SURAZ INDIA TRUST versus UNION OF INDIA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1630 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.880 OF 2016

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1063 · Decided: 29-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1063
SURAZ INDIA TRUST
v.
UNION OF INDIA
Miscellaneous Application No.1630 of 2020 in
Writ Petition (C) No.880 of 2016
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 –
Constitution of India – Articles 129, 142 – Petitioner – Trust filed a
large number of cases in Rajasthan and Delhi, canvassed in person
by its Chairman – Mr. ‘D’ – 64 different proceedings in the 12 cases
filed in the Supreme Court alone – Litigation initiated by the Trust
was found to be frivolous – Direction issued to the Trust and Mr.
‘D’ to refrain from filing any cause in public interest before any
Court in the country, exemplary costs of Rs.25 lakhs imposed on
Mr. ‘D’ – Application filed by him for waiver of the costs, dismissed
– Registry was directed to proceed for recovery of costs – Mr. ‘D’
inter alia addressed letter to the Attorney General of India seeking
consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against three
judges including the then Chief Justice of India and also against
certain Registry officers/officials – Continued to scandalise the
Court and prevent it from taking action to ensure recovery of costs
– Contempt notice issued to Mr.‘D’ – Bailable warrants issued –
Apology filed – Held: So-called unconditional apology is again a
recital of his alleged grievances in the earlier proceedings seeking
to canvas that the proceedings for recovery of costs had actually
come to an end which is not correct as it was his endeavour to seek
modification of the order of costs – Contemnor has made a
profession of filing public interest petitions of subjects he may not
know much of and then scandalise the Court to grant him relief
failing which he will continue to scandalise the Court – He is guilty
of contempt of this Court – His actions to scandalise the Court
cannot be countenanced – He continues with his contumacious
behaviour – Apologies submitted are only endeavours to get out of
the consequences again followed by another set of allegations, thus,
a charade – Last apology can hardly be called an apology – There
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1063
1063
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
is no remorse on the part of the contemnor – It is a contempt on the
face of the Court, however one more chance given to hear him on
the question of final sentence.
Directing the listing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The raison d’etre of contempt jurisdiction is to
maintain the dignity of the institution of judicial forums. It is not
a vindictive exercise nor are inappropriate statements by
themselves capable of lowering the dignity of a Judge. These are
often ignored but where despite all latitude a perennial litigant
seeks to justify his existence by throwing mud at all and sundry,
the Court has to step in. [Para 1][1067-B-C]
1.2 The so-called unconditional apology is again a recital of
his alleged grievances in the earlier proceedings. It seeks to
canvas that the proceedings for recovery of costs had actually
come to an end, which was factually not so as it was his endeavour
to seek modification of the order of costs. The same was declined
while permitting the Registry to take action for recovery. Since
the recovery did not take place, the Registry had placed the
matter before the Court. The Court has penned down all the
details in the present judgment not only to record the conduct of
Mr. ‘D’ as Chairman of the Trust prior to the order being passed
in WP(C) No.880/2016, but continuously thereafter. In the
submissions he sought to suggest that he was compelled to take
this course of action to ensure that the proceedings he files in
different courts are not interceded or terminated on account of
his inability to pay costs. This can hardly be a course of action
which is permissible. The State counsel referred to
communications addressed by him to the State Government, once
again, seeking to threaten the officers who had initiated
disciplinary proceedings against him. But for the fact that
Mr. ‘D’ appears in person and seeks to canvas his case with such
clear understanding, it could possibly have given rise to the
apprehension that he was not all there. It also appears that he is
under constant legal advice beyond his abilities to address the
Court by the very nature of pleadings he files. Insofar as
Miscellaneous Application No.1630/2020 is concerned, nothing
more has to be directed than what was already stated on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1065
06.05.2021, i.e., the S

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