Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SUB-COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JUSTICE V. RAMASWAMI
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/10/1994
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
KULDIP SINGH (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (1) 5 1994 SCALE (4)634
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.The "Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability", a group of
members of the legal profession, has brought this petition
for suo motu initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt
against the respondent. The matter is stated to arise out
of a letter dated 21-1-1992 which the respondent wrote to
the Enquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry)
Act, 1968 in certain proceedings for removal of the
respondent initiated by Parliament. In this letter the
respondent is said to have made certain sweeping allegations
against certain Judges and the Judiciary. A copy of that
letter is Annexure ’N to the petition.
2.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have
sought the assistance of Shri Dipankar Gupta, learned
Solicitor General. We place on record our appreciation of
the valuable assistance rendered by the learned counsel on
both sides.
3.There is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2164 of
1992 filed by Shri K.K. Jha, ’Kamal’, Advocate, Patna High
Court, for intervention. In our opinion, this application
for intervention is misconceived and is dismissed.
4.Though the letter, read by itself, raises certain
apprehensions about its propriety, however, the respondent
himself by his subsequent letter dated 28-3-1992, which has
since been brought on record, has explained the context in
which it was written and the apprehensions about the
generality of its sweep stand mitigated. However, we feel
that a lot of misunderstanding could have been avoided if
the letter Annexure ’A: had not been written. We are
unhappy that it came to be written.
5.But, on a careful consideration of the matter we, while
expressing our unhappiness about the episode, however think
we should decline in the larger interest to suo motu
institute any proceedings for contempt against the
respondent. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
7