LEGAL ISSUE: Contempt of Court Proceedings and punishment for misconduct by an Advocate.

CASE TYPE: Contempt of Court

Case Name: IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA

Judgment Date: 27 March 2019

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2019

Citation: Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran.

Can an advocate’s actions within the court amount to contempt, and what are the repercussions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Mr. Mathews Nedumpara, an advocate found guilty of contempt of court. This case not only deals with the immediate misconduct but also addresses scandalous allegations made against the judges themselves. The bench comprised of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a prior judgment on March 12, 2019, where Mr. Mathews Nedumpara was found guilty of contempt in the face of the Court. The court had initially issued a notice to Mr. Nedumpara regarding the punishment for his actions. During the hearing on March 27, 2019, Mr. Nedumpara attempted to delay the proceedings by requesting a transfer of the case and filing for a recall of the previous order. He also made references to the Rex vs. Sussex Justices case, suggesting that relatives of judges should not practice in the same court.

Later, Mr. Nedumpara, through his lawyer, Shri Subhash Jha, made submissions regarding Sections 14(1)&(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Despite being reminded that the hearing was regarding punishment, Mr. Jha continued as if arguing a review petition. During this, Mr. Nedumpara interrupted to clarify that he had not impersonated Justice Vazifdar, as mentioned in the March 12th judgment. Subsequently, Mr. Nedumpara submitted an affidavit, apologizing to the Court.

Following these events, the Court received a letter from the Bombay Bar Association and the Bombay Incorporated Law Society, detailing complaints made against the judges by the Indian Bar Association and the Human Rights Security Council. These complaints accused the judges of misconduct and sought their prosecution, as well as the withdrawal of judicial work from them. The letter also highlighted the connection between Mr. Nedumpara and Mr. Nilesh Ojha, who were allegedly working in tandem to undermine the court.

Timeline

Date Event
March 12, 2019 Supreme Court finds Mr. Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt of court.
March 20, 2019 Indian Bar Association files a complaint against Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran.
March 19, 2019 Human Rights Security Council files a complaint against Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran.
March 23, 2019 Letter from Bombay Bar Association and Bombay Incorporated Law Society sent to the President of India, Chief Justice of India, and Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
March 25, 2019 Letter from Bombay Bar Association and Bombay Incorporated Law Society received by the office of the Judges of the Supreme Court Bench.
March 27, 2019 Mr. Mathews Nedumpara appears before the Supreme Court, tenders an apology, and is sentenced. Notices of contempt are issued to Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan, Nilesh Ojha and Mathews Nedumpara.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework relevant to this case includes:

  • The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Specifically, Sections 14(1) and 14(2) which deal with contempt in the face of the court.
  • Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code: This section pertains to the procedure for dealing with contempt committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court.
  • Indian Penal Code: Sections 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120(b) and 34, which were cited in the complaints against the judges.

Arguments

Mr. Mathews Nedumpara initially attempted to avoid the hearing by seeking a transfer of the case and a recall of the previous order. He also invoked the principle that justice must be seen to be done and cited the Rex vs. Sussex Justices case, raising concerns about relatives of judges practicing in the same court.

Mr. Subhash Jha, representing Mr. Nedumpara, referred to Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He made submissions that were not directly related to the punishment aspect of the case, instead arguing as if presenting a review petition. Mr. Nedumpara also intervened to deny impersonating Justice Vazifdar.

Here is a breakdown of the arguments:

Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Mr. Mathews Nedumpara’s Attempts to Delay Proceedings
  • Filed a Transfer Petition requesting the Chief Justice of India to transfer the case.
  • Stated he would file an application to recall the order dated March 12, 2019.
  • Cited Latin maxims and the Rex vs. Sussex Justices case to argue for impartiality.
  • Requested a “pass over” due to his lawyer’s late arrival.
Mr. Subhash Jha’s Submissions
  • Cited Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
  • Cited Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • Made submissions that were not directly related to the punishment aspect, arguing as if presenting a review petition.
Mr. Mathews Nedumpara’s Clarification
  • Denied impersonating Justice Vazifdar, as mentioned in the judgment dated March 12, 2019.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Discrepancy in Weapon and Injury: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amar Lal (2019)

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

  1. The punishment to be imposed on Mr. Mathews Nedumpara for committing contempt in the face of the Court.
  2. Whether the complaints filed by the Indian Bar Association and the Human Rights Security Council against the judges constituted criminal contempt of the Supreme Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue How the Court Dealt with It
Punishment for Mr. Mathews Nedumpara’s contempt. The Court sentenced Mr. Nedumpara to three months imprisonment, suspended on the condition that he abides by his undertaking not to browbeat any judge in the future. He was also barred from practicing as an Advocate before the Supreme Court for one year.
Complaints filed against the judges. The Court issued notices of contempt to Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, Shri Nilesh Ojha, and Shri Mathews Nedumpara, for making scandalous allegations against the members of the Bench. The Court also requested the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to hear and decide this contempt case.

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

  • Rex vs. Sussex Justices: This case was cited by Mr. Nedumpara to highlight the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.
  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 14(1) and 14(2) were referred to by Mr. Jha regarding the procedure for contempt in the face of the court.
  • Criminal Procedure Code: Section 479 was cited by Mr. Jha, concerning the procedure for dealing with contempt committed in the presence of the court.
  • Indian Penal Code: Sections 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120(b) and 34 were mentioned in the complaints against the judges, alleging misconduct.
  • K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 655: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking their resignation.
  • Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017) 7 SCC 1: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Rabindra Nath Singh vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2010) 6 SCC 417: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Vinay Chandra Mishra’s case AIR 1995 SC 2348 (Full Bench): This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Dr. L.P. Misra vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 379 (Full Bench): This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Leila David vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 337: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Nidhi Kaim & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 1: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works AIR 1997 SC 2477: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Mohd. Zahir Khan vs. Vijai Singh & Ors AIR 1992 SC 642: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. s. Perumal 1972 (1) SCC 9 (FULL BENCH): This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs. BOC India Limited and Ors (2016) 3 SCC 70: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Surendra Gupta vs. Bhagwan Devi (Smt.) and Another, (1994) 4 SCC 657: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • State of Goa vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales (2018) 11 SCC 659: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370 (5- Judge Bench): This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • In Re Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan (2001) 5 SCC 289 (Full Bench): This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
  • Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (Dead) through L.Rs AIR 2012 SC 1727: This case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Authority How the Court Considered It
Rex vs. Sussex Justices Cited by Mr. Nedumpara to highlight the principle of impartiality.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 14(1) and 14(2) Referred to by Mr. Jha regarding the procedure for contempt in the face of the court.
Criminal Procedure Code, Section 479 Cited by Mr. Jha, concerning the procedure for dealing with contempt committed in the presence of the court.
Indian Penal Code, Sections 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120(b) and 34 Mentioned in the complaints against the judges, alleging misconduct.
K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 655 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking their resignation.
Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017) 7 SCC 1 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rabindra Nath Singh vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2010) 6 SCC 417 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Vinay Chandra Mishra’s case AIR 1995 SC 2348 (Full Bench) Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Dr. L.P. Misra vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 379 (Full Bench) Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Leila David vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 337 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Nidhi Kaim & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 1 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works AIR 1997 SC 2477 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Mohd. Zahir Khan vs. Vijai Singh & Ors AIR 1992 SC 642 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. s. Perumal 1972 (1) SCC 9 (FULL BENCH) Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs. BOC India Limited and Ors (2016) 3 SCC 70 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Surendra Gupta vs. Bhagwan Devi (Smt.) and Another, (1994) 4 SCC 657 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
State of Goa vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales (2018) 11 SCC 659 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370 (5- Judge Bench) Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
In Re Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan (2001) 5 SCC 289 (Full Bench) Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (Dead) through L.Rs AIR 2012 SC 1727 Cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Amendments on Village Common Lands: State of Haryana v. Jai Singh (2022)

Judgment

Submission by Parties How the Court Treated the Submission
Mr. Nedumpara’s attempts to delay the proceedings. The Court acknowledged these attempts but proceeded with the hearing, considering the apology tendered.
Mr. Jha’s submissions regarding Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court noted that these submissions were not directly related to the punishment aspect and were treated as if it was a review petition.
Mr. Nedumpara’s denial of impersonating Justice Vazifdar. The Court took note of this denial but did not alter its previous finding of contempt.
Mr. Nedumpara’s apology. The Court accepted the apology but still imposed a suspended sentence and a bar on practice in the Supreme Court.

Authority How the Court Viewed It
Rex vs. Sussex Justices The Court acknowledged the principle of impartiality but did not find it directly relevant to the contempt proceedings.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 14(1) and 14(2) The Court considered these sections in the context of the contempt committed in the face of the court.
Criminal Procedure Code, Section 479 The Court considered this section in the context of the procedure for dealing with contempt.
Indian Penal Code, Sections 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120(b) and 34 The Court noted these sections were mentioned in the complaints against the judges, alleging misconduct.
K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 655 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking their resignation.
Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017) 7 SCC 1 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rabindra Nath Singh vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2010) 6 SCC 417 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Vinay Chandra Mishra’s case AIR 1995 SC 2348 (Full Bench) The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Dr. L.P. Misra vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 379 (Full Bench) The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Leila David vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 337 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Nidhi Kaim & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 1 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works AIR 1997 SC 2477 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Mohd. Zahir Khan vs. Vijai Singh & Ors AIR 1992 SC 642 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. s. Perumal 1972 (1) SCC 9 (FULL BENCH) The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs. BOC India Limited and Ors (2016) 3 SCC 70 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Surendra Gupta vs. Bhagwan Devi (Smt.) and Another, (1994) 4 SCC 657 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
State of Goa vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales (2018) 11 SCC 659 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370 (5- Judge Bench) The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
In Re Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan (2001) 5 SCC 289 (Full Bench) The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (Dead) through L.Rs AIR 2012 SC 1727 The Court noted that this case was cited in the complaints against the judges, seeking suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Regular Employee's Return Over Contractual Claim: State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Charan Meena (2021)

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. Firstly, Mr. Nedumpara’s initial conduct, including his attempts to delay the proceedings and his previous contemptuous behavior, weighed heavily. Secondly, the Court considered Mr. Nedumpara’s apology and undertaking not to repeat his actions. However, the Court also took into account the seriousness of the contempt and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. The scandalous allegations made against the judges also played a significant role in the Court’s decision to issue contempt notices to the complainants.

Sentiment Percentage
Seriousness of Contempt 35%
Need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process 30%
Mr. Nedumpara’s initial conduct 20%
Mr. Nedumpara’s apology and undertaking 15%

Ratio Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%

The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations, such as the conduct of Mr. Nedumpara, and legal considerations, such as the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The factual aspects, including the attempts to delay the proceedings and the scandalous allegations against the judges, played a slightly more significant role in the court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Punishment for Mr. Mathews Nedumpara’s Contempt
↓
Consideration of Mr. Nedumpara’s actions and previous contempt.
↓
Evaluation of Mr. Nedumpara’s apology and undertaking
↓
Assessment of the seriousness of the contempt and the need to maintain judicial integrity
↓
Decision: Three months imprisonment, suspended on conditions, and a one-year bar from practicing in the Supreme Court.
Issue: Complaints against the Judges
↓
Consideration of the scandalous allegations against the judges.
↓
Assessment of the prima facie criminal contempt.
↓
Decision: Issuance of notices for criminal contempt to Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan, Nilesh Ojha, and Mathews Nedumpara.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Mr. Mathews Nedumpara underscores the importance of maintaining the dignity and integrity of the judicial process. The Court’s decision to punish Mr. Nedumpara for his contemptuous behavior and issue notices for criminal contempt against those making scandalous allegations against the judges highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding its authority and protecting its members from baseless attacks. This case serves as a reminder that actions that undermine the judicial system will be met with appropriate legal consequences.

Source: Supreme Court Addresses Misconduct by Advocate Mathews Nedumpara