New Delhi: Supreme court warned on Wednesday that old mud-slingers who took a dig at the judiciary and judges cannot escape the rigors of punishment under contempt court Law by apologizing, which is not born out of remorse, but is an attempt to save their skin when caught in an unavoidable situation.
make an example of Rajiv Dahiya, who heads the NGO Suraj India Trust, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kaul And MM Sundresh said, “The main reason for contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity of the institution of judicial fora. It is not a vindictive practice nor are unwarranted statements capable of undermining the dignity of a judge in itself.” These are often overlooked, but where a perennial litigant irrespective of all latitudes tries to justify its existence by throwing soil and miscellaneous, the court has to step in.
The SC held that its power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power, which cannot be curtailed or taken away even by a legislative act. “We have no doubt that what the contemnor is trying is to make his way or, alternatively, I will throw mud at all, be it the court, its administrative staff or the state government, so that people are apprehensive of it. If you throw mud, it can backfire. We refuse to back down and are clear in our view that we should take it to its logical conclusion.” Justice Kouli And Sundaresh said.
An old PIL, Dahiya was restrained from filing a PIL in the SC in 2017 and asked to pay a cost of Rs 25 lakh for wasting judicial time. He did not deposit the cost and continued to make derogatory remarks against the sitting SC judges through letters addressed to the President from the CJI. When the court caught him and his defamatory activities, he sought the separation of Justice Kaul, who refused.
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Kaul observed, “After all, there cannot be a birthright to file a PIL… Let us say at the outset that instead of inviting so much trouble, to drop or drop the matter in an easier way.” .. but this is not the way the judges have taken oath.”
“Sometimes the task is impossible and difficult, but it must be done in the larger interest of the institution. Such litigants cannot be allowed to have their way simply because they write whatever they feel And sometimes by apologizing and then bringing up those allegations again, we have thus taken the more difficult path,” he said.
The bench said that despite repeated warnings from the Supreme Court, Dahiya refused to change his ways and the advice fell on deaf ears. “There is no absolute license when appearing in person to object to judicial matters as having a tendency to defame the court. Motivated and thought-provoking attempts to tarnish the image of the judiciary in the assessment of the public and The administration of justice must best itself to uphold their dignity and the glory of the law,” it said.
“In the present context, if seen, the cost being complained of arises because of the inability of the contemnor to file the PIL, which he claims to be unable to pay and to be able to prosecute the consequences thereof.” The litigations, which are in large numbers. The contemnor has apparently made it a profession to file public interest litigations on subjects about which he does not know much and then the court to grant relief to him is trying to defame the court, failing which he will continue to defame the court.
“We are of the view that the contemnor is clearly guilty of contempt of this court. His acts of defaming the court cannot be counted. He continues with his aggressive behavior. The apology presented by him is only an attempt to walk out of the results again, followed by another set of accusations, thus, a satire. Looking at the content, the final apology can hardly be called an apology. This Court has held that apology cannot be a defence, a justification can be accepted if it can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the court,” the bench held him guilty of contempt of court and Gave him time to debate the question – what should be the appropriate punishment that can be imposed on him.
make an example of Rajiv Dahiya, who heads the NGO Suraj India Trust, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kaul And MM Sundresh said, “The main reason for contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the dignity of the institution of judicial fora. It is not a vindictive practice nor are unwarranted statements capable of undermining the dignity of a judge in itself.” These are often overlooked, but where a perennial litigant irrespective of all latitudes tries to justify its existence by throwing soil and miscellaneous, the court has to step in.
The SC held that its power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power, which cannot be curtailed or taken away even by a legislative act. “We have no doubt that what the contemnor is trying is to make his way or, alternatively, I will throw mud at all, be it the court, its administrative staff or the state government, so that people are apprehensive of it. If you throw mud, it can backfire. We refuse to back down and are clear in our view that we should take it to its logical conclusion.” Justice Kouli And Sundaresh said.
An old PIL, Dahiya was restrained from filing a PIL in the SC in 2017 and asked to pay a cost of Rs 25 lakh for wasting judicial time. He did not deposit the cost and continued to make derogatory remarks against the sitting SC judges through letters addressed to the President from the CJI. When the court caught him and his defamatory activities, he sought the separation of Justice Kaul, who refused.
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Kaul observed, “After all, there cannot be a birthright to file a PIL… Let us say at the outset that instead of inviting so much trouble, to drop or drop the matter in an easier way.” .. but this is not the way the judges have taken oath.”
“Sometimes the task is impossible and difficult, but it must be done in the larger interest of the institution. Such litigants cannot be allowed to have their way simply because they write whatever they feel And sometimes by apologizing and then bringing up those allegations again, we have thus taken the more difficult path,” he said.
The bench said that despite repeated warnings from the Supreme Court, Dahiya refused to change his ways and the advice fell on deaf ears. “There is no absolute license when appearing in person to object to judicial matters as having a tendency to defame the court. Motivated and thought-provoking attempts to tarnish the image of the judiciary in the assessment of the public and The administration of justice must best itself to uphold their dignity and the glory of the law,” it said.
“In the present context, if seen, the cost being complained of arises because of the inability of the contemnor to file the PIL, which he claims to be unable to pay and to be able to prosecute the consequences thereof.” The litigations, which are in large numbers. The contemnor has apparently made it a profession to file public interest litigations on subjects about which he does not know much and then the court to grant relief to him is trying to defame the court, failing which he will continue to defame the court.
“We are of the view that the contemnor is clearly guilty of contempt of this court. His acts of defaming the court cannot be counted. He continues with his aggressive behavior. The apology presented by him is only an attempt to walk out of the results again, followed by another set of accusations, thus, a satire. Looking at the content, the final apology can hardly be called an apology. This Court has held that apology cannot be a defence, a justification can be accepted if it can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the court,” the bench held him guilty of contempt of court and Gave him time to debate the question – what should be the appropriate punishment that can be imposed on him.
.