Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13
PETITIONER:
IN RE: 1. SHRI SANJIV DATTA, DEPUTY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF IN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/04/1995
BENCH:
SAWANT, P.B.
BENCH:
SAWANT, P.B.
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (3) 619 JT 1995 (3) 538
1995 SCALE (2)704
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
SAWANT, J.:
1.These contempt proceedings arise out of Writ Petition
No.836/93 which has already been disposed of along with C.A.
Nos. 1429-30/1995 by our decision of 9th February, 1995. It
is not necessary to refer to all the details of the said
proceedings for deciding this matter. Suffice it to say
that the Cricket Association of Bengal [CAB] had organised a
six-nation international cricket tournament from 9th Novem-
ber, 1993 to 20th November, 1993 as a part of its Diamond
Jubilee Celebrations. The first of the matches was to be
played in Bangalore on 9th November, 1993. As early as on
15th March, 1993, the CAB had intimated the said fact to the
Director General of Doordarshan [DD] and negotiations for
the telecasting of the match had started since that day.
Rest of the history of the developments in the negotiations
has been referred to in our decision.
2.It appears that during the course of the said negotiations
and offers and counter offers for telecasting of the
matches, a stage
542
reached when the CAB had to file a writ petition on 8th
November, 1993 before the Calcutta High Court praying, among
other things, that the respondents to the writ petition -
Union of India, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
[MIB], Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited [VSNL] and Doordarshan
[DD] - should be directed to provide telecast and broadcast
of all the matches and also to provide all arrangements and
facilities for telecasting and broadcasting of the matches
by the agency engaged by the CAB, viz., Trans World
International [TWI]. In view of the urgency of the matter,
interim reliefs were also sought in the petition. The
learned Single Judge of the High Court on the same day,
directed the learned advocate of the Union of India to
obtain instructions in the matter, and in the meanwhile,
passed interim order making it clear that it would not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13
prevent the DD from telecasting the matches without
affecting the existing arrangements between the CAB and TWI.
The writ petition was posted for further hearing on 9th
November, 1993 on which date, the learned Single Judge
confirmed the interim order and the respondents were
restrained from interfering with the frequency lines given
to TWI. On 10th November, 1993, the VSNL advised INTELSAT
at Washington seeking cancellation of its request for
booking, On 11 th November, 1993, the learned Single Judge
partly allowed the writ petition by directing the All India
Radio to broadcast the matches. Against these orders, the
Union of India preferred an appeal before the Division Bench
of the High Court on 12th November, 1993 and the Division
Bench passed an order to the following effect:-
(a) that CAB would pay DD a sum of Rs.5 lakh
per match and the revenue collected by DD on
account of sponsorship will be kept in
separate account.
(b) that DD would be the host broadcaster.
(c) that Ministry of Telecommunication would
consider the question of issuing a license to
TWI under the Telegraphs Act and decide the
same within three days.
3. On 12th November, 1993, the Film Facilities Officer of
the MIB informed the Customs Department at New Delhi, Bombay
and Calcutta airports, that as TWI had not obtained the
required clearance from the Government for the coverage of
the tournament, they should not be permitted to expose the
films outside India till it was cleared by the Government.
On the same day, DD asked CAB for providing various
facilities at each match venue, as this was a pre-requisite
for creating host broadcaster’s signal in India. CAB sent a
reply on the same day and called upon DD to telecast matches
within India pursuant to the High Court’s order of 12th
November, 1993. On the same day, the Collector of Customs,
Bombay called upon the CA13 to pay customs duty on the
equipment as there was a breach of the terms of the
exemption order. The Committee of Secretaries of the
Government of India also decided on the same day that the
telecast of all sporting events should be within the
exclusive purview of the DD/MIB.
4. On 14th November, 1993, the Division Bench of the
High Court in clarification of its order of 12th November,
1993 directed among others, as follows:
[a] In case the signal is required to be
generated by TWI separately, such necessary
permission should be given
543
by DD and/or other competent authorities.
[b] The differences with regard to the
placement of cameras etc., if any, between
cricket authority and DD should be mutually
worked out, and if this cannot be done, the
dispute should be decided by the Head of the
Police in the place where the match was being
played.
[c] The equipment of TWI which had been seized
by the Customs Authority should be released
upon undertaking that the same would not be
used for any other purpose and
[d] The VSNL should take proper steps for
uplinking, and should not take any steps to
defeat the orders of the Court. The TWI
should comply with all financial commitments
to VSNL.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13
5. On 15th November, 1993, CAB and another filed writ
petition No. 836/1993 in this Court from which the present
contempt proceedings have arisen. On 15th November, 1993,
this Court passed an order directing the Secretary, Ministry
of Communications to hold meeting on the same day by 4.30
p.m. and communicate its decision by 7.30 p.m. This order
became necessary because, although the High Court on 12th
November, 1993 had directed that the Ministry of
Telecommunications should consider the question of issuing
licence to TWI under the Telegraph Act and decide the same
within three days from that date [which time limit was ex-
piring in any case by 15th November, 1993], the Secretary of
the MIB had fixed the meeting only on 16th November, 1993.
This Court by the same order also directed the Customs
authorities to release the equipment.
6.The Secretary, Ministry of Communications passed his order
by about 7.30 p.m. on that day. However, the order directed
TWI, i.e., the agency engaged by the CAB, to take the signal
from the DD, thus keeping the CAB and the TWI at the mercy
of the DD. On the same night, therefore, the CAB moved this
Court and this Court taking into consideration the then
hostile relations between the parties and to avoid constant
irritations, bickerings and disputes between them resulting
in possible interruptions in telecasting thus affecting the
interests of the viewers, permitted the TWI to generate its
own signals and also directed the Customs authorities to
release the goods forthwith. That order may be reproduced
here:
"The order passed by Shri N. Vittal, Chairman
(TC) & Secretary, DOT on 15.11.1993 is stayed
to the extent that it imposes the condition
that the TWI will have to get the signals from
Doordarshan for uplinking through the VSNL by
making mutual arrangements. The TWI can
generate their own signal by focussing their
cameras only on the ground where the cricket
matches are being played, as directed by the
Home Ministry, they will take care not to
focus their cameras anywhere else.
The learned counsel appearing for the
Doordarshan states that Mr. Basu, the Director
General of Doordarshan informed her at 5.30
P.M. today on telephone that the Customs
Authorities are releasing the equipment as
directed by this Court. Shri Sibbal appearing
for the petitioners informs us that the
equipment has not been released by the Customs
Authorities. However, the learned counsel
further informs after taking instructions from
his junior that a copy of the court’s order
was served on Mr. Devender Singh, Under
Secretary, Ministry of Finance who
544
was present before Mr. Vittal at the time of
hearing this evening. In case,, the customs
authorities have not as yet released the
equipment, they are once again directed to
release the equipment forthwith. This shall
not be treated as a precedent in the future
and the order is made in the facts and
circumstances of the present case keeping in
view the fact that no appeal has been filed
against the order of the Calcutta High Court
by the Doordarshan. "
It is thereafter that the affidavit in reply
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13
to the writ petition was filed on behalf of
the MIB by the contemner Shri Sanjiv Datta,
who is working as Deputy Secretary in MIB. In
the said affidavit, the contemner, among other
things, averred as follows:
"This Hon’ble Court erred in law by en-
tertaining this petition and thereafter pass-
ing interim orders with undue haste on it
without affording an opportunity to the
respondents to set down their case through a
proper affidavit thereby causing irreparable
damage to the respondents by making a mockery
of the established policy of the Government of
India by permitting a foreign corporation to
undertake broadcasting from India against the
national interest and thereby undermining the
sovereignty of the nation in order to ensure
the execution of an agreement that the
petitioners entered into with the foreign
corporation which was ab-initio void because
of the failure of the petitioners to apply for
and be granted the requisite licence to enable
them to operate from Indian soil."
7. This Court on 6th December, 1993 issued a notice to the
contemner to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded
against for contempt of this Court for the above statements
made by him. On 7th January, 1994, the contemner filed his
reply to the show cause notice tendering unconditional
apology for not only the statements mentioned in the show
cause notice but also for the following statements in the
counter filed on behalf of the MIB :
"However, since this hon’ble court has already
passed two interim orders on 15.11.1993,
without affording the respondents an
opportunity to submit their written
submissions in the matter, the respondents now
set out the grounds on which the said petition
should have been and should now be dismissed.
x x x x
It is, therefore, submitted that the order
passed by this court on 15th November staying
the condition imposed by the Secretary,
Ministry of Telecommunications directing TWI
to take the signal of Doordarshan is bad in
law since it flows from the erroneous
conclusions drawn by the High Court of
Calcutta that a legitimate expectation had
been created in the minds of the petitioners
by the no objection certificate conveyed by
the Department of Telecommunication to the
Ministry of Finance - a letter the petitioners
were not legitimately required to possess and
acceptance of money by VSNL which as has been
pointed out earlier is only a service agency
and not a licensing authority under the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885.
x x x x
The odds cannot, it is submitted, be totally
loaded against Doordarshan. Either, it is
allowed to decide such matter on purely
commercial considerations and its decision
respected or, its position as the host
broadcaster, consistent with the established
policy of the government of India, be
recognised and no party, much less a foreign
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13
party, allowed to subvert the law
545
of this land be it in connivance with an
Indian entity such as the petitioners for
petty commercial considerations.
x x x x
It is submitted that without adjudicating as
to how the order passed by the Secretary,
Ministry of Telecommunications was erroneous
or bad in law, this Court stayed the condition
imposed in the order requiring TWI to take the
signal from Doordarshan and allowed TWI to
generate its own signal. Further, the hollow-
ness of the so called "urgent" nature of the
matter presented before this Court while
moving this petition stands exposed by the
subsequent behaviour of TWI in failing to
cover the matches held at Patna and Indore.
It also brings into focus the purely
commercial nature of its agreement with the
petitioners belying all their protestations of
working in the interest of the cricket lovers
of this country."
8. We have given above in extenso the background of the
two orders that this Court passed on 15th November, 1993
with a view to point out that the contemner all along was
aware of the urgency of and the reasons for the passing of
the said orders and also of the fact that the orders were
passed after fully hearing the counsel for the parties on
both the occasions. As a responsible officer, he ought to
have known that on many occasions even in non-urgent
matters, interim orders are passed on the basis of the oral
arguments. In urgent matters such as the present, such a
procedure becomes all the more imperative to prevent
injustice being done to one or the other party in the
meanwhile. Written submissions are not a sine qua non of
the hearing of a matter. Oral arguments are as good as
written submissions. It is not the case and it was never
the grievance of the counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents that they were not heard in the matter before
the orders were passed. Hence the allegations made by the
contemner that the orders were passed "With undue haste" and
"without affording an opportunity to the respondents to set
down their case through a proper affidavit thereby causing
irreparable damage" are factually incorrect, insinuating and
malicious, These allegations are repeated throughout the
affidavit in different forms with the same intention of
casting aspersions on the Court and to malign it. What is
further, the contemner has recklessly accused the Court also
of "making mockery" of the so-called established policy of
the Government of India, by permitting a foreign Corporation
to undertake broadcasting from India against the "national
interest and thereby undermining the sovereignty of the
nation". This, according to the contemner, was done by the
Court "in order to ensure the execution of an agreement
which the petitioners entered into with the foreign
Corporation". This accusation not only attributes motives
to the Court but also accuses it of working against the
national interests and to undermine the sovereignty of the
nation. These accusations, attributions and aspersions are
not only deliberately calculated to malign the Court but
also to undermine its authority and to deter it from
performing its duty. It is nothing but an intentional
attempt to obstruct the course of Justice and thus patently
amounts to the criminal contempt of the court. This is not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13
disputed before us. In fact, to purge the contempt, the
contemner has tendered an unconditional apology in the
following terms:
"2. I say with all humility that I realise
that the averments made in paragraph 17 of the
said affidavit quoted in the said notice dated
13th December, 1993..... was
546
most improper and unfortunate and the said
averments ought not to have been made by me.
I am truly and sincerely sorry for having made
such averments and I tender my unreserved
unqualified and unconditional apology to this
Hon’ble Court for having done so. I most re-
spectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be
graciously pleased to accept the same. I
further pray that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to permit me to withdraw the said
portion of paragraph 17 of the said affidavit
and to order that the same may be expunged.
4. I have carefully gone through the rest
of the averments made by me in my said
affidavit dated 30th November 1993 and I most
respectfully submit that the following further
portions contained therein are also improper
and unfortunate and these averments also ought
not to have been made by me.
(i) In paragraph I of the said affidavit:
x x x x
(ii) In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit:
x x x x
(iii) In paragraph 10 of the said affida-
vit:
x x x x
(iv) In paragraph 16 of the affidavit:
x x x x
5. 1 am truly and sincerely sorry for
having made such averments in the said other
paragraphs of the said affidavit for which in
all humility I tender my unreserved,
unqualified and unconditional apology to this
Hon’ble Court. I most respectfully pray that
this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased
to accept the same.
6. I further pray that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to permit to further withdraw
the said portions of paragraph 1, 7, 10 and 16
of the said affidavit quoted above and to
order that the same may be expunged.
7. Without in any way trying to detract
from the sincere expression of contriteness
and the unreserved and unconditional
apology tendered above, which I repeat and
reiterate, I submit that the said unfortunate
averments came to be made not with any
deliberate or contumacious intent.
8. 1 once again express my unconditional
and sincere apologies to this Hon’ble Court
for the language used in my said affidavit. "
9. We have considered the above apology tendered by the
contemner. We find that the statements made in the affi-
davit when they were so made were to the knowledge of the
contemner, a malicious attempt to cast aspersions on and
attribute motives to the Court. They were not made in
ignorance of their consequences nor were they innocent. A
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13
responsible officer of the Government like the contemner
ought to have known, and we have no doubt that he did know
the serious implications of the said statements. If he did
not know of their grave implications he does not deserve to
hold the office he does. If such statements were made by a
layman we might have probably ignored them and also accepted
the apology. Coming as they do from a public functionary,
the Court will fail in its duty if it does not bring home to
him his special obligations to respect the authority of the
Court. If such
547
trends as are displayed in these proceedings by the
contemner are allowed to go scot-free, there is a danger of
the erosion of the deference to and confidence in the
judicial system. Coming as it does from the executive
branch of the State, it has all the potentiality of mischief
and if not curbed firmly, may in course of time assume
proportion grave enough to sabotage the rule of law from
within. As it transpires, the draft of the affidavit which
was settled by Smt. Kumaramangalam was not the one which
was filed and the affidavit was filed without even Shri
Vasdev, Advocate-on-Record having a sufficient opportunity
to peruse the same. That makes the action of the contemner
doubly suspect with regard to his intentions in filing the
affidavit with the offending statements. He did not even
take care to have the opinion of his advocates on the said
statements. Probably, he did not want their opinion. This
conduct of his speaks for itself and aggravates his offence.
It is for this reason that we arc not inclined to accept his
apology.
10.The responsibility to maintain the rule of law lies on
all individuals and institutions. Much more so on the three
organs of the State. Our Constitution has separated and
demarcated the functions of the Legislature, the Executive
and the Judiciary. Each has to perform the functions
entrusted to it and respect the functioning of the others.
None is free from errors, and the judiciary does not claim
infallibility. It is truly said that a judge who has not
committed a mistake is yet to be born. Our legal system in
fact acknowledges the fallibility of the courts and provides
for both internal and external checks to correct the errors.
The law, the Jurisprudence and the precedents, the open
public hearings, reasoned judgments, appeals, revisions,
references and reviews constitute the internal checks while
objective critiques, debates and discussions of judgments
outside the courts, and legislative correctives provide the
external checks. Together, they go a long way to ensure
judicial accountability. The law thus provides procedure to
correct judicial errors. Abuses, attribution of motives,
vituperative terrorism and defiance are no methods to cor-
rect the errors of the courts. In the discharge of their
functions the courts have to be allowed to operate freely
and fearlessly but for which impartial adjudication will be
an impossibility. Ours is a Constitutional government based
on the rule of law. The Constitution entrusts the task of
interpreting and administering the law to the judiciary
whose view on the subject is made legally final and binding
on all till it is changed by a higher court or by a per-
missible legislative measure. Those living and functioning
under the Constitution have to accept and submit to this
obligation of respecting the constitutional authority of the
courts. Under a Constitutional government, such final
authority has to vest in some institution. Otherwise, there
will be a chaos. The court’s verdict has to be respected
not necessarily by the authority of its reason but always by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13
reason of its authority. Any conduct designed to or sug-
gestive of challenging this crucial balance of power devised
by the Constitution is an attempt to subvert the rule of law
and an invitation to anarchy.
11. The contemner, for reasons which can only be attributed
to his misconception of his role and over-zealousness to
assert himself and his side of the matter intentionally
overstepped his limits and conveniently ignored the above
legal posi-
548
tion, and abrogated to himself, in substance, the role of a
judge in his own cause. He has thus in effect not only
challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to discharge its
functions but also its authority to do so.
12. We, therefore, hold the contemner guilty of the
criminal contempt of the court and convict him of the said
offence. ’raking into consideration all the facts and cir-
cumstances of the case and exercising our power under
Article 129 independently and also under Article 129 read
with Article 142 of the Constitution, we sentence the
contemner to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The contemner is
given two weeks’ time to pay the fine.
13. Although we have convicted the contemner as above, we
are of the view that his conviction needs no departmental
disciplinary proceedings against him. Nor should the
conviction come in his way in his future career. This is
because although the contemner has committed the offence, he
has done so not for his personal gain or advantage but to
assert his illconnceived self-appointed role. We, there-
fore, direct that the Government should riot initiate any
departmental disciplinary proceedings against him.
Contempt Petition against Advocates:
Re: Shri Kailash Vasdev
14. On 9th February, 1995 this Court issued a notice to
Shri Kailash Vasdev, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents ill
the writ petition, to show cause as to why he should not be
proceeded against for the contempt of this Court fur filling
the said affidavit of the contemner, Shri Sanjiv Datta. The
offence of contempt of the court is committed not only by
those who author an offensive document but also by those who
file it in the Court. In the present case, It is not
disputed that Shri Vasdev had filed the said affidavit.
However, he has given his explanation for the same as
follows:
"...I state that it is correct that the said
affidavit of 30th of November, 1993 was filed
by me as an Advocate-on-Record engaged on
behalf of the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting. I state that on the Ist of
December, 1993 when I was entering Court No.2
the said affidavit was brought to me pre-
drafted, pre-typed and pre-attested by the
officials of the Ministry of information and
Broadcasting when I was attending to a part-
heard matter.....
I state that the present writ petition was to
be heard on the 6th of December, 1993
therefore the affidavit in reply was to have
been filed 5 days prior to the listing of the
case, and the same was filed on the Ist of
December, 1993.
I state that I did not read the contents of
the affidavit and I had no reason to believe
that there was any objectionable or derogatory
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13
statement made in the said affidavit. I had
no conference with the deponent of the
affidavit on the contents of the affidavit
prior to the filing of this affidavit
I state that when the matter was listed before
this Hon’ble Court on the 6th of December,
1993 ..., the learned Solicitor General of
India who appeared for the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting for whom I was
acting as the Advocate-on-Record tendered an
unqualified apology, on behalf of the deponent
to the said affidavit dated 30,11.1993 and
myself for filing the said affidavit. I state
that on
549
the 6th of December, 1993 itself - when I was
present in Court during these proceedings I
tendered my own unconditional apology orally
to this Hon’ble Court for filing the said
affidavit. On that date, notice to show cause
why proceedings for initiating proceedings for
contempt of Court was issued only to Shri
Sanjeev Dutta, Deputy Secretary, deponent of
the said affidavit dated 30.11.1993.
I state that on 9th February, 1995 when I was
present in Court to hear the judgment being
pronounced by this Court, this Hon’ble Court
ascertained from me whether it was I who had
drafted the affidavit. In reply I state that
the affidavit had not been drafted by me and
it was correct that the same had been filed
under my signature as the Advocate-on-Record.
I tender an unqualified and unconditional
apology for my not scrutinising the affidavit
dated 30th November, 1993 before it was filed
since I genuinely had no apprehension or
reason to apprehend that any derogatory
statement had been made in the said affidavit.
It was entirely my fault that I did not peruse
the said affidavit for which I have tendered
my unqualified apology. I now realise that
had I been more vigilant, there would have
been no occasion for the public record to have
been tainted with this statement. I deeply
regret that because of the constraints of time
the aforesaid affidavit had been filed. For
this too, I unhesitatingly and sincerely
apologise.
I state that on the 6th of December, 1993
itself I tendered my own unconditional apology
orally to this Hon’ble Court for filing the
said affidavit. I say that the only reason
why I did not put this apology in writing an
affidavit is that I carried a bona fide
impression that this Hon’ble Court after
considering the matter, had confined the issue
of notice for showing cause as to why action
for contempt be not taken only against Shri
Sanjeev Dutta, and that my oral unconditional
apology stood accepted.
I submit that I have the greatest respect for
this Honourable Court and in my entire career
of over 19 years at the Bar, I have not
knowingly done or permitted the doing of any
act which would in the least affect the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13
prestige of this Hon’ble Court or any other
Court. I have not willfully or knowingly done
anything in this case which would be
tantamount to contempt of this Honourable
Court. I have apologised and I repeat my
apology for having filed the affidavit in
question in the circumstances mentioned in
this affidavit.
I once again tender my unqualified apology for
having had filed the aforesaid affidavit
without perusing the same. I assure this
Hon’ble Court that such an action shall not be
repeated on my part. I most humbly and
respectfully pray that my unqualified and
unconditional apology be accepted by this
Hon’ble Court and the notice to show cause as
to why proceedings for contempt be not issued
against me be discharged."
15.Shri Vasdev has been an advocate of this Court for the
last 19 years and during his practice he has not only not
given any cause for complaint but has in many respects
displayed an exemplary conduct. We have no reason to doubt
that the affidavit in question came to be filed without his
having had an opportunity to peruse the same in the
circumstances explained by him. We have, further, no doubt
that had he perused it, he would certainly not have lent his
services for filing it. We, therefore, accept his
unconditional apology and discharge the notice of contempt
issued against him.
550
Re: Mrs. Kitty Kumaramangalam
16. During the hearing of the contempt proceedings against
Shri Vasdev on 28th February, 1995, it transpired that the
draft of the affidavit in question had passed through the
hands of Mrs. Kumaramangalam. The advocate who drafts
and/or settles an offending document also commits contempt
of the court as the author of the document. We had, there-
fore, issued notice to her to show cause as to why action
for the contempt be not taken against her for the offending
statements in the affidavit. This became necessary also
because Mrs. Kumaramangalam was concerned with the writ and
appeal proceedings throughout and it was she who had
appeared on behalf of the Union of India, the MIB and the DD
at the time of the hearing on 15th November, 1993 when both
the abovesaid orders were passed by this Court. However,
she has given a written explanation of the role she had
played with regard to the affidavit. The relevant portion
of her explanation is as follows:
"3. With reference to the notice issued by
this Hon’ble Court, I say that a document
called "parawise comments on die writ
petition" already drafted by someone was
brought to me - frankly I cannot recollect by
whom it was brought. I made corrections in
this document and handed it back there and
then. At that time another document of a
draft SLP [against the Calcutta High Court
order] was also brought to me and I made
corrections on the same and handed it back
there and then.
4. [a] When it became known that notice to
show cause was issued to me by this Hon’ble
Court on 28.2,1995, 1 approached the Learned
Solicitor General, who was kind enough to
permit me to glance through the particular
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13
"parawise comments on the writ petition", some
pages of which had my handwriting in pencil.
This was on 1.3.1995. However, no other
document containing my handwriting could I see
in the file.
lb] Later, after receiving the formal notice
of this Hon’ble Court, I requested the
Direction General, Doordarshan by letter dated
8.3.1995 to permit me to scrutinise the file -
finally on 13.3.1995 I was permitted to go
through the file in the room of the Secretary
to the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
at Shastri Bhavan. I could not locate in the
file either my detailed draft counter, all of
which was in my handwriting nor the draft SLP,
all of which was also in my handwriting. I
also could not locate the draft SLP which
should have had corrections in my handwriting,
as the same was corrected at the same time as
the "parawise comments..." were corrected by
me. I asked for the same, but was informed
that all the relevant documents were in the
file of which I was being given inspection and
that there was no other document containing my
handwriting with the department. I was then
given, at my request, a zerox copy of the
document headed "parawise comments in the writ
petition..." which was ill the file,
5. I wish to bring to your Lordship’s
notice:-
i. that a comparison of the "parawise
comments" [zerox copy supplied to me] and the
counter affidavit as filed in this Hon’ble
Court. show that it was not even my
corrected/altered parawise comments that were
filed in Court - for instance, the second
passage extracted from the counter affidavit
in the order dated 28.2.1995 reads differently
from what is found in the zerox copy of the
"parawise comments".
551
ii. that certain corrections like that on page
5 of the zerox "parawise comments" in regard
to reply to para 13 of the writ petition, is
not to be found in the final counter affidavit
as filed.
iii.that pages 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the zerox
parawise comments" does [sic] not contain my
handwriting at all - not even putting the
words "in reply to para......
iv.that with regard to the first passage
quoted in Your Lordship’s order dated
28.2.1995 [at pages 9 and IO of the zerox "
parawise comments" I no part of it contains my
handwriting, and a certain correction
["hon’ble"] has been added in the final
affidavit filed. Besides, in the zerox draft
"parawise comments" the letter "(a)"
indicating that this was in reply to the
prayer (a) found in para 25 of the writ
petition is not present in the final counter
affidavit as filed.
v. I wish to submit that to the best of my
recollection, the first passage in this
Hon’ble Court’s notice could not have been a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13
paragraph I had ever perused. The language is
not such which would ever be approved by me,
nor pass through even a cursory glance of
mine.
6. Finally, I humbly submit that a com-
parison of the zerox of "parawise comment" and
the final counter affidavit filed, reveal a
substantial number of omissions, corrections
and additions.
17. The above explanation of Mrs. Kumaramangalam reveals
that the draft of the affidavit which was corrected or
settled by her was not the same which was ultimately filed
in the Court. That made the offence of the contemner, Shri
Datta all the more serious as stated earlier. Not only he
had not filed the draft which was settled by his counsel but
also an affidavit which the Advocate-on-Record had notime to
peruse. He had, therefore, taken the entire responsibility
for making the offending statements in question. However,
since Mrs. Kumaramangalam has given her explanation which
absolves her of her responsibility in the matter, and since
we have no reason to disbelieve what she has stated in the
explanation, we do not think it necessary to pursue this
matter any further. We accept her explanation and discharge
the notice of contempt issued to her.
18. Before parting with these contempt proceedings, we may
voice a few words not by way of admonition but caution.
Judges also belong to legal fraternity. Most of them have
come from the profession and some of them have practised law
for more years than they have administered it. Hence the
anxiety to express the concern.
19. Of late, we have been coming across several instances
which can only be described as unfortunate both for the
legal profession and the administration of justice. It
becomes, therefore, our duty to bring it to the notice of
the members of the profession that it is in their hands to
improve the quality of the service they render both to the
litigant-public and to the courts, and to brighten their
image in the society. Some members of the profession have
been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of
the profession as is evident from their absence when the
matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and
inaccurate pleadings - many times even illegible and without
personal check and verification, the non-payment of court
fees and process fees, the failure to remove office
objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties,
et al. They do not realise the seriousness of these acts
552
and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the
court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create
embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable
unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This
augurs ill for the health of our judicial system.
20. The legal profession is a solemn and serious
occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong
to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the
profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification
of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to
be maintained by the its members by their exemplary conduct
both in and outside the court. The legal profession is dif-
ferent from other professions in that what the lawyers do,
affects not only an individual but the administration of
justice which is the foundation of the civilised society.
Both as a leading member of the intelligentia of the society
and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct
himself as a model for others both in his professional and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13
in his private and public life. The society has a right to
expect of him such ideal behaviour. It must not be
forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in
high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in
public life. The regard for the legal and judicial systems
in this country is in no small measure due to the tireless
role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen
them. They took their profession seriously and practised it
with dignity, deference and devotion. If the profession is
to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalised. No
service will be too small in making the system efficient,
effective and credible. The casualness and indifference
with which some members practise the profession are
certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to en-
hance the prestige either of the profession or of the
institution they are serving. If people lose confidence in
the profession on account of the deviant ways of some of its
members, it is not only the profession which will suffer but
also the administration of justice as a whole. The present
trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the
system will be found wrecked from within before it is
wrecked from outside. It is for the members of the
profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in
time and also spare the courts the unpleasant duty. We say
no more.
21. The contempt proceedings are disposed of in the above
terms.
554