PRESIDENT OF INDIA Vs. VINAY CHANDRA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10-3-1994, Justice S. K. Keshote of the Allahabad High Court addressed a letter to the Acting Chief Justice of that Court as follows :

(2.) The Acting Chief Justice, Shri V. K. Khanna forwarded the said letter to the then Chief Justice of India by his letter of 5-4-1994. The learned Chief Justice of India constituted this Bench to hear the matter on 15-4-1994.

(3.) On 15-4-1994, this Court took the view that there was a prima facie case of criminal contempt of Court committed by Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the 'contemner') and issued a notice against him to show-cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. By the same order, Shir D. P. Gupta, the learned Solicitor General of India was requested to assist the Court in the matter. Pursuant to the notice, the contemner filed his reply by affidavit dated 10-5-1994 and also an application seeking discharge of show-cause notice, and in alternative for an inquiry to be held into the incident referred to by Justice Keshote in his letter which had given rise to the contempt proceedings. It is necessary at this stage to refer to the material portions of both the affidavit and the application filed by the contemner. After referring to his status as a Senior Advocate of the Allahabad High Court and his connections with the various law organisations in different capacities to impress upon the Court that he had a deep involvement in the purity, integrity and solemnity of judicial process, he has submitted in the affidavit that but for his deep commitments to the norms of judicial processes as evidenced by his said status and connections, he would have adopted the usual expedient of submitting his unconditional regrets. But the facts and circumstances of this case were such which induced him to "state the facts and seek the verdict of the Court" whether he had committed the alleged contempt or wherther it could be "a Judge committing contempt of his own Court". He has then stated the facts which according to him form the 'genesis' of the present controversy. They are as follows :