempt. 
A, COffili\itt~\ O(der mari?~ 
• 
' r-.· •
) .. 
• 
• 
• r 
• 
s. M. HONGRAY v. UNiON 
545 
t-i:made ··agl1inst a person 'Who inteniionally makes a false return to a writ <'l( 
habea!" corpu~ but an unintentional misrepresentation ·an a 
return is not a 
grouo4 for committal. [S4~B·C] 
2:3 
The-- view of ibis Court as expressed ip the .main judgment 
'clelrly indicates that \he assertion of respondents I. 2· and'4 that C. Daniel 
" . 
A 
and C. Paul left P.hungref camp where 21st . Sikh Regiment were stationed 
B 
is not correct and that to avoid _responsibility flowing from the -mysterious 
dH;&j)pearance of C. Daniel and C. Paul an -atteµipt ~as mad¢ to .suggest 
that they .bad left alive ,in the COIT\pany of their compatriots. On· that 
con-clusion ·one can say that 1:here is a wilful OisobedieOce· to the writ _or 
·:tflabeas corp~s by misteadillg ·the court by 
pr~.seDfing a djstortcd versio11.of 
facts not qorne out by the rec.ord .. It is thqs established. that th~ respondents 
t, 2 and 4 have committed civil .contempt by .their wilful disobedience to 
.. C 
the writ. [548D·E] 
3: 2 
In the facts and circumstances of the ca.se, ~eeping in view the 
;;-
t<irture,· the agqny and the mental oppression throu8;h which Mrs. C. 
Thingkhuiia, wife o(Sbri · C. Daniel and Mri .. · C. Vangamla, wife of Shri 
\- C. Palil had to pa'.ss and· they being the -proper applicants, the f'oxma( 
application :bein'g by Sebastibn M. Hongray> the c_ourt considered ·~t. proper 
"' 
and directed that as a measure of exempla.rJtt costs as ·is perniis~ible· in such 
, cases,· resPoodents Nos. 1 (lnd :i -shalT pay Rs. 1 lac to each of the afore .. 
mentioned two women );Vithin a period of four weeks frQD) April 23, 1984. 
. . 
. 
. 
. [5480-H; S49A) 
. 
. 

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