1987 (5) TMI 372 - SC - Indian Laws

Revival of Contempt Petition Requires Solicitor General Consent

The court allowed the revival of a contempt petition withdrawn by the petitioner, emphasizing the need for obtaining consent from the Solicitor General. ... - Issues:Revival of a contempt petition withdrawn by the petitioner, Requirement of obtaining consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General for maintaining a contempt petition, Denial of consent by the Solicitor General, Grounds for refusal of consent by the Solicitor General, Legal implications of refusal of consent by the Solicitor General.Analysis:Revival of Contempt Petition:The petitioner sought to revive a contempt petition that was withdrawn by him previously. The original petition alleged criminal contempt against the first respondent for making adverse comments about judges. The petitioner withdrew the petition due to the absence of consent from the Attorney General. The court allowed withdrawal with liberty to refile after obtaining the Attorney General's consent post the National Anthem case. Subsequently, the petitioner tried to recall the withdrawal order, citing lack of awareness about the provision allowing consent from the Solicitor General. The court clarified that the petition could be revived with the Solicitor General's consent under Rule 3(c), granting the petitioner the opportunity to approach the Solicitor General for consent.Requirement of Obtaining Consent:The bench emphasized the necessity of obtaining written consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General for maintaining a contempt petition. The petitioner's failure to secure consent from the Attorney General led to the withdrawal of the original petition. The court highlighted that the petitioner could revive the petition only after fulfilling the condition of obtaining consent from the Solicitor General, as specified in the court's order. The Solicitor General's subsequent refusal to grant consent was deemed valid, and the court found no legal basis to challenge the refusal.Denial of Consent by Solicitor General:The Solicitor General declined to grant consent for initiating the contempt proceedings, stating that it was not in the public interest. The court reviewed the reasons provided by the Solicitor General and concluded that the refusal was not arbitrary, illegal, or unreasonable. The court held that the grounds for refusal were relevant in law, thereby upholding the Solicitor General's decision to deny consent.Legal Implications of Refusal of Consent:Considering the events and prior court orders, the court determined that the petitioner failed to meet the conditions necessary for reviving the contempt petition. As the Solicitor General's refusal was found to be valid and in the public interest, the court dismissed the petitioner's applications for revival. The decision underscored the importance of obtaining consent from the Solicitor General for maintaining contempt proceedings and upheld the Solicitor General's discretion in granting or denying consent based on public interest considerations.In conclusion, the judgment elucidated the procedural requirements for maintaining contempt petitions, the significance of obtaining consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General, and the legal implications of the Solicitor General's refusal to grant consent in the context of public interest.