Summary
Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh Ojha were held guilty of contempt for coordinated complaints containing unsupported scandalous allegations against Supreme Court judges. The Court distinguished fair criticism of judgments from imputations intended to intimidate judges and undermine the institution. It upheld suo motu initiation without law-officer consent and found the notice and opportunity to respond fair. Truth was unsupported by material. This judgment determined guilt and listed a later hearing on sentence.
Issues
- Whether suo motu contempt required Attorney General or Solicitor General consent.
- Whether initiation, notice and the subsequent hearing complied with the Court’s rules and fairness.
- Whether the complaints amounted to contempt rather than fair criticism.
- Whether the non-signatory’s involvement and the asserted truth defence were established.
Provisions considered
- Articles 129 and 142(2), Constitution of IndiaLocated the Supreme Court’s contempt jurisdiction in its constitutional status as a court of record and upheld suo motu initiation subject to fair procedure. (¶¶ 7, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 40)
- Rules 3 and 6; Form I, Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975Distinguished three modes of initiation and held law-officer consent unnecessary for suo motu action; found the notice adequately identified the contempt. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2), Constitution of IndiaDistinguished protected fair criticism from the concerted scandalous attacks on judicial integrity established in this case. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)
Held
- The constitutional power to initiate contempt was not sourced in Section 15 of the Act. Suo motu proceedings require no Attorney General or Solicitor General consent. The Court’s own cognisance, absence of private petitioners prosecuting the matter and the initiation order showed this was suo motu action despite omission of that label from the order. (¶¶ 7, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- The initiating Bench only issued notice and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for assignment to another appropriate Bench. It did not adjudicate its own cause. The procedure respected the Chief Justice’s roster role and the Court’s constitutional contempt power. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40)
- The notice and attached order sufficiently identified the alleged contempt. All relevant annexures were subsequently supplied, additional replies were permitted, and the charges were confined to the two complaints admittedly authored by the first two contemnors. No prejudice arose from the initial non-supply. The discharge applications were rejected. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 32)
- Fair and constructive criticism of judgments remains permissible. Here the unsupported accusations of improper motives, corruption and bias, read in their context and public circulation, were found to scandalise the Court and intimidate judges in pending proceedings rather than merely challenge legal reasoning. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 75, 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94)
- Ojha’s non-signature did not defeat liability: his pleadings, support for the complaints, involvement in the underlying litigation and the coordinated communications established knowledge, consent and connivance on the facts. The truth defence failed for want of supporting material. (¶¶ 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96)
Result
Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh Ojha held guilty of contempt. Matter listed for hearing on sentence by video conference on 1 May 2020; no sentence imposed in this judgment.