SARITA PARIKH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20th August, 2009, we had issued a Suo Motu Contempt Rule, since numbered as Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 7 of 2009, against Dr. Sarita Parikh, Ms. Annette Kotian and Ms. Leila David and the same was duly served on them. Ms. Pavithra Murali, who was the fourth contemnor in the earlier contempt proceedings, is alleged to have left for the United Kingdom and has not yet been apprehended. On the returnable date, on behalf of the three contemnors a letter was received by the Registry indicating that they had contracted Chikungunhya and required some time to appear in Court in connection with the contempt case. On the basis of the said letter, the matter was adjourned till 13th July, 2010, when they were directed to be personally present at 3.30 p.m. On the said date, only Ms. Annette Kotian appeared while Dr. Sarita Parikh and Ms. Leila David remained absent. Ms. Kotian was directed to file her affidavit to the Suo Motu Contempt Petition within 12 weeks from the date of the order. As far as Dr. Sarita Parikh and Ms. Leila David are concerned, bailable warrants were issued against them which were made returnable on 26th October, 2010. When the matter was taken up on 26th October, 2010, none of the contemnors were present. On the other hand, an Office Report dated 25th October, 2010, was submitted enclosing copies of two letters. The first letter is dated 25th October, 2010, addressed to the Registrar of this Court by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Mumbai. In his said letter, the Officer concerned has made a half-hearted attempt to explain as to why the bailable warrants could not be executed against Dr. Sarita Parikh and Ms. Leila David. The explanation given, besides being very casual in its approach, also reveals the scant regard that a high ranking officer of the Mumbai Police Force has for the Supreme Court and its orders. In the case of Ms. Leila David, it has been mentioned that an attempt was made to execute the warrant against her at 22, West View, 5th Floor, 1st Pasta Lane, Colaba, Mumbai, but the house was found to be in a locked condition and had been so for three years. The matter was allowed to rest after making an inquiry from the Chairman of the Housing Society who informed the police officers concerned that he had no knowledge either of Ms. Leila David or her whereabouts.

(2.) As far as Dr. Sarita Parikh is concerned, a similar explanation was sought to be given that after making inquiries from the mother of the contemnor, they came to learn that she was working with Tribals and visiting different places in India and that she hardly ever visited her mother. Nothing else was done to try and locate the contemnor.

(3.) Except for the above, the communication received from the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Mumbai, does not indicate whether any other steps were taken or were intended to be taken in the matter.