Supreme Court Affirms Its Constitutional Power to Punish for Contempt, Convicts Three Advocates for Scandalous Allegations Against Judges

In landmark judgment, Supreme Court clarifies suo motu contempt powers under Articles 129 and 142 of Constitution, dismisses procedural objections, and holds advocates guilty for contemptuous letters defaming sitting judges

In a significant judgment dated April 27, 2020, a Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose has reaffirmed the constitutional power of the Supreme Court to initiate and punish for contempt suo motu under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, independent of procedural limitations under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court held that the powers of the Supreme Court as a Court of Record to punish for contempt are inherent and cannot be curtailed or abrogated by statute.

The judgment arose from suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against three advocates — Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, and Shri Nilesh Ojha — following scandalous and defamatory allegations made against two sitting Supreme Court judges. These allegations were contained in voluminous letters and complaints addressed to the President of India, Chief Justice of India, and others, and widely circulated on social media. The letters were authored or supported by the contemnors in their capacities as office bearers of the Indian Bar Association and a Human Rights NGO.

The Court took note of these communications, which contained more than 250 pages of scurrilous allegations, and found that they amounted to criminal contempt of court by scandalizing and lowering the majesty of the judiciary. The contemnors’ arguments challenging the initiation of proceedings on procedural grounds were emphatically rejected. The Court clarified that while Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act prescribes the procedure for initiating contempt, it is not the source of the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction, which is independent and paramount.

The Court observed that suo motu contempt proceedings can be initiated on the basis of information brought to the notice of any Judge of the Supreme Court and that such information need not be filed as a formal petition requiring consent of the Attorney General. In this case, the Court itself took cognizance of the complaints without any formal petition and issued notices accordingly, which was proper and valid.

Addressing objections that the Bench acted as judges in their own cause or that the consent of the Attorney General was necessary, the Court held that judges can exercise their constitutional powers independently and that the Chief Justice of India was appropriately consulted for roster allocation post issuance of notice. The Court also rejected the contention that the alleged contemnors were prejudiced by non-supply of all annexures with the notice, holding that only a brief statement of the nature of contempt is required and that non-supply of documents was at most an irregularity.

The judgment extensively analyzed the scope of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and recognized the right of citizens to criticize judicial judgments. However, it emphasized that such criticism must be fair and not amount to scandalizing or lowering the authority of the courts. The Court noted that the allegations made by the contemnors went beyond fair criticism, questioning the impartiality, integrity, and ability of the judges, and were thus contemptuous.

The Court also examined detailed allegations made in the complaints, including accusations of bias, malafide intentions, conspiracy, and abuse of power against the judges, and found them to be baseless, scurrilous, and damaging to the dignity of the judiciary. The Court accepted the affidavit of apology filed by Shri Mathews Nedumpara, who was initially named in the complaints but later disassociated himself, and discharged him from proceedings.

The contemnors’ defense of truth was found unsupported by any credible material, and the Court held that truth as a defense cannot justify scandalous and disrespectful allegations without bona fide intention and evidence.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held all three contemnors guilty of criminal contempt and directed that they be heard on the question of sentence. The hearing was scheduled for May 1, 2020, to be conducted through video conferencing.

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s firm stance on protecting the dignity of the judiciary and clarifies procedural and substantive aspects of contempt jurisdiction, balancing constitutional powers with the right to fair criticism.

Statutory provisions

Articles 129, 142 of the Constitution of India; Sections 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Supreme Court Rules, 1975 (Rules 3, 4, 5, 6)

---

Detailed Summary and Step-by-Step Analysis:

1. Background:

 The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of scandalous allegations made against two sitting Supreme Court judges contained in complaints authored by advocates Vijay Kurle and Rashid Khan Pathan and supported by Indian Bar Association President Nilesh Ojha. The allegations were circulated widely, including on social media.

2. Initiation of Proceedings:

 The Court noted that its power to punish for contempt is constitutional and inherent under Article 129 (Supreme Court as Court of Record) and Article 142 (powers to do complete justice) and is not limited or abrogated by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 15 of the Act prescribes procedures but is not the source of power.

3. Validity of Suo Motu Notice:

 The Court clarified that suo motu contempt proceedings can be initiated by the Court on information brought to its notice, without any formal petition or consent of the Attorney General. The Court found that the notices issued to the contemnors properly stated the brief nature of contempt per Form I under Supreme Court Rules and were accompanied by the relevant order, constituting valid notice.

4. Procedural Objections Rejected:

 The contemnors argued that the Bench which took cognizance was not properly constituted, that they acted as judges in their own cause, that the notice was defective, and that consent of the Attorney General was necessary. The Court rejected these objections, noting that any Judge can take cognizance of contemptuous material and issue notice, placing the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate listing thereafter.

5. Disclosure of Source of Information:

 The Court held that it was not necessary to disclose the source beyond what was already indicated in the order initiating proceedings, as the complaints themselves were before the Court.

6. Freedom of Speech and Fair Criticism:

 The Court emphasized that citizens have the right to criticize judicial decisions under Article 19(1)(a), subject to reasonable restrictions for contempt. The Court acknowledged that fair and bona fide criticism is permissible, but the contemnors’ allegations went far beyond this, amounting to scandalizing and lowering the dignity of the Court.

7. Examination of Allegations:

 The Court examined detailed allegations accusing the judges of bias, malafide intent, conspiracy, and misuse of power. It found these allegations baseless, unsupported by evidence, and constituting criminal contempt. The Court also accepted the apology affidavit of Mathews Nedumpara, who disassociated himself.

8. Role of the Indian Bar Association President:

 The Court found that Nilesh Ojha, though not a signatory, had knowledge and consented to the complaints and was involved in the conspiracy with other contemnors.

9. Defense of Truth Not Established:

 The defense that the allegations were true was not supported by credible evidence, and the Court held that truth can be a defense only if raised bona fide in public interest, which was not shown here.

10. Conclusion and Directions:

 The Court held all three advocates guilty of contempt and directed a hearing on sentencing via video conferencing.

This judgment clarifies the scope and procedure of contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, balances the right to free speech with the need to uphold judicial dignity, and sends a strong message against unfounded and scandalous attacks on the judiciary.

---

References:

- Constitution of India, Articles 129 and 142

- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 2, 3, 5, 10-15, 17, 22, 23

- Supreme Court Rules, 1975, Rules 3-6

- Key judgments referenced: Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice (1954), C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta (1971), Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995), Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar (1988), Biman Basu v. Kallol Guha Thakurta (2010)

This ruling remains a landmark in elucidating the constitutional contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and protecting judicial independence and respect.

Re : Vijay Kurle (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1713671