TEHSEEN POONAWALLA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
TEHSEEN POONAWALLA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(MA No.1607 of  2018)
In
(IA Nos.14870-14871 of  2018)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No.19 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
AND IN THE MATTER OF :
ADMIRAL MR. LAXMINARAYAN RAMDAS (RETD.)
AND IN THE MATTER OF :
MS. INDIRA JAISING
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI,  A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Practice and Procedure – Judgment pronounced in Tehseen
Poonawalla versus Union of India and Anr. [W.P. (C) No. 19 of
2018] on 19th April 2018 as reported in [2018] 9 SCR 1 – Remarks
purportedly made by Supreme Court that the conduct of the counsel
for the petitioners and intervenors therein prima facie constituted
contempt of court – Miscellaneous application filed for expunging/
deleting the said remarks as against the present applicant/counsel,
who appeared for one of the intervenor therein – Held: Paragraph
75 of the judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla case records the submission
which was urged by the applicant namely, that contempt notices
should be issued to the Administrative Committee of the High Court
– The fact that such a submission was made is not in dispute – In
fact, the said submission has also been repeated in the present
application, as originally filed – Further, present application
proceeds on the basis that the observations which were made in
regard to the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors attach to
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 204
204
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
205
the applicant personally – If the applicant identifies with the
intervenor, that is a matter of perception for applicant/counsel –
Findings of Supreme Court were based on what was argued during
the course of the hearing – Miscellaneous Application accordingly
disposed of.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : M. A. No. 1607 of 2018
in I.A. Nos. 14870-14871 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.19 of 2018.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advs., Sunil
Fernandes, Ms. Astha Sharma, Amit Bhandari, Ms. Nupur Kumar,
Ms. Anju Thomas, Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Paras Nath Singh, Nishant
R. Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
        DR. DHANANJAYA  Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Ms Indira
Jaising has moved a Miscellaneous Application seeking the following
reliefs :
“a) Issue appropriate order or direction expunging/deleting the
remarks made against the counsel for present intervenor/applicant
herein that the conduct of the counsel/applicant herein amounted
to contempt or prima facie contempt of court, namely the
following :
“74. The present case is indeed a case in point. Repeatedly, counsel
for the petitioners and intervenors have attempted to inform the
court that they have no personal agenda and that they have instituted
these proceedings to protect judicial independence. An aura of
good faith has been sought to be created by submitting that the
true purpose of seeking an inquiry into the circumstances relating
to the death of Judge Loya is to protect the district judiciary(…)”
“75.[…] Ms Jaising has joined the fray by requesting that this
court to issue contempt notices to the Administrative Committee
of the Bombay High Court…”
“76. […] The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors
scandalises the process of the court and prima facie constitutes
criminal contempt…”
TEHSEEN POONAWALLA  v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
“78. [...] The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors is, as
we have indicated, lacking in bona fides and reveals a misuse of
judicial process.”
b) Issue appropriate order or direction issuing a clarification that
the counsel for the present intervener/applicant herein has not
furthered any submissions or engaged in conduct which may
amount to contempt of Court if it so deems fit;
c) Call for High Court of Bombay for the records of the meeting
of administrative committee of the High Court dated 25.06.2014
to ascertain the reasons for transfer to Judge Utpat, and to
ascertain whether the consent of this Hon’ble Court was obtained
or whether this Hon’ble Court was kept informed that Judge Utpat
was being transferred;”
In the batch of cases which was adjudicated upon in the judgment
of this Court dated 19 April 2018 Ms Jaising represented an intervenor
(Admiral Ramdas).
2. Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing on behalf of the applicant
submitted that whatever be the conduct of the other learned counsel
who appeared on beha

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