Date of the Judgment: March 12, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 229
Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, J., Vineet Saran, J.
Can a lawyer’s disrespectful behavior towards the court be considered contempt, and can a second review petition be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution? The Supreme Court addressed these critical questions in a case involving allegations of contempt of court against an advocate and the maintainability of a writ petition seeking a second review of a previous judgment. This judgment, authored by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, addresses these issues, dismissing the writ petition and issuing a notice for contempt of court.
Case Background
The case arose from a writ petition filed by the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, among others. During the proceedings, Shri Mathews Nedumpara, the advocate representing the petitioners, made several contentious statements and engaged in behavior that the Court deemed disrespectful and contemptuous. This included taking the name of a senior advocate without relevance, making unrelated statements, and asserting that lawyers are immune from contempt.
The Court noted that this was not the first instance of such behavior by Shri Nedumpara. The Court detailed previous instances of misconduct by the advocate before the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court and Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bombay. These instances included suppressing facts, making false statements, and using abusive language. The Court also noted that Shri Nedumpara had filed a writ petition against a single judge of the Bombay High Court based on observations made in a previous order.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 22, 2018 | Shri Nedumpara stated that Rs. 80 lakhs would be paid within four weeks in a Special Leave Petition. The Court granted one week for payment, failing which the petition would be dismissed without further reference. |
| November 14, 2018 | Shri Nedumpara mentioned the same matter before the Court without disclosing that the Special Leave Petition had already been dismissed for non-payment. |
| September 18, 2012 | Bombay High Court recorded that Mr. Mathews disrupted the proceedings of the Court and refused to conclude. |
| June 20, 2013 | A suo motu notice for criminal contempt was issued by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court against Shri Nedumpara. |
| March 1, 2014 | Bombay High Court noted Shri Nedumpara’s aggressive, discourteous and offensive manner in court. |
| May 19, 2014 | The Presiding Officers of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai resolved not to list matters where Shri Nedumpara or his juniors appear. |
| December 23, 2014 | Bombay High Court rejected Shri Nedumpara’s application for recusal of a single judge. |
| March 15, 2017 | Bombay High Court recorded Shri Nedumpara’s abusive and contemptuous behavior and issued a notice for contempt. |
| March 5, 2018 | Bombay High Court observed that Shri Nedumpara made false statements and misrepresentations before the Court. |
| July 26, 2018 | Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Shri Nedumpara against a single judge. |
| March 12, 2019 | The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and issued a notice for contempt against Shri Nedumpara. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court noted that the present writ petition was essentially a second review petition against the judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766, which had already been dismissed. The Court highlighted that a second review petition is barred under Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Despite this, Shri Nedumpara filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which the Court found to be an abuse of process.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the right to individuals to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court noted that this article cannot be used to file a second review petition against a judgment of the Supreme Court.
- Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: This rule bars a second review petition.
- Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961: This provision deals with the designation of Senior Advocates. The Court stated that this provision is not unconstitutional and that the designation of Senior Advocates cannot be claimed as a matter of right or bounty.
- Article 129 of the Constitution of India: This article designates the Supreme Court as a court of record and grants it the power to punish for contempt of itself.
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter before it.
- Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: This section lays down the procedure to be followed in cases of criminal contempt in the face of the court.
- Article 215 of the Constitution of India: This article designates every High Court as a court of record and grants it the power to punish for contempt of itself.
The Court also discussed the inherent power of the court to punish for contempt in the face of the court, emphasizing that such power is essential to maintain the dignity and majesty of the courts.
Arguments
Shri Mathews Nedumpara, representing the petitioners, made several arguments, including:
- That Judges of the Court are unfit to designate persons as Senior Advocates.
- That the designation of Senior Advocates is a matter of bounty.
- That lawyers are immune from contempt and defamation.
- That the independence of lawyers should be fully protected.
- That a citizen whose fundamental rights are infringed by a judicial order is entitled to all legal remedies.
- That no distinction can be made between subordinate judiciary and superior judiciary in so far as the prohibition contained in Article 13 (2) of the Constitution is concerned.
The Court found these arguments to be without merit and noted that they were made in a disrespectful and contemptuous manner. The Court also noted that the writ petition was an attempt to seek a second review of a previous judgment, which is barred by law.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Shri Mathews Nedumpara |
|---|---|
| Judges are unfit to designate Senior Advocates | Judges only designate their relatives as Senior Advocates. |
| Designation of Senior Advocates is a matter of bounty | Took the name of Shri Fali S. Nariman to suggest that his designation was a matter of bounty. |
| Lawyers are immune from contempt | Lawyers are protected by law and cannot be subject to contempt proceedings. |
| Lawyers are immune from defamation | There can be no defamation against a lawyer. |
| Independence of lawyers should be fully protected | Contempt proceedings against lawyers impinge on their independence. |
| Citizens have all legal remedies for infringement of fundamental rights | A citizen whose fundamental rights are infringed by a judicial order is entitled to all legal remedies, including civil and criminal action. |
| No distinction between subordinate and superior judiciary | The superior judiciary also falls within the ambit of “State” under Article 12 just like the subordinate judiciary. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the following key issues:
- Whether the conduct of Shri Mathews Nedumpara amounted to contempt of court.
- Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable as a second review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court.
- Whether Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, is unconstitutional.
- Whether the designation of Senior Advocate can be claimed as a matter of right or bounty.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conduct of Shri Mathews Nedumpara amounted to contempt of court. | Yes | Shri Nedumpara’s behavior was disrespectful, abusive, and intended to browbeat the Court. It disrupted the administration of justice and lowered the dignity of the Court. |
| Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable as a second review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court. | No | A second review petition is barred by Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and an Article 32 petition cannot be used to circumvent this rule. |
| Whether Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, is unconstitutional. | No | The Court held that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is not unconstitutional. |
| Whether the designation of Senior Advocate can be claimed as a matter of right or bounty. | No | The Court held that the designation of Senior Advocate cannot be claimed as a matter of right or bounty. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that a judge who is personally attacked should not hear a contempt matter concerning him, except in cases of contempt in the face of the Court. | Procedure in contempt cases |
| Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 4 SCC 578 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to discuss differing opinions on whether contempt in the face of the Court can be dealt with summarily. | Procedure in contempt cases |
| Leila David (6) v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 337 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to clarify that contempt in the face of the Court can be dealt with summarily, without the need for issuing a notice. | Procedure in contempt cases |
| Ram Niranjan Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 12 SCC 11 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate that contempt committed in the face of the Court requires immediate action to maintain the dignity of the Court. | Procedure in contempt cases |
| R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to state that a direction prohibiting an advocate from appearing in a Court for a specified period was a punishment that could be imposed in the contempt jurisdiction. | Punishment for contempt |
| Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as the judgment against which the present writ petition was essentially a second review. | Maintainability of review petition |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that Shri Nedumpara’s conduct constituted contempt in the face of the Court. The Court also dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was an attempt to seek a second review of a previous judgment, which is barred by law.
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Shri Nedumpara’s statements and behavior | The Court held that the statements and behavior were contemptuous, warranting action. |
| Writ petition seeking a second review | The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. |
| That Judges of the Court are unfit to designate persons as Senior Advocates. | The Court rejected this submission as baseless. |
| That the designation of Senior Advocates is a matter of bounty. | The Court rejected this submission and held that designation of Senior Advocate cannot be claimed as a matter of right or bounty. |
| That lawyers are immune from contempt and defamation. | The Court rejected this submission and held that lawyers are not immune from contempt and defamation. |
| That the independence of lawyers should be fully protected. | The Court held that while independence of lawyers is important, it does not allow them to be contemptuous. |
| That a citizen whose fundamental rights are infringed by a judicial order is entitled to all legal remedies. | The Court held that Article 32 cannot be used to file a second review petition. |
| That no distinction can be made between subordinate judiciary and superior judiciary in so far as the prohibition contained in Article 13 (2) of the Constitution is concerned. | The Court did not address this submission directly, but rejected the writ petition. |
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454 | The Court cited this case to emphasize that a judge who is personally attacked should not hear a contempt matter concerning him, except in cases of contempt in the face of the Court. |
| Leila David (2) v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 4 SCC 578 | The Court discussed the differing opinions in this case regarding whether contempt in the face of the Court can be dealt with summarily. |
| Leila David (6) v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 337 | The Court followed this case to clarify that contempt in the face of the Court can be dealt with summarily, without the need for issuing a notice. |
| Ram Niranjan Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 12 SCC 11 | The Court cited this case to reiterate that contempt committed in the face of the Court requires immediate action to maintain the dignity of the Court. |
| R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106 | The Court cited this case to state that a direction prohibiting an advocate from appearing in a Court for a specified period was a punishment that could be imposed in the contempt jurisdiction. |
| Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 | The Court referred to this case as the judgment against which the present writ petition was essentially a second review. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to maintain the dignity and authority of the judiciary. The Court emphasized that the behavior of Shri Nedumpara was not only disrespectful but also a deliberate attempt to undermine the administration of justice. The Court was also concerned with the repeated instances of misconduct by Shri Nedumpara before various courts and tribunals.
| Sentiment Analysis | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Maintaining dignity of the Court | 30% |
| Need to uphold administration of justice | 25% |
| Disrespectful behavior of the advocate | 20% |
| Repeated instances of misconduct | 15% |
| Abuse of process of law | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (60%) than factual aspects of the case (40%).
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- “We are of the view that the only reason for taking the learned Senior Advocate’s name, without there being any relevance to his name in the present case, is to browbeat the Court and embarrass one of us.”
- “All these statements directly affect the administration of justice, and is contempt in the face of the Court.”
- “Even the present Writ Petition is a case in which a review petition against the judgment of this Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 has already been dismissed. With full knowledge that a second review petition is barred by Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Shri Nedumpara seeks a second review in the form of a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court rejected any alternative interpretations that would excuse Shri Nedumpara’s behavior or allow the writ petition. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary and ensuring that legal processes are not abused.
The Court, while acknowledging that it could have punished Shri Nedumpara immediately, decided to issue a notice to him regarding the punishment to be imposed. This decision was made “in the interest of justice.”
Key Takeaways
- Disrespectful and abusive behavior towards the court can constitute contempt of court.
- A second review petition is barred under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
- Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be used to circumvent the rules against second review petitions.
- The designation of Senior Advocate is not a matter of right or bounty.
- The Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt in the face of the Court summarily.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the judgment be circulated to the Chief Justice of every High Court in the country, the Bar Council of India, and the Bar Council of Kerala within four weeks.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that contempt in the face of the court can be dealt with summarily, and that a second review petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that the Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt in the face of the Court summarily and that a second review petition is barred.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, finding it to be an attempt to seek a second review of a previous judgment. The Court also held that Shri Mathews Nedumpara’s conduct constituted contempt of court and issued a notice to him regarding the punishment to be imposed. The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary and ensuring that legal processes are not abused.