Hari Singh Nagra & Ors vs Kapil Sibal & Ors

1. The relevant facts, from which the present contempt petition arises, are as under :

3. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are practicing advocates at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Their claim was that Mr. Sibal who is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and was contender for the Presidentship of Supreme Court Bar Association, had by sending a message which was published in the souvenir of the Mehfil committed a criminal contempt of the court. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 were of the view that a real prejudice, which can be regarded as substantial interference in the administration of justice was caused because of the calculated and keenly studied attempt 22 by Mr. Sibal to denigrate the institution of judiciary. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 claimed that the remarks made by Mr. Sibal against Hon'ble Judges amounted to an unignorable and unpardonable mischief which had tendency to shake the faith of the people of the country in the judiciary. What was claimed by the petitioners was that Mr. Sibal had entered into a conspiracy with the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to bring the administration of justice into disrespect which amounted to deliberate interference in the administration of justice and as he had imputed unsubstantiated charges of corruption against the Judges, he was liable to be hauled up for contempt of Court. Therefore, the petitioners instituted Criminal Contempt Petition No.12 of 1995 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said petition was filed under Article 215 of the Constitution and prayer made was to punish the respondents for committing contempt of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Initially, the said petition was placed for preliminary hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge was of the view that what was alleged by the petitioners against the three 22 respondents impleaded therein was criminal contempt and, therefore, in view of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the petition should be heard and decided by a Bench of not less than two Judges. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated May 16, 1991 directed the Registry to place the papers before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for listing the matter before a Bench consisting of not less than two judges. Accordingly, the matter was placed for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench and the Bench issued show cause notice to the original respondent Nos.1 to 3 stating that they were directed by the Division Bench to implead the Editors, Printers and Publishers of `Mehfil-e-Wukala'. The petitioners filed an application to implead the respondent Nos.4 and 5 as respondents in the contempt petition as they were editors of the Mehfil. The said application was granted and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were impleaded in the Contempt Petition. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 Secretaries of Mehfil-e-Wukala filed Transfer Petition No.251 of 1996 in this Court and prayed to transfer the Contempt Petition pending before the Punjab and Haryana 22 High Court at Chandigarh to this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the said petition was allowed and that is why the Registry has registered the case as Transfer Case (Criminal) No.2 of 1997. On notice being served, Mr. Sibal and other respondents have filed affidavit in reply controverting the claims advanced by the petitioners.

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the words complained of did not amount to Contempt of Court on the grounds that (1) the entire interview appears to have been given with the idea to improve the judiciary; (2) the Supreme Court had dismissed the Writ Petition (C) No.126 of 1990 filed on behalf of State Legal Aid Committee, J & K for an appropriate writ commanding the Union of India or any other appropriate authority to disclose the names of 90 judges as mentioned by the former Chief Justice of India. 22

13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case where a formal proceedings for contempt should be drawn up and, therefore, notices issued to them will have to be discharged and the petition will have to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the contempt proceedings are dropped. The notices issued to the respondents are discharged and the petition is dismissed.

July 15, 2010