RE : MATHEWS NEDUMPARA vs. NaN

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2019 IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA O R D E R th National By a judgment dated 12 March, 2019 in Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Ors Union of India and Ors . vs. . (Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2019), this Bench held that Shri Mathews Nedumpara, Advocate has committed contempt in the face of the Court. In the interest of justice, however, notice was issued to Shri Nedumpara as to the punishment to be imposed upon him for committing contempt in the face of the Court. Shri Nedumpara appeared today before us both by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2019.03.29 15:43:53 IST Reason: himself and through Advocate Shri Subhash Jha. 2 In the morning session, Shri Nedumpara did his best to see that the matter was not heard by this Bench. He informed us that a Transfer Petition was filed asking the Chief Justice of India to transfer this case from this Bench to some other Bench. He also stated that he was going to file an application for recall of our th order dated 12 March, 2019. He then cited latin maxims and said that justice must be seen to be done. He also referred to the famous Rex vs. Sussex Justices case and referred generally to the fact that relatives of Judges should not be seen practicing in the same Court. He later asked the Bench to grant a “pass over” of his matter inasmuch as his lawyer Shri Subhash Jha was on his way from Mumbai. The Bench agreed and placed the matter at 2.00 p.m. At 2.00 p.m., Shri Jha came and addressed us, and pointed out Sections 14 (1) & (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 together with Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also made various other 3 submissions which the Court reminded him were not on the punishment aspect of this case. He continued, however, arguing as if he was arguing a review petition in the open Court. While Shri Jha was arguing, Shri Nedumpara stepped in again and went on a long ramble as to how he had not in fact impersonated Justice Vazifdar, which is one of the many incidents referred to in our th judgment dated 12 March, 2019. At this stage, Shri Nedumpara then tendered an apology to this Court by way of an affidavit duly signed by him in the Court in our presence. The affidavit reads as follows:- “AFFIDAVIT I, Mathews J. Nedumpara, Advocate, aged 60 years, Indian Inhabitant, residing at Harbour th Heights, “W” Wing, 12-F, 12 Floor, Sassoon Docks, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005, now in Delhi, do hereby swear and state as follows:- 1. A Bench of this Hon’ble Court comprising Hon’ble Shri Justice Rohinton F. Nariman and Hon’ble Shri Justice Vineet Saran, by judgment and th order dated 12 March, 2019, was pleased to hold 4 me guilty for contempt in the face of the Court and list the case for hearing on the question of punishment. 2. I happened to mention the name of Shri Fali S. Nariman to buttress my proposition that even legendary Shri Fali Nariman is of the view that the seniority of a lawyer should be reckoned from the date of his enrolment and nothing else. However, I was misunderstood. I along with some office bearers of the National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms have instituted Writ Petition No.2199/2019 in the High Court of Delhi for a declaration that the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules is void inasmuch as it explains that the word “Court” does not mean the entire Court, but the particular Court in which the relative of a lawyer is a Judge. I instituted the said petition only to raise the concern many lawyers share with me regarding the immediate relatives practising in the very same Court where their relative is a Judge. In retrospection I realize that it was an error on my part to have arrayed Shri Fali Nariman as a Respondent to the said petition. I regret the same; no words can sufficiently explain my contrition and regret. I also in retrospection 5 realize that I have erred even during the conduct of the above case before this Hon’ble Court and I probably would not have kept upto what is expected of me as a lawyer in the Bar for 35 years and crossed the age of 60. I feel sorry, express my contrition and tender my unconditional apology, while maintaining that some of the accusations th levelled against me in the judgment dated 12 March, 2019 are absolutely wrong, which are, ex facie, black and white, and as incontrovertible as day and night. 3. The apology tendered by me hereinabove be accepted and I may be purged of the contempt. Solemnly sworn at Delhi Sd/- th this 27 day of March, 2019 (Mathews J. Nedumpara)” We have considered the affidavit so filed in the light of the incidents that have taken place in the Bombay High Court as well as in this Court. Given the fact that Shri Nedumpara now undertakes to this Court that he will never again attempt to browbeat any Judge either of this Court or of the 6 Bombay High Court, we sentence Shri Nedumpara to three months imprisonment which is, however, suspended only if Shri Nedumpara continues in future to abide by the undertaking given to us today. In addition, Shri Nedumpara is barred from practicing as an Advocate before the Supreme Court of India for a period of one year from today. This disposes of the punishment aspect of the contempt that was committed in the face of the Court. A letter dated 23.03.2019, received by the office of the Judges of this Bench on 25.03.2019, is a letter that is sent to the President of India, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and the President of the Bombay Incorporated law Society. The aforesaid letter states: “We have come across, in the social media, copies of the following complaints purportedly made against Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, Judges, Supreme Court of India. 7 1. A complaint made with Your Excellency’s Secretariat by one ‘Indian Bar Association’ dated th 20 March, 2019 bearing Grievance No.PRSEC/E/2019/05351 (“the first complaint”), through one Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle, against sitting Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, seeking permission to prosecute the Learned Judges and withdrawal of judicial work from them for having th passed a Judgment dated 12 March, 2019 convicting Mr. Mathews Nedumpara for having committed contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It has been addressed to Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and a copy thereof has been endorsed to Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Bombay High Court. th 2. A complaint dated 19 March, 2019 made with Your Excellency’s Secretariat bearing Grievance for Registration No.PRSEC/E/2019/05242 (“the second complaint”) by one Mr. Rashid Khan Pathan said to be the National Secretary, Human Rights Security Council, seeking similar directions/permissions against the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran for having passed another order in another matter. It has been addressed to Your Excellency and Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Copies of these purported complaints which have been circulated in the social media are annexed as Annexure”1” and Annexure”2”.” 8 The prayers made in the complaint filed by the Indian Bar Association are as follows:- “(i) Taking action Action be taken under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120(b) and 34 of Indian Penal Code against Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran for passing order by willful disregard, disobedience and misinterpretation of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court with intention to terrorize advocates. (ii) Immediate direction be passed for withdrawal of all works from Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran as per ‘In-House-Procedure’. (iii) Directions be given to Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran to resign forthwith by following the direction of Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 655 as the incapacity, fraud on power and offences against administration of justice are ex-facie proved. OR (iv) Applicant be accorded sanction to prosecute Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120(b) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. v) Direction be given for Suo Motu action under Contempt of Courts Act as per law laid down in Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017) 7 SCC 1, Justice Markandey Katju’s case & in Rabindra Nath Singh vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2010) 6 SCC 417 for willful disregard of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in :- a) Vinay Chandra Mishra’s case AIR 1995 SC 2348 (Full Bench) 9 b) Dr. L.P. Misra vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 379 (Full Bench) c) Leila David vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 337 d) Nidhi Kaim & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 1 e) Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works AIR 1997 SC 2477 f) Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454 g) Mohd. Zahir Khan vs. Vijai Singh & Ors AIR 1992 SC 642.” The prayers made in the complaint filed by the Human Rights Security Council are as follows:- “i) Action be taken under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120 (b) and 34 of Indian Penal Code against Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran for passing order by willful disobedience of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with intention to help the accused husband in serious case of practicing fraud upon the Court. ii) Immediate direction be passed for withdrawal of all works from Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran as per `In-House- Procedure’. iii) Directions be given to Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman & Justice Vineet Saran to resign forthwith by following the direction of Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 655 as the incapacity, fraud on power 10 and offences against administration of justice are ex-facie proved. OR (iv) Applicant be given sanction to prosecute Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120(b) and 34 of Indian Penal Code. (v) Direction be given for Suo Motu action under Contempt of Courts Act as per law laid down in Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017) 7 SCC 1, Justice Markandey Katju’s Case and in Rabindranath Singh vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2010) 6 SCC 417 for willful disregard of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in :- P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. s. Perumal 1972 (1) SCC 9 (FULL BENCH), Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs. BOC India Limited and Ors (2016) 3 SCC 70, Surendra Gupta vs. Bhagwan Devi (Smt.) and Another, (1994) 4 SCC 657, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. And Another AIR 1997 SC 2477, State of Goa vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales (2018) 11 SCC 659, Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370 (5-Judge Bench). In Re Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan (2001) 5 SCC 289 (Full Bench), Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (Dead) through L.Rs AIR 2012 SC 1727.” It can be seen on a comparison of the prayers in both the complaints that they are substantially similar showing that prima facie the aforesaid Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan are acting in tandem. Also, 11 th th the complaints are dated 20 March, 2019 and 19 March, 2019. Para 3.14 of the said letter is significant and reads as follows: “3.14 The Bombay Bar Association and the Bombay Incorporated Law Society have reason to believe that Mr. Nilesh Ojha and Mr. Mathews Nedumpara are in tandem with one another. In Criminal contempt Petition No.3 of 2017, which was initiated as a result of various acts of Mr. Nilesh Ojha and his associates, Mr. Mathews Nedumpara appeared for one of the contemnors. Similarly, in a Petition being Writ Petition (L) No.1180 of 2018 filed by Mr. Mathews Nedumpara against Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.J. Kathawalla alleging “judicial defamation” and seeking compensation, Mr. Nilesh Ojha appeared for Mr. Mathews Nedumpara. The timing at which these complaints have been made after the bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran of the Supreme Court of India held Mr. Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt of Court and also the contents of the complaint of Indian Bar Association make it apparent that these complaints are made to browbeat the Court for having initiated contempt proceedings against Mr. Mathews Nedumpara. It is pertinent to note that the Standing/Managing Committees of all the three Bar Associations attached to the Bombay High Court being Bombay Bar Association, Advocates’ Association of Western India, and the Bombay Incorporated Law Society passed Resolutions th appreciating and welcoming the judgment dated 12 March, 2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Copies of the said Resolutions are hereto annexed and marked as Annexures “13”, “14” and “15”.” 12 We annex the aforesaid letter dated 23.03.2019 to the present order. Given the two complaints filed, it is clear that scandalous allegations have been made against the members of this Bench. We, therefore, issue notice of contempt to (1) Shri Vijay Kurle; (2) Shri Rashid Khan Pathan; (3) Shri Nilesh Ojha and (4) Shri Mathews Nedumpara to explain as to why they should not be punished for criminal contempt of the Supreme Court of India, returnable within two weeks from today. Given the serious nature of the allegations levelled against this Bench, the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench to hear and decide this contempt case. .......................... J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) .......................... J. (VINEET SARAN) New Delhi; March 27, 2019. 13 ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No(s). 1/2019 IN RE : MATHEWS NEDUMPARA Date : 27-03-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Petitioner(s) By Courts Motion For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Court came to the following conclusion, in terms of the signed reportable order: “The punishment aspect of the contempt that was committed in the face of the Court stands disposed of.” Given the two complaints filed, it is clear that scandalous allegations have been made against the members of this Bench. We, therefore, issue notice of contempt to (1) Shri Vijay Kurle; (2) Shri Rashid Khan Pathan; (3) Shri Nilesh Ojha and (4) Shri Mathews Nedumpara to explain as to why they should not be 14 punished for criminal contempt of the Supreme Court of India, returnable within two weeks from today. Given the serious nature of the allegations levelled against this Bench, the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench to hear and decide this contempt case. (R. NATARAJAN) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed reportable order is placed on the file)