Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this Court which cannot be abridged or taken away, even by legislative enactment. Court said the reason for its being is the need for protecting and maintaining the dignity of the institution of judiciary.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundaresh observed, "the contemnor is clearly guilty of contempt of this Court. His actions to scandalise the Court cannot be countenanced. He continues with his contumacious behaviour."

The observations were made in a plea against Rajeev Dahiya, MD of Suraz India, for non-payment of cost of Rs. 25 Lakh imposed in PIL filed by the trust which was later banned from filing PILs for life.

"The raison d’etre of contempt jurisdiction is to maintain the dignity of the institution of judicial forums," Court said.

The Court has pronounced its judgment in a contempt proceeding initiated by the court against MD of Suraz India Trust for not submitting the cost of Rs 25 Lakh awarded in a PIL filed by the Trust.

Later, during several rounds of litigations, the petitioner sought to submit an unconditional apology, which was not accepted.

However, due to non-appearance bailable warrants were directed to be issued for his production in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount. 

In furtherance to which Daiya wrote a letter to the Attorney General seeking permission, "to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against the Assistant Registrar of the PIL Section, Section X and Section XVI-A and other officials for obstructing and interfering with administration of justice by not letting the matter of Mr. Daiya be decided on merits of the case. Simultaneously consent was also sought for filing contempt proceedings against the then Chief Justice of India Shri J.S. Khehar (since retired), Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.) as they were the three Judges party to the judgment passed on 01.05.2017 on the ground that the Judges were obstructing the meritorious decision making of various petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India."

After filing several applications seeking to implead Supreme Court, Judges of the Supreme Court, Registry, etc, Dahiya once again sought to withdraw all the applications and filed another IA seeking to place an Unconditional Apology. 

However, the court noted, "Such litigants cannot be permitted to have their way only because they can plead and write anything they feel like and keep on approbating by sometimes apologising and then again bringing forth those allegations. We have thus chosen the more difficult path."

The Court noted that in the applications made by the Trust, disparaging remarks were made not only with reference to the Judges of the Rajasthan High Court but also with reference to the Judges of this Court.

The bench further observed, "We have little doubt that what the contemnor has been endeavouring is to have his way or, alternatively, I will throw mud at all and sundry, whether it be the Court, its administrative staff or the State Government so that people, apprehensive of this mud thrown, may back off."

The court also noted that the apologies submitted by Dahiya are only endeavors to get out of the consequences again followed by another set of allegations, thus, a charade. The last apology can hardly be called an apology seeing the contents, the bench added.

The bench while holding Dahiya guilty of Contempt of Court, considered to give him one more chance and, thus, considered it appropriate to list the petition to hear the contemnor on the question of the final sentence.

 

Case Title: Suraz India Trust Vs. Union of India
 

Access Copy of Judgment Here