ADITYA VIKRAM BIRLA Vs. PARAMAN AND AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the fact that this matter relates to contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a learned Judge of this Court and the seriousness of the allegations and the resultant importance, the learned Acting Chief Justice thought that the matter should receive the anxious advertence of a larger Bench and by his order dated 1. 3. 88 the learned acting Chief Justice recalled the earlier order dated 21. 1. 88 where under the matter was directed to be heard by the regular criminal Bench of two Judges and constituted this larger Bench for hearing of the matter. If we may say with respect, the learned Acting Chief Justice, in his wisdom, adopted the right course, as, even though this matter could have been heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges under Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, we ought not to forget, as pointed out by Gajendragadkar, C. J. , speaking for the unanimous seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Keshav Sing's case- Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (AIR 1965 SC 745 at 791), that the power to punish for contempt, large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Since the Constitution itself and the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have entrusted us with these highly responsible and yet highly delicate task to decide about contempt of ourselves, and the type of contempt with which we would have to deal in this case is that of scandalising a learned Judge of this Court, a decision by a larger Bench would be more likely to inspire greater confidence.

(2.) AS would appear from the Rule issued, it is alleged that the contemner has committed contempt by writing a letter dated 5. 12. 87 to the Chief Justice of this Court and a letter dated 12. 1. 88 to the Chief Justice of India. In the first letter dated 5. 12. 87 addressed to the Chief Justice of this court, the contemner alleged that even though the suit filed against him by one Aditya Vikram Birla, in the Original Side of this Court, being No. 1056 of 1987, "was not maintainable by this Hon'ble Court and "it was not the jurisdiction of this hon'ble Court to entertain this suit" and "no cause of action took place at calcutta" as "plaintiff and defendant both reside in Bombay only",. the learned judge nevertheless "acted to maintain", "had mot acted according to law and he had committed offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860". The contemner further not only alleged that the learned Judge "had not acted according to law and he had committed offence under Section 166 of the Indian penal Code, 1860", but asserted further that "he had also not complied with the duties to favour Mr. Aditya V. Birla" and that "mr. Aditya. V. Birla had influenced to the Hon'ble Justice to harass me". And the contemner concluded the letter to the Chief Justice with the prayer "to grant permission to get prosecution of the Hon'ble Justice under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 for the offence committed. "

(3.) IN the second letter dated 12. 1. 88 addressed to the Chief Justice of India, the contemner has stated that though he had "written to the Hon'ble Chief justice of Calcutta High Court on 5th December, 1987 praying for the grant of permission under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 for the prosecution of the Hon'ble Justice, but till today I have not received replies and permission" and hence he prayed that "in view of law and justice" "to issue necessary directions so that I can get justice sooner". It may be noted that the contemner forwarded copies of his first letter dated 5. 12. 87 addressed to the chief Justice of this Court, to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and the Chief Justice of India. and he also endorsed copies of his second letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India to the Chief Justice of this Court and also to the Registrar of the Supreme Court.