Case Note & Summary
The case arose from statements made by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) that were deemed to scandalize the Supreme Court. Following the incidents at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, the President of India issued a Proclamation under Article 356, leading to the enactment of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. In April 1994, derogatory statements were made by VHP leaders Vishnu Hari Dalmia and Giriraj Kishore, which were published in the Indian Express and Khabardar India. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan filed a contempt petition against these individuals and the publications, alleging that their statements undermined the authority of the Court. The Court initially issued notices to the respondents but the proceedings remained dormant for nearly two decades. In March 2014, the Court was informed that the notices had not been served on contemner No.3, who was now 96 years old and in poor health. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the matter but ultimately decided not to pursue the contempt proceedings further due to the delay and the health condition of the contemner. The Court also noted that the other contemners had tendered unconditional apologies. Consequently, the contempt matters were ordered to be closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Contempt of Court - Delay in Proceedings - Article 129 of the Constitution of India - The Court found that due to the significant delay in serving notice and the advanced age and illness of contemner No.3, it was not appropriate to pursue contempt proceedings further. The Court noted that the gravity of the matter was acknowledged but ultimately decided to close the contempt matters against all respondents. Held that the proceedings should not continue in light of these circumstances (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the contempt proceedings should be pursued against the respondents given the delay and the health condition of contemner No.3.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court decided to close the contempt proceedings against all respondents due to the significant delay in serving notice and the advanced age and illness of contemner No.3, Giriraj Kishore. The Court noted that the other contemners had also tendered unconditional apologies.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Article 129
- Article 143
- Criminal Contempt
- Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
