IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CRIMINALORIGINAL...
Transcript of IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CRIMINALORIGINAL...
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINALORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
Ranjana Agnihotri & Ors. Petitioners
Versus
Prashant Bhushan & Anr. Respondents
PAPER BOOK
(for index kindly inside)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS: VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINALORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Ranjana Agnihotri (Advocate)
D/o. Late Rajendra Kant Agnihotri R/o. 512/695 Balda Road, Nishant Ganj, Lucknow, U.P.
2. Bandana Kumar (Advocate) W/o Shri Ajay Kumar R/o. 1101 Alaknanda Apartment, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow, U.P. 3. Durgesh Kumar Tiwari (Advocate),
Son of Sri Sheetla Prasad Tiwari, R/o Pandit Deen Dayal Updhaya Nagar, Sarsawan, Arjunganj, P.O.-Arjunganj, Lucknow-226002, U.P.
4. Pankaj Kumar Verma (Advocate),
Son of Sri Mahadev Verma, R/o E-3/178,Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar, P.O.-Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, U.P.
5. Ashutosh Mishra(Advocate)
Son of Dr. Vidya Sagar Mishra, R/o A-1479/7 Indira Nagar, P.O.-Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016, U.P. Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Prashant Bhushan S/o Shri Shanti Bhushan Advocate,
115,New Lawyers Chamber Supreme Court of India, Bhagwan Das Road New Delhi-110001.
2. Editor in Chief, Aaj Tak News Channel
The India Today Group Mediaplex, Fc-8, Sector - 16A, Film City, Noida – 201301(Proforma Party)
3. Editor in Chief
Times Now News Channel, Plot No-FC 6, Second Floor, Film City-Noida Sector 16a, Noida – 201301, Uttar Pradesh. (Proforma Party)
… Contemnors-Opposite parties
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 129 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 15 OF THE CONTEMPT OF THE COURT ACT, 1971 AND RULE 3 OF RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDING FOR CONTEMPT OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1975 FOR TAKING SUO MOTO ACTION AGAINST CONTEMNORS
To, THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Petitioners are practicing Advocates at Lucknow
Bench of Allahabad High Court. They are filing the instant petition
under Article 129 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 15 of the
Contempt of Courts Act against the Respondents with great
anguish and pains in discharge of their duty towards the court and
the society as the statements and remarks made by Shri Prasant
Bhushan an Advocate practicing in this Hon’ble Court on
19.04.2018 after the pronouncement of judgment rejecting his
arguments in case of Tehsin Poonawala vs. Union of India reported
in 2018(6) SCALE tarnishes the image of the institution of the
judiciary and particularly the Supreme Court in the eyes of public
within and outside the country and making reckless allegations and
imputations made against the institution and casting derogatory
remarks against the judicial system amounts to committing an
offence of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act and punishable under Section 15 of the
said Act.
2. That it is relevant to mention that it is usual practice of Shri
Prashant Bhushan to malign the Hon’ble Judges and the
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
institution of judiciary if he fails to get favorable judgment from the
court attributing reasons for passing the judgment/order against
him.
3. That Shri Prashant Bhushan had filed a petition seeking SIT
probe into the matter of alleged payoffs by Birla Sahara Groups to
the then Gujarat Chief Minister. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the
plea of Shri Prashant Bhushan seeking probe into Sahara Birla
diary observing that ‘mere diaries and loose sheets cannot be
taken as admissible evidence in code of law against constitutional
functionaries. Further that if an order to investigate on the basis of
material with no evidentiary value, it would be difficult for
constitutional functionaries to function, which would not be safe for
the democracy. Immediately after the judgment Shri Prashant
Bhushan made statement before the Press on11.01.2017 to the
following effect:-
“It is very unfortunate and abject judgment and it will go down
as one of the worsted judgment in the history. It is black day
at the top court today.”
Further that ‘it is mockery of the constitution’. 4. That Shri Prashant Bhushan in an interview to the
correspondent of A.N.I. had severely criticized in bad taste the
judgment rendered in Birla Sahara Diary Case and said that:-
“the verdict shows that when it comes to dealing with and
mighty, sometimes even the Supreme Court wilts under
pressure.”
5. That it is relevant to mention that Shri Prashant Bhushan had
appeared in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.176 of 2017. In the said
petition an order was passed by a bench headed by Hon’ble Chief
Justice. On 11.11.2017 Shri Prashant Bhushan made public
statement against the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Court terming
the judgment as a ‘black day’ in the history of the Supreme Court.
Further that ‘I feel that the behavior of the CJI and the Bench was
not proper. We have not seen the order of the
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
Court. We will first see and then take all our future course of action’.
He gave an interview to the correspondent of ANI, a TV News
Channel, which was widely circulated, he had stated that:-
“But this is certainly a black day in the history of the Supreme
Court”.
6. That from the statement made by Shri Prashant Bhushan to
the press on 11.11.2017 it is clear that he had made baseless
allegations scandalizing and tarnishing the image of judiciary. It
was highly improper that any judgment passed by the Court is
termed as black day. There was no basis and also there was no
occasion to say that the behavior of CJI was not proper.
7. That Shri Prashant Bhushan had also tweeted that ‘CJI
Deepak Mishra presided over a ‘handpicked bench’ to override
Yesterday’s order’. He spokes to ANI explaining the order of the
days proceeding as follows:
“It was one of most unfortunate date for the Supreme Court
and the Judiciary, where the credibility of the Court has been
greatly undermined that too effectively by the CJI himself”.
8. That the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 14.11.2017
dismissed Writ Petition (Criminal) No.176 of 2017 (Kamini Jaiswal
vs. Union of India & Anr.) observing that:-
“We cannot fall prey to such unscrupulous devices adopted
by the litigants, so as to choose the Benches, as that is a real
threat to very existence of the system itself and would be
denigrated in case we succumb to such pressure tactics”.
9. That Writ Petition (Criminal) No.169 of 2017 with similar
prayer as made in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.176/2017 had been filed.
Shri Prasant Bhushan had also appeared in the said case. The
aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
dated 1.12.2017 imposing costs of Rs.25 lacs on the Petitioner. In
the said petition in para 9 the Hon’ble Court has mentioned that:-
“…the present petition, in particular, the manner in which it
has been perused without any remorse of questioning the
decision rendered on the subject matter by this court
including the plea taken in earlier petition as noted in
paragraph 29 of the said decision, is gross abuse of the
process of the court. Therefore, it has to be dismissed with
exemplary costs in order to ensure that such attempt is not
repeated in future.”
10. That from the narration of facts and comment made by Shri
Prasant Bhushan it is clear that he had made derogatory remarks
against Hon’ble Judges attributing the motive for passing the order
without their being any basis and thus he has committed an offence
of criminal contempt punishable under Section 15 of the Contempt
of Courts Act.
11. That the statement made by Shri Prasant Bhushan Advocate
was widely criticized by legal fraternity throughout the country.
There was great resentment within the advocates and also in the
public regarding the derogatory remarks made by Shri Prashant
Bhushan against the judiciary. The Petitioners were of the view that
Shri Prasant Bhushan will not repeat the same thing and he will
respect the judicial system and judiciary and he will refrain himself
from making scrupulous remarks and any remark derogatory to the
judicial system and that he would mend his ways.
12. That Writ Petition(C) No.19 of 2018 Teshin Poonawala vs.
Union of India & Anr. was filed for issuing direction to constitute
Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into the death of judge
Shri Brijgopal Harkishan Loya who had died in the night of 29/30
November,2014 while on a trip to Nagpur. Several other petitions
and transfer petitions were also connected with the said petition.
All the petitions and transfer petitions have been dismissed by a
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
common judgment dated 19.04.2018.
13. That in the aforesaid matter Shri Prasant Bhushan had filed
intervention application on behalf of ‘the Centre for Public Interest
Litigation’. He made submissions in the matter which have been
discussed in para 64 of the judgment. In paragraph 65 it has been
mentioned in the judgment that:-
“The affidavit in support of the application for intervention has
been sworn by Mr.Prashant Bhushan personally. Mr.Prasant
Bhushan appeared on behalf of the intervenor as its counsel
during the course of the hearing and not as a party in person.”
14. That in paragraph 74 of the judgment referring to the
arguments made on behalf of the Petitioners and the intervenors it
has been observed by the Hon’ble Court that:-
“…but as the submissions have evolved it has become clear
that the petition is a veiled attempt to launch a frontal attack
on the independence of the judiciary and to dilute credibility
of the judicial institutions.”
15. That it is relevant to mention that Shri Prasant Bhushan had
questioned the formation of the bench consisting of two Hon’ble
Judges (Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.M.Khanwilkar and Hon’ble
Mr.Justice D.Y.Chandrachud) since they belong to Maharashtra.
His objection was rejected by the bench. In paragraph 76 the
Hon’ble Court has held that:-
‘..the conduct of the Petitioners and intervenors scandalizes
the process of the court and prima facie constitutes criminal
contempt. However, on a dispassionate of the view of the
matter, we have chooses not to initiate proceedings by way
of criminal contempt if only not to give impression that the
litigants and the lawyers every for them have been subjected
to unequal battle with authority of law”.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
16. That the Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 19.4.2018 had
rejected all the objections and pleas raised by Shri Prasant Bhusan
and other advocates appearing for the Petitioners/Intervenors. Shri
Prasant Bhushan immediately after pronouncement of the
judgment on 19.4.2018 with a view to scandalize the judges and
the institution of judiciary addressed the press in the lawns of the
Supreme Court which was broadcast by different news channels.
The Television News Channel ‘Aaj Tak’ in Hindi and ‘Times Now’
news channel in English broadcast said statement throughout the
day in the news bulletins. In his statement Shri Prashant Bhushan
has severely criticized the judgment including attributing motive for
passing the judgment and terming the same as the black day in the
history of Supreme Court. The address made by Shri Prashant
Bhushan is also available on Youtube. The address made by Shri
Prashant Bhushan was broadcast by a TV News Channel Times
Now a number of times. A true copy of complete press address
made by Shri Prashant Bhushan on 19.4.2018 downloaded in a CD
is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-1 (page
17. That Shri Prashant Bhushan addressed the press in Hindi on
19.4.2018. The transliteration in English of the most offending
portion of the aforesaid statement and the translation of the same
in English is being given below:-
(a) Transliteration:-
(i) In char jujon ke statement ke aadhar per jo ke affidavit par
bhi nahi aayethe Supreme Court ne aaj swatantra janch ki
maang thukra di jabki itne saare sandeh utpanna huye thhey.
(ii) Meri rai men yeh bahut hi galat faisala hua hai aur
Supreme Court ke liye meri rai me yeh ek kaladin hai kyoki
Supreme Court ne bajay iske ki ek swatantra janch ho jai ki
itne sare sandeh utpanna ho gaye thhe unpar parda dalne ka
kaam kiya hai juj Loya ki maut ke uper.
(iii) Agar koi jan yeh baat lekar Supreme Court me aaye ki
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
bhai iske swatantra janch kara lijiye to swatantra janch ki
mang karna bhi political motive hogaya. Yeh to aur bhi bada
prashna chinha lagata hai ki yeh faisala kis aadhar per diya
gaya aur kiske kahne per diya gaya.
(b) Translation in English:-
(i) On the basis of the statement of these four judges
which were not even on affidavit, the Supreme Court has
rejected the prayer for independent investigation into the
matter despite a number of suspicions had arisen.
(ii) In my opinion this is a very wrong judgment and for
Supreme Court this is a black day because Supreme Court
instead of ordering for independent probe when a number of
suspicion had arisen, the Supreme Court had worked to draw
the curtain on the death of judge Loya.
(iii) If any person comes to the Supreme Court demanding
for making an independent probe into the matter then the
demand for making independent probe will amount to having
political motive. It also puts a very big question on the
judgment as to on which basis and on whose instruction the
same was given.
18. That from the address made by Shri Prashant Bhushan it is
clear that he has stated that:-
(i) “It is a black day in the Supreme Court history.”
(ii) “the judgment has been passed at the instance of some person”.
(iii) “the judgment has been passed to shield the culprits”
(iv) “the judgment has been passed to suppress regarding the death of judge Loya”
19. That it is relevant to mention that Shri Prashant Bhushan had
also questioned the constitution of Bench to hear the petition
regarding judge Loya and had objected that two judges hailing from
Maharasthra could not hear the matter. This objection was rejected
by the Hon’ble Court.
20. That while delivering judgment the Hon’ble Court has
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
recorded a finding that the conduct of the Petitioners and
intervenors scandalized the process of the Court amounting to
criminal contempt. However, in the fitness of things the Hon’ble
Court thought not to take action for committing criminal contempt
against the Petitioners and Intervenors.
21. That it is respectfully submitted that the points raised by the
Petitioners and intervenors regarding the Constitution of the Bench
as also the demand for constituting SIT to probe the death of judge
Loya were rejected on merits by the Hon’ble Court vide judgment
dated 19.4.2018. Shri Prashant Bhushan while addressing the
press on the said date not only severely criticized the judgment on
those points but also attributed the motive for passing the order in
a most derogatory and disgraceful language.
22. That the very purpose of enacting the Contempt of Court Act
would be frustrated if in grave contempt the contemnors are not
punished. In such a situation the people’s confidence in judiciary
would be shaken. The public may think that allegations made by
the contemnor were correct and as such no action was taken by
the court.
23. That Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 runs
as follows:-
“(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by,
spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act
whatsoever which-
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends
to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”
24. That Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lays
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
down that the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action in
his own motion or on a motion made by:-
a) the Advocate General or b) any other person with the consent writing to the advocate
general or c) in relation to the High Court. In relation to Supreme Court the
expression ‘Advocate General’ means the ‘Attorney General’ or ‘the Solicitor General’.
25. That in view of the facts, circumstances and nature of the
case it would not be desirable for the Petitioners to approach
Learned Attorney or Solicitor General seeking permission as
prescribed by Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
26. That the Petitioners pray that to maintain the majesty of the
court and to repose confidence of the public in the judicial system,
the Hon’ble Court may take action against the opposite party for
committing criminal contempt of the Supreme Court.
27. That in case of suo moto contempt petition reported in AIR
2017 Supreme Court Pg.3836 it has been held by the Hon’ble
Court that:-
‘the contempt jurisdiction is not only to protect reputation of
judge but also to protect fair name of judiciary and extends to
protect registry from false and unfair allegations’.
28. That in case of Bal Thakare vs. Haris Pimpalkare reported in
(2005)1 SCC 254 E it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that:-
‘the whole object of prescribing procedure mode of taking
cognizance is to safeguard the valuable time of the court from
being vested by frivolous contempt petitions’.
29. That the Hon’ble Court in case of Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi
Ilamvazhuthi reported in (2011) 5 SCC 496 has interpreted the
provision relating to seeking consent of the Attorney
General/Advocate General and has held that:-
‘if the issue involved in the proceedings had greater impact
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
of the administration of justice and on the justice delivery
system, the court is competent to go into the contempt
proceedings even without the consent of the Advocate
General’.
30. That in view of the statement made by Mr. Prasant Bhushan
to the press after the judgment rendered by the Court in the said
case rejecting his submissions and dismissing the plea demanding
for making probe through SIT, he has tried to give a political motive
for passing the judgment and even went on terming the judgment
as the black day in the history. Thus it is high time for the Hon’ble
Court to take action in the matter on the basis of the present
application in exercise of the powers of taking suo moto action for
committing the offence of criminal contempt.
31. That it is submitted that if action under Section 15 of the
Contempt of Courts Act is not taken against the opposite party the
tendency to scandalize the judiciary and to pressurize the judges
for getting favourable order would continue unabated and may give
rise for repeating the offence of the like nature.
32. That the very purpose of making provision under Section 15
for punishing for committing Criminal Contempt as defined in
Section 2(c) of the Act would be a dead letter unless in the matter
of grave contempt of the Hon’ble Court, the High Court or any other
court the culprit is not tried and punished in accordance with the
provisions contained Article 129 of the Constitution of India and
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
33. That the offence of criminal contempt was committed by
opposite party on 19.4.2018. The cause of action for filing the present
petition is occurring from 19.4.2018 and the petition is being filed
within the prescribed period of limitation provided by Section 20 of
the Contempt of Courts Act.
34. That the Petitioners have not filed any other Petition before
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
this Hon’ble Court or any other court seeking initiation of contempt
proceedings against the contemnor/opposite party.
PRAYERS
In the foregoing circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
a) Exercise suo moto powers under Article 129 of the
Constitution of India and Section 15 of the Contempt of
Courts Act taking cognizance of the criminal contempt on the
basis of the facts placed on record against the
contemnor/opposite party for committing criminal contempt
within the meaning of Section 2(c) punishable under 15 of
the contempt of courts Act;
b) Issue necessary guidelines for advocates in the matter of
making statements before or after any verdict or about the
judicial proceeding and the Union of India may be directed
to implement such guidelines;
c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit proper in the interest of justice.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS SHALL IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
DRAWN & FILED BY
VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN, Advocate for the Petitioners
Drawn on: .07.2018 PLACE: NEW DELHI FILED ON: 06.08.2018
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINALORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
Ranjana Agnihotri & Ors. Petitioners
Versus
Prashant Bhushan & Anr. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Ranjana Agnihotri, D/o. late Rajendra Kant Agnihotri, age 49
years, R/o. 512/695 Balda Road, Nishant Ganj, Lucknow, U.P., do
hereby state on oath and declare as under:
1. That I am Petitioner No.1 in the above mentioned contempt petition. I have been authorized by Co-Petitioner to swear this affidavit on her behalf also. I am fully aware of and conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case hereinafter deposed.
2. I say that the contents of Contempt Petition as contained at para 1 to ___ at pages 1 to ___ are true to my information received from the records and believed by me to be correct. I say that the facts are true and correct to my knowledge, information and belief.
3. That the Annexure contained in the form of CD is true and contains true statement made by the Contemnor/opposite party.
4. That I say that the facts stated in this affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above deponent hereinabove do hereby verify the contents of para 1 to 4 of this affidavit to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I state that no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Lucknow on this day of ___ July, 2018.
DEPONENT
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
INDEX
Sl. No.
Particulars Pages
1. Contempt Petition with affidavit
2. ANNEXURE P-1: A true copy of complete press address made by Shri Prashant Bhushan on 19.4.2018 downloaded in a CD
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINALORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF
Ranjana Agnihotri & Ors. Petitioners
Versus
Prashant Bhushan & Anr. Respondents
VAKALATNAMA
I/We, Ranjana Agnihotri, Bandana Kumar Appellants(s)/Petitioner(s)/ Respondent(s)
/Opposite party in the above Suit/ Appeal: Petition/ Reference do hereby appoint and retain
Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate of the Supreme Court to act and appear for me/us in the
above Suit/ Appeal/ Petition/ Reference and or my /our behalf to conduct and prosecute (or defend) the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of my application connected
with the same of any decree order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation and
application for Review, to file and obtain return of documents, and to deposit and receive money on my/ or behalf in the said Suit Appeal/ Petition Reference and in application of
Review, and to represent me/us and to take all necessary steps on my /our behalf in the above
matter, I/We agree to ratify all acts done by the aforesaid Advocate in pursuance of this authority. Dated this the____________________day of_______________________2018
VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN
Counsel for the Petitioners Petitioners/Appellant
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To, The Registrar, Supreme Court of India New Delhi Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf on the Petitioner(s) /Appellant(s)/
Respondent(s) /Intervenor in the matter above mentioned.
Dated this the___________day of_____________________2008
Yours faithfully,
(VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN) Advocate for Petitioner(s)
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)