K A H SUBRAMANIUM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where the Chief Minister has escaped contempt proceedings by the skin of her teeth, so to speak, by the grace of the Court. She, that is the Chief Minister, and her husband, the leader of the Party, communicated with the Chief Justice, the presiding Judge of the Bench, in a pending matter. What was the matter which gave an occasion to telephone the Chief Justice on the conduct of Court proceedings? The matter is what has now resulted in an Appeal of the Chief Secretary, an appeal against an indictment which convicted him to custody and prison in a pending case, in the origins of which the Chief Secretary had no part.

(2.) Insofar as the indiscretion of the Chief Minister and her consort is concerned, in speaking to the Chief Justice, the Court thought it best to defuse the situation, avert a crisis, and be aware of the ground realities of the functional politics in India, Bihar particularly. The impulsive action was noticed and forgiven in an order, but the issue was attempted to be opened again on more than one occasion. Others brought in causes to keep the contemptuous situation alive, and the Advocate General of the State, even with his Chief Minister in trouble, apparently could not care less, as not appearing in Court has been second nature to him for years. Insofar as the Advocate General is concerned, probabilities will never give him another opportunity to defend the very Chief Minister who made him the Advocate General, and to defend whatever was to be said. Instead, he showed his back to the Chief Minister and the Court. The Court rose to the occasion with the view that while the complexity of politics in Bihar, with the fabric of politics woven with intrigue, one phone call should not be taken so seriously-especially considering that the Chief Justice was in no way influenced by anything said or done by the Chief Minister or her husband. He was already aware that this was an unusual case. The Chief Justice was also not unaware that many advisors were sitting in the darbar of the Chief Minister when the call was made. This perhaps could become the subject of inquiry of a unique kind. The Advocate General has given enough provocation to insult the Constitution of India in not discharging his functions in the very institution where he has been posted as Advocate General. But who were those who were present when the telephone call was made? An emotional Chief Secretary was there, some others were there too, who must have given advice to carry out this very unwise action of telephoning the Chief Justice. Who were these people, who couldn't come to Court to hold the brief for the Chief Secretary, but were puppeteering behind the scenes? Will this be kept as a secret? It will only be a matter of time that the bubbles will surface. But the Court is not about to get involved in the mediocrity of the advice or the mis-placed loyalty by a cowardly advisor who advised the Chief Minister to telephone the Chief Justice.

(3.) Now, to the business of the Chief Secretary's appeal.