Supreme Court Upholds Dignity, Finds Contemnors Guilty of Disrespectful Allegations

The Supreme Court found the alleged contemnors guilty of contempt for making disrespectful and scandalous allegations against the Judges. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the judiciary's authority and dignity, exercising its inherent powers under Articles 129 and 142. The contemnors' defense of truth was rejected, and the Court noted their coordinated efforts to intimidate the Judges. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on sentencing, highlighting the seriousness with which such actions are viewed by the Court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of the Bench to take cognizance of the contempt case.
2. Whether the proceedings were rightly treated as suo motu contempt.
3. Necessity of Attorney General’s consent in suo motu contempt proceedings.
4. Procedural validity of framing charges.
5. Requirement for Judges to disclose the source of information.
6. Examination of the powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution.
7. Analysis of the contemptuous nature of the complaints and the defense of truth.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Bench:
The alleged contemnors argued that the Bench of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran could not have taken cognizance of the case because it was not assigned by the Chief Justice and that the Judges acted as judges in their own cause. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Bench was already dealing with a Suo Motu Contempt Petition and took note of the scandalous allegations, issuing notice accordingly. The matter was then placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate listing, adhering to the principle that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster.

2. Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings:
The alleged contemnors contended that the proceedings were not suo motu and required the Attorney General's consent. The Court clarified that the order dated 27.03.2019 indicated that the Court took cognizance of the complaints and issued notice on its own, thus rightly treating the matter as suo motu contempt. The Court emphasized that contempt is a matter between the Court and the contemnor, and any person can inform the Court of the contempt committed.

3. Consent of Attorney General:
The alleged contemnors argued that even in suo motu contempt proceedings, the consent of the Attorney General is necessary. The Court held that in suo motu petitions, there is no requirement for the consent of the Attorney General, as the Court exercises its inherent powers to issue notice for contempt.

4. Procedural Validity of Framing Charges:
The alleged contemnors raised objections regarding the procedural validity of framing charges. The Court held that the notice issued was in accordance with Form I of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, which only requires a brief statement of the nature of the contempt. The order initiating contempt proceedings was attached to the notice, fulfilling the requirement.

5. Source of Information:
The alleged contemnors argued that the Bench should have disclosed the source of information. The Court referred to the order initiating contempt proceedings, which clearly stated that the action was based on the letter sent by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society. The source of information was thus disclosed in the order itself.

6. Powers of the Supreme Court:
The Court discussed its powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the Supreme Court, being a Court of Record, has the inherent power to punish for contempt. This constitutional power cannot be abridged or taken away by statute. The Court referred to various judgments, including Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court and Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, to affirm that the Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt is not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

7. Contemptuous Nature of the Complaints and Defense of Truth:
The Court examined the complaints filed by Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, finding them to be highly disrespectful, scandalous, and containing scurrilous allegations against the Judges. The complaints were seen as an attempt to intimidate the Judges and lower the dignity of the Court. The Court rejected the defense of truth, finding no material to support the allegations. The Court held all three alleged contemnors—Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, and Shri Nilesh Ojha—guilty of contempt, noting that the complaints were sent in coordination with each other and with the intention to browbeat the Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent powers under Articles 129 and 142, found the alleged contemnors guilty of contempt for making scandalous and scurrilous allegations against the Judges. The Court emphasized that such actions undermine the authority and dignity of the judiciary and must be dealt with sternly. The matter was listed for hearing on the issue of sentence.

---