Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that Sections 2(c), 12, 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are unconstitutional and void as they violate Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner also sought to quash the proceedings in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2016 and an unnumbered criminal contempt petition arising out of an order dated 22.02.2017. The petitioner alleged that the contempt provisions are against the first principle of natural justice, diabolic, arbitrary and unjust. The respondents, including the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Bar Council of India, and several newspaper editors, opposed the petition. The court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition, holding that the challenged provisions are not unconstitutional. The court observed that the contempt power is essential for the administration of justice and the procedure provided under the Act is fair and reasonable. The court also noted that the petitioner had made serious allegations against the judges of the High Court in his petition and in media interviews, which amount to criminal contempt as they scandalize and tend to lower the authority of the court. The court directed that the contempt proceedings against the petitioner be continued and disposed of expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2(c), 12, 14, 15 - Challenge to constitutionality of contempt provisions - Petitioner contended that the provisions violate Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution as they are against natural justice, arbitrary and unjust - Court held that the provisions are not unconstitutional and the challenge is without merit - The court observed that the contempt power is necessary for the administration of justice and the procedure provided is fair and reasonable (Paras 1-10). B) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Suo Motu Proceedings - Procedure - Sections 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Petitioner alleged that the contempt proceedings against him were initiated without following proper procedure and violated his right to fair hearing - Court held that the proceedings were validly initiated and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself - The court noted that the petitioner's allegations were baseless and the contempt proceedings were in accordance with law (Paras 11-20). C) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Allegations against Judges - Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Petitioner made serious allegations against the judges of the High Court in his petition and in media interviews - Court held that such allegations amount to criminal contempt as they scandalize and tend to lower the authority of the court - The court directed that the contempt proceedings against the petitioner be continued and disposed of expeditiously (Paras 21-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Sections 2(c), 12, 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether the contempt proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that Sections 2(c), 12, 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are not unconstitutional. The contempt proceedings against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed and shall continue.
Law Points
- Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Sections 2(c)
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Constitution of India
- Article 14
- Article 20(3)
- Article 21
- Article 226
- natural justice
- criminal contempt
- suo motu contempt
- procedure for contempt
- right against self-incrimination
- right to life and personal liberty
