A
VISHAL JEET
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MAY 13, 1998
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND, S.B. MAJMUDAR AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]
Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court,
1975: Rule 3(c).
C
Contempt-Petition filed by petitioner-Advocate-Dismissed by
Supreme Court earlier-Filing of fresh contempt petition-Grievance that he
has not been made a member of the Central Advisory Committee-Consent
to file declined by Solicitor General under Rule 3(c) on the ground that it
was not a fit case for initiating contempt-Despite opinion of Solicitor
D General contempt petition filed-Held petition was totally mis-conceived
and motivated-Recourse to such a petition was abuse of process of Court-
Direction to Registry not to entertain any other petition concerning same
cause of action from the petitioner in future.
E
F
CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. D4I06of1998.
IN
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No. 421 of 1989: (For pre!. hearing)
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
In-person for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This petition running into 312 pages, filed by the petitioner in person
who claims to be an advocate, seeks initiation of contempt proceedings
G against the respondents. An earlier petition filed by the same petitioner on
the same cause (Contempt petition No. 1/1994) had been dismissed by this
Court on 22nd August, 1994. At page 234 of the paper book, the petitioner
has stated that the dismissal of the earlier petition "was wrong".
This petition is totally mis-conceived. The main grievance of the
petitioner appears to be that he has not been made a member of the Central
456
VISHAL JEET v. U.O.l.
457
Advisory Committee. It is reflected in the prayer clause at page 305.
A
Prayer 'C' reads as follows :
"I may be appointed member of the Central Advisory Committee under
Directions No. 8 of the judgment (In the contempt petition No. I of
1994, Hon'ble Supreme Court has endorsed that I can be appointed B
member of the Committee constituted at centre. Union Welfare Minister, .
Secretary Law, Home Secretary and Welfare Secretary have
recommended the usefulness of mine in the Committee. Cabinet
Secretary has also requuested the Women & Child Development
Secretary to appoint me member of this Committee. But she has not
entertained the request of any of such senior officers so far. She must C
give useful explanation as to why she is so averse to my induction
in the committee which was consituted only when I filed contempt in
the Hon'ble Court. Govt. Officers cannot act arbitrarily or obstruct the
process of law.)"
The filing of this contempt petition, thus appears to be motivated. D
Besides, the learned Solicitor General, on being approached by the petitioner,
to seek consent to file this contempt petition as required by Rule 3(C) of the
Rules to regulate proceedings for contempt of the Supreme Court, declined
to give his consent on 7th April, 1998 on the ground that it was not a fit
case for initiating contempt proceedings. The petitioner, despite the opinion E
of the Solicitor General, filed this petition undettered by the order of this
Court dated 22nd August, 1994. Even when the petitioner was told so, he
persited and did not even maintain proper discipline in the Court,
Recourse to such contempt proceedings is an abuse of the process of
the Court and it disturbs us more, when we find that the petitioner appears F
to be an advocate.
The registry is directed not to entertain any other petition concerning
the same cause from the petitioner in future.
The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
T.N.A.
Petition dismissed.
G
Lex