Case Note & Summary
The case involved a contempt petition filed against a senior advocate for making allegations of corruption against the judiciary, specifically targeting the Chief Justice of India. The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Harish N. Salve, brought these allegations to the Court's attention during the hearing of interlocutory applications in a separate writ petition. The allegations were reported in Tehelka magazine, where the respondent claimed that half of the last 16 Chief Justices were corrupt, without providing any evidence. The Court initially directed notice to be issued on 6th November 2009, leading to the current contempt proceedings. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the contempt proceedings, arguing that the Court did not take suo motu cognizance as required under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and that proper procedures were not followed. They cited previous judgments to support their claims regarding the necessity of consent from the Attorney General for such proceedings. The Court, however, found that sufficient grounds existed for taking action on its own motion, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary. The Court concluded that the objections raised by the respondents were unfounded and directed that the matter be heard on its merits, allowing the respondents to file further affidavits within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Maintainability of Proceedings - Sufficient Grounds for Suo Motu Action - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 15 - The Court found that prima facie grounds existed for taking suo motu cognizance of the contemptuous statements made by the Respondent No.1, thus holding the proceedings maintainable despite procedural objections raised by the respondents. Held that the nature of the proceedings did not change due to the manner in which information was presented to the Court (Paras 12-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents were maintainable.
Final Decision
The Court held the contempt proceedings to be maintainable and directed that the matter be placed for hearing on merits, allowing the respondents to file further affidavits within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Suo Motu Cognizance
- Maintainability of Proceedings
- Freedom of Speech
- Judicial Procedure
