The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, addressed the issue of contempt of court arising from the actions of Mr. Rajiv Daiya, Chairman of Suraz India Trust. The case highlights the importance of maintaining the dignity of judicial institutions and the limits of free expression when it comes to criticizing the judiciary. This case delves into the extent to which a litigant can go in criticizing the court, especially when facing adverse orders.
Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2021
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.
Case Background
The case originated from a series of public interest litigations (PILs) filed by Suraz India Trust, with Mr. Rajiv Daiya as its Chairman. The Supreme Court had previously imposed costs of Rs. 25 lakhs on Mr. Daiya and the Trust for filing frivolous petitions and had barred them from filing further PILs. Despite these orders, Mr. Daiya continued to engage in actions that the Court deemed contemptuous. These actions included failing to pay the costs, making disparaging remarks against judges, and attempting to initiate criminal proceedings against court officials and judges.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 01.05.2017 | Supreme Court judgment in WP(C) No. 880/2016, imposing costs of Rs. 25 lakhs on Mr. Rajiv Daiya and Suraz India Trust and barring them from filing further PILs. |
| 21.08.2017 | Mr. Daiya files an application seeking to submit an unconditional apology and waiver of costs. |
| 05.12.2017 | The application of Mr. Daiya was dismissed. |
| 08.02.2018 | All applications and writ petitions filed by the Trust and Mr. Daiya were dismissed, and the Registry was directed not to accept any further filings from them. |
| 29.09.2020 | Office Report placed before the Court informing that the costs had not been deposited. Notice issued to the Trust. |
| 16.10.2020 | Mr. Daiya seeks note sheets from the Registry. |
| 09.02.2021 | Mr. Daiya sends another email to Registry. |
| 12.02.2021 | Court notes there was no basis for demanding note sheets and issues bailable warrants for Mr. Daiya’s production. |
| 22.02.2021 | Mr. Daiya submits an unconditional apology with an audit report, which is not accepted. |
| 11.03.2021 | Mr. Daiya seeks consent from the Attorney General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against court officials and judges. |
| 14.03.2021 | Mr. Daiya sends a letter to the Registrar requesting his apology be considered by a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India. |
| 15.03.2021 | Court directs Mr. Daiya to place on record his current sources of income and assets. |
| 23.03.2021 | Attorney General denies consent for contempt proceedings. |
| 26.03.2021 | Mr. Daiya requests Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul to recuse himself. |
| 02.04.2021 | Mr. Daiya requests the Chief Justice of India to take suo motu cognizance of his criminal complaint. |
| 05.04.2021 | Court issues notice of contempt to Mr. Daiya. |
| 08.04.2021 | Mr. Daiya files a report with details of his assets. |
| 03.05.2021 | State of Rajasthan files an affidavit informing that Mr. Daiya was suspended and transferred for violating service rules. |
| 06.05.2021 | Court notes that the State will commence recovery of costs as arrears of land revenue. |
| 10.05.2021 | Mr. Daiya files an application for recalling/review of the order dated 06.05.2021. |
| 08.07.2021 | Mr. Daiya sends a letter to the Registrar complaining against Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and requesting the matter be listed before a different bench. |
| 09.07.2021 | Contempt notice issued to Mr. Daiya for scandalizing the court. |
| 18.08.2021 | Court issues bailable warrants for Mr. Daiya’s presence. |
| 08.09.2021 | Mr. Daiya appears, and the court reserves judgment after hearing his submissions. |
| 29.09.2021 | Judgment is delivered. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court had initially imposed costs and restrictions on Mr. Daiya and the Trust due to the frivolous nature of their PILs. Mr. Daiya’s subsequent actions, including his failure to pay the costs, his attempts to initiate criminal proceedings against judges, and his disparaging remarks, led to the initiation of contempt proceedings. The Court noted that Mr. Daiya had been given multiple opportunities to rectify his behavior but instead continued to escalate his actions.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to the following legal provisions:
- Article 129 of the Constitution of India: “Supreme Court to be a court of record. The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” This article establishes the Supreme Court as a court of record with the power to punish for contempt.
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice and to enforce its orders. Clause (2) of Article 142 states: “Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: This act provides the legal framework for dealing with contempt of court.
Arguments
Mr. Daiya’s primary argument was that he was unable to pay the costs imposed on him and that the proceedings against him were unjust. He also claimed that he was compelled to take the course of action he did to ensure that his proceedings were not terminated due to his inability to pay costs. He sought to justify his actions by alleging misconduct by the court and its officials. He also sought recusal of one of the judges on the ground that he had moved for sanction of prosecution against him.
The Court, on the other hand, viewed Mr. Daiya’s actions as a deliberate attempt to scandalize the court and obstruct the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that Mr. Daiya had repeatedly made disparaging remarks against judges and court officials, and had attempted to initiate criminal proceedings against them. The Court also noted that Mr. Daiya’s apologies were insincere and were followed by further allegations and attempts to undermine the court’s authority.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions by Mr. Daiya | Sub-Submissions by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Inability to pay costs |
✓ Claimed financial hardship and inability to pay the imposed costs. ✓ Argued that the proceedings should not be terminated due to his inability to pay. |
✓ Observed that Mr. Daiya’s inability to pay costs did not justify his subsequent actions. ✓ Highlighted that the order imposing costs was valid and had to be enforced. |
| Allegations of misconduct by the Court |
✓ Accused judges and court officials of misconduct and obstructing justice. ✓ Attempted to initiate criminal proceedings against them. ✓ Sought recusal of one of the judges. |
✓ Deemed Mr. Daiya’s allegations as baseless and an attempt to scandalize the court. ✓ Emphasized that such actions were a clear attempt to undermine the authority of the court. |
| Insincere Apologies |
✓ Submitted multiple apologies, which were often followed by further allegations. ✓ Claimed that his apologies were not considered. |
✓ Noted that Mr. Daiya’s apologies were insincere and a charade to avoid consequences. ✓ Stated that the apologies did not mitigate the contemptuous conduct. |
| Right to File PILs | ✓ Claimed that he had a right to file PILs and that the court was unjustly restricting it. | ✓ Emphasized that there is no birthright to file PILs and that the court had the right to impose restrictions on frivolous litigants. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court were:
- Whether Mr. Daiya’s actions constituted contempt of court.
- Whether the apologies tendered by Mr. Daiya were genuine and sufficient to mitigate his contemptuous conduct.
- What should be the appropriate action against Mr. Daiya for his contemptuous behavior.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether Mr. Daiya’s actions constituted contempt of court | The Court held that Mr. Daiya’s actions, including his disparaging remarks, attempts to initiate criminal proceedings against judges, and insincere apologies, clearly constituted contempt of court. |
| Whether the apologies tendered by Mr. Daiya were genuine and sufficient to mitigate his contemptuous conduct | The Court determined that Mr. Daiya’s apologies were not genuine. They were viewed as a charade to avoid consequences, followed by further allegations and attempts to undermine the court’s authority. |
| What should be the appropriate action against Mr. Daiya for his contemptuous behavior | The Court decided that Mr. Daiya’s actions warranted punishment for contempt. The Court decided to hear the contemnor on the question of final sentence. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- Roshan Lal Ahuja, In Re [1993 Supp (4) SCC 446]: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that disparaging remarks against the judiciary can constitute contempt. The Court highlighted that no latitude can be given to a litigant to browbeat the court, and that motivated attempts to bring down the image of the judiciary must be dealt with firmly.
- In Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. [2020 SCC Online SC 407]: This case was cited to reiterate the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, which include the power to punish for contempt. The Court noted that the power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in the Court and cannot be taken away or abridged by legislative enactment.
- Mathews Nedumpara, In Re, [(2019) 19 SCC 454]: This case was referred to in the context of the Vijay Kurle case, where the Court had dealt with the issue of contempt and the powers of the Supreme Court.
- Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P. [(2011) 7 SCC 776]: This case was cited to emphasize that an apology cannot be a defense or justification if it does not demonstrate genuine remorse and can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the Court.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How Considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| Roshan Lal Ahuja, In Re [1993 Supp (4) SCC 446] Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court used this case to highlight that disparaging remarks against the judiciary can constitute contempt and that no latitude can be given to a litigant to browbeat the court. |
| In Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. [2020 SCC Online SC 407] Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court cited this case to reiterate its constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, which include the power to punish for contempt. |
| Mathews Nedumpara, In Re, [(2019) 19 SCC 454] Supreme Court of India | Referred. This case was referred to in the context of the Vijay Kurle case, where the Court had dealt with the issue of contempt and the powers of the Supreme Court. |
| Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P. [(2011) 7 SCC 776] Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court used this case to emphasize that an apology cannot be a defense or justification if it does not demonstrate genuine remorse. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Mr. Daiya’s inability to pay costs | The Court acknowledged the submission but stated that it did not justify his subsequent actions, which included scandalous remarks and attempts to initiate criminal proceedings against judges. |
| Mr. Daiya’s allegations of misconduct by the Court | The Court dismissed these allegations as baseless and an attempt to scandalize the court. The Court emphasized that such actions were a clear attempt to undermine the authority of the court. |
| Mr. Daiya’s insincere apologies | The Court rejected the apologies as insincere and a charade to avoid consequences. The Court noted that the apologies were often followed by further allegations and attempts to undermine the court’s authority. |
| Mr. Daiya’s claim of right to file PILs | The Court emphasized that there is no birthright to file PILs and that the court had the right to impose restrictions on frivolous litigants. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Roshan Lal Ahuja, In Re [1993 Supp (4) SCC 446]* to emphasize that disparaging remarks against the judiciary can constitute contempt.
- The Court followed In Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. [2020 SCC Online SC 407]* to reiterate its constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, which include the power to punish for contempt.
- The Court referred to Mathews Nedumpara, In Re, [(2019) 19 SCC 454]* in the context of the Vijay Kurle case, where the Court had dealt with the issue of contempt and the powers of the Supreme Court.
- The Court followed Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P. [(2011) 7 SCC 776]* to emphasize that an apology cannot be a defense or justification if it does not demonstrate genuine remorse.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary. The Court found Mr. Daiya’s actions to be a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the judicial system. The Court was particularly disturbed by Mr. Daiya’s repeated disparaging remarks against judges and court officials, his attempts to initiate criminal proceedings against them, and his insincere apologies. The Court emphasized that such conduct cannot be tolerated, and that it was necessary to take action to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Maintaining dignity of the judiciary | 30% |
| Upholding the authority of the court | 25% |
| Condemning Mr. Daiya’s scandalous conduct | 25% |
| Ensuring the integrity of the judicial process | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:
- Mr. Daiya’s actions were a clear attempt to undermine the authority of the court.
- His apologies were insincere and were followed by further allegations.
- The Court had a constitutional duty to uphold the dignity of the judiciary.
The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them as Mr. Daiya’s actions were clearly contemptuous and his apologies lacked sincerity. The Court decided to take action to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
The Court stated:
- “The raison d’etre of contempt jurisdiction is to maintain the dignity of the institution of judicial forums.”
- “No latitude can be given to a litigant to browbeat the court.”
- “Motivated and calculated attempts to bring down the image of the judiciary in estimation of public and impair the administration of justice must bester themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law.”
The Court did not have a minority opinion.
Key Takeaways
- Litigants cannot use the guise of appearing in person to make disparaging remarks against the judiciary.
- The Supreme Court has the constitutional power to punish for contempt of court.
- Apologies must be genuine and not a charade to avoid consequences.
- Repeated attempts to scandalize the court will not be tolerated.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the State Government to commence the process of recovery of costs as ‘arrears of land revenue’ and remit the recovered amount to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Trust. The Court also decided to hear Mr. Daiya on the question of final sentence for contempt.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has the constitutional power to punish for contempt and that litigants cannot use the guise of appearing in person to make disparaging remarks against the judiciary. The Court also emphasized that apologies must be genuine and not a charade to avoid consequences. This case reinforces the Court’s commitment to upholding the dignity and authority of the judiciary and sets a precedent for dealing with contemptuous behavior by litigants. The Court reiterated that there is no birthright to file PILs and that the court can impose restrictions on frivolous litigants.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Suraz India Trust case underscores the importance of maintaining the dignity of judicial institutions and the limits of free expression when it comes to criticizing the judiciary. The Court’s decision to hold Mr. Daiya in contempt for his actions serves as a reminder that litigants cannot undermine the authority of the court. The Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial process is evident in this judgment.