Supreme Court Convicts Contemnors for Scandalous Allegations Against Judges in Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings. The Court upheld its inherent power under Article 129 to punish for contempt, rejecting procedural objections under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court against alleged contemnors for making scandalous allegations against two judges of the Supreme Court.

The Court sought to punish the contemnors for contempt of court for undermining the authority of the judiciary.

The Court took suo motu notice of letters dated 19.03.2019 and 20.03.2019 sent by the alleged contemnors to the President of India and Chief Justice of India, containing highly disrespectful and scandalous allegations against two judges of the Supreme Court, which were also circulated on social media.

The Court had earlier discharged alleged contemnor no. 4, Mathews Nedumpara, on his application, and had clarified the charges against the remaining contemnors.

Whether the Supreme Court can take suo motu cognizance of contempt without specific assignment by the Chief Justice? Whether the consent of the Attorney General is necessary for initiating contempt proceedings? Whether the procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must be strictly followed? Whether the alleged contemnors are guilty of criminal contempt for making scandalous allegations against judges?

The alleged contemnors argued that the Bench could not take cognizance as the case was not assigned by the Chief Justice, and that the judges acted as judges in their own cause. They contended that the Registry should not treat it as a suo motu petition and that the consent of the Attorney General was necessary. They argued that the proper procedure of framing a charge was not followed and that defects at the initial stage could not be cured. The amicus curiae argued that the Supreme Court, being a court of record under Article 129, has inherent power to punish for contempt, not bound by the Contempt of Courts Act, and the procedure followed was fair.

The Supreme Court, as a court of record under Article 129 of the Constitution, has inherent and plenary power to punish for contempt of itself, which cannot be abridged or taken away by any statute including the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The procedure under the Act is not binding; only requirement is that the procedure is fair and in accordance with natural justice. Suo motu cognizance by the same Bench against whom allegations are made is valid, and consent of Attorney General is not required in suo motu proceedings.

Article 129 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: '129. Supreme Court to be a court of record. The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.' A bare reading of Article 129 clearly shows that this Court being a Court of Record shall have all the powers of such a Court of Record including the power to punish for contempt of itself. This is a constitutional power which cannot be taken away or in any manner abridged by statute. In view of the fact that the power to punish for contempt of itself is a constitutional power vested in this Court, such power cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment.

The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of letters dated 19.03.2019 and 20.03.2019 containing scandalous allegations against two judges. Notice was issued to four alleged contemnors. One contemnor (Mathews Nedumpara) was discharged on application. The remaining three contemnors filed replies and raised preliminary objections. The Court heard arguments and delivered judgment convicting them.

• Constitution of India: Article 129, Article 142
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 2(c), Section 15