LexTRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL INDIA & ANR. versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 662 A TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL fNDIA & ANR. .B c D E F G v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 180 of 2006) FEBRUARY 21, 2017 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR CJI, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.] Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act, 1997: Contempt proceedings under - A general study conducted by petitioner No. 2 and published by petitioner No. 1 - References therein regarding functioning of judiciary - Allegation that 92% of the lower judiciary in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was perceived to be corrupt - Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1" Class, Kangan, Jammu and Kashmir initiated action against 5 persons including the petitioners, and issued notices calling for their explanation and their appearance before the Court - Petitioners filed their respective responses to the notices stating therein inter alia that since the proceedings were initiated under Contempt of Courts Act and uls 2(d) rlw ss. 499, 5001501 of Ranbir Penal Code, the Magistrate had neither the right to initiate proceedings for the contempt nor had the right to make reference for the same to the High Court - Thereafter, the order passed by Magistrate seeking the presence of petitioners through bailable warrants - Writ petition before Supreme Court - Held: The .Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction or authority to pass the impugned order, whereby it contemplated to enforce the attendance of the petitioners, by way of arrest - The Magistrate was required to proceed with the matter in consonance with law - If it was Courts understanding that the matter needed to be taken further, either under Contempt of Courts Act or uls. 216 r/w. ss. 499, 5001501 of Ranhir Penal Code, the Court ought to have done so in consonance with law - Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat 1989 - SS. 216 rlw. SS. 499, 5001501. s. 15 - Reference under - Whether can be made for general allegations levelled against lower judiciary - Held: When general allegations are made against many courts, not aimed at any specific H · ;udge or Court any one of the courts or judges can make a reference. 662 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL INDIA & ANR. v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Disposing of the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that a reference under Section 15 of Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 could be made only by the particular court, of which contempt was allegedly committed, and not by just auy court. As per this plea, it would not be open to any Member of the lower judiciary, to make a reference to a High Court, wherein general allegations have been levelled. It cannot be accepted that only because the allegations in the present case were not aimed at any particular Court, the provisions of the 1997 Act could not be invoked. The term "of a subordinate court", used in Sectiou 15(2) of the 1997 Act - could well contemplate a situation, where the alleged contemptuous action is aimed at more than one court, or a large number of courts, all at once. In that eventuality, any one of such courts, can make a reference to the High Court, under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act, 1997. Where the contemptuous action is of a general nature, and is not aimed at specific Judges or Courts, any one of such Judges or Courts, which perceives that the same is aimed at him (or it), would be well within its right, to make a reference of the same to the jurisdictional High court. And thereupon, whether coguizance and initiation of contempt proceedings need to be taken, would fall within the realm of the High Court itself. [Para 18] [675-B, C, E-H] 2.1 In the present case, the Judicial Magistrate, Kangan, had absolutely no jurisdiction or authority to pass the impugned order dated 24.8.2006, whereby, it contemplated to enforce the attendance of the petitioners (amongst others), by way of arrest. In a case as the one in hand, the petitioners had perceived, that the proceedings initiated by the Judicial Magistrate on 4.5.2006, were misconceived. Having received the response in their written submissions from the petitioners, and the petitioners having not entered appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, the Judicial Magistrate ought to have proceeded. further with the matter, 0 in consonance with law. And if it was the Court's understanding, that the matter 'needed to be taken further, either under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 and/or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.