NEBU JOHN VARGHESE Vs. P K BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was a passenger in K.S.R.T.C. Super Fast, No. KL-15/3184, TS 120, bound to Trivandrum from Thrissur on 26.11.1999 at 7.30 p.m. It is a night service bus. The petitioner, to his utter dismay and disbelief, noticed the respondent driver of the bus, P. K. Babu smoking cigarette while driving nearly one hour after the start of the journey. The petitioner, however, consoled himself thinking that it may be the first and the last. However, he was dumbfounded to see the driver lighting cigarettes one after another and smoking. He further states that taking cue from the driver who is the captain of the bus two other passengers also started smoking in the bus while the bus was in motion. According to the petitioner, by the time this smoke filled bus reached Trivandrum, the driver had smoked atleast ten cigarettes. The petitioner has written a letter to this Court dated 27.11.1999 highlighting the above incident, on the basis of which the action was initiated as directed by the Honourable the Chief Justice for contempt against the driver of the bus under R.7 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court) Rules issued under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, both the petitioner and the driver appeared before us on 14.12.1999. The petitioner was examined. He deposed in terms of the allegations contained in his petition.

(2.) The driver of the bus - P. K. Babu - on questioning by us has admitted the charge and has tendered an unconditional apology after admitting that he has committed contempt. He deposed as follows:

(3.) On a consideration of the attendant facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to view this incident as a solitary one isolated from the rest of the cases of blatant violation of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court banning smoking in public place. We are constrained to observe that the judgment of this Court has been observed more in its breach than in its compliance. Few persons have also issued statements about the ban order. The police taking cue from such remarks have displayed a sense of complete complacency and indifference in enforcing the judgment of this Court which, in our opinion, amounts to abdication of their duty as custodians of law and order responsible for maintenance of rule of law. Therefore, more than the respondent in this petition, it is the police and law enforcing agency who have flouted the judgment of this Court. But for their total indifference to the judgment of this Court banning smoking in public place, the respondent herein would not have ventured to indulge in smoking while driving the vehicle thereby blatantly violating the judgment of this Court besides causing a threat to the lives of several innocent passengers travelling in the bus. On the whole, we are of the opinion, that the action of the authorities in not enforcing the ban order is a challenge to the very rule of law itself and orderly life which they are expected to maintain.