ONE EARTH ONE LIFE Vs. SINDHU JOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case was preferred under Art.215 of the Constitution of India and S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Registry did not number the case since no consent of the Advocate General as provided under S.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was obtained for filing the contempt case. On a request made by the counsel this matter has been posted before us for orders. In paragraph 9 of the contempt case it is stated that the petitioner has not obtained the consent of the Advocate General as envisaged under S.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, since it may delay the matter and the respondents are continuing with the process of scandalizing this Court and the situation warrants immediate interference. Further, counsel also submitted that even if no consent was obtained from the Advocate General this Court under Art.215 of the Constitution of India have got sufficient powers to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for scandalizing this Hon'ble Court and to punish them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the interest of justice. Counsel submitted that the conduct of the respondents in symbolically impeaching the Chief Justice of this Court and extraditing him after conducting a mock trial amounts to interference with the administration of justice undermining the dignity and prestige of this institution warranting immediate interference by this Court.

(2.) We may first examine the sustainability or otherwise of the objection made by the registry that this contempt case is not maintainable without following the procedure laid down under S.15(2) of the Contempt of Court Act. Admittedly, no consent of the Advocate General was obtained as per S.15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The question that is germane for consideration in this case is whether the permission of the Advocate General is a mandatory requirement for moving this Court under the Contempt of Court Act. Before examining the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to S.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rules 3 and 7 of the Contempt of Court (High Court) Rules 1988 which are extracted hereunder for easy reference.

(3.) Question as to whether consent of the Advocate General is necessary before making a motion in the case of criminal contempt in the High Court came up for consideration before the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. M. S. Mani, 2001 KHC 743 : 2001 (8) SCC 82 : 2001 (3) KLT 456 : AIR 2001 SC 3315 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1412 : 2001 (4) Mah LJ 422. The Court held as follows: