Supreme Court Addresses Contempt of Court in Sealing Case: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (22 November 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can an elected official defy the rule of law and break a seal placed by a municipal authority? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a Member of Parliament who broke a seal on a property. This case highlights the importance of upholding the rule of law, even when faced with public pressure. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The case originated from a report submitted by the Monitoring Committee, which was appointed by the Supreme Court in an earlier judgment dated 16th February, 2006. The Monitoring Committee reported that a seal placed by the Veterinary Services Department of the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) on a property in Gokalpur village, Delhi, had been broken. The property, owned by Shri Prem Singh, was sealed on 14th September, 2018, for operating an illegal dairy. The seal was reportedly broken by Shri Manoj Tiwari, an elected Member of Parliament (MP), on 16th September, 2018.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the Monitoring Committee’s report and issued a notice to Shri Manoj Tiwari, directing his personal appearance. The Court noted that Shri Tiwari had allegedly broken the seal and interfered in the administration of justice, which could amount to contempt of court. Shri Tiwari appeared in court on multiple occasions, filed a reply, and the matter was heard. The Monitoring Committee also submitted another report that included allegations made by Shri Tiwari against the Committee.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the issue of contempt of court and the rule of law. While the judgment does not cite specific sections of any statute, it emphasizes the importance of respecting the legal process and the orders of the court. The case also indirectly relates to the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, under which the dairy was sealed for violation of its provisions.

Arguments

The primary argument presented by Shri Manoj Tiwari was that he was compelled to break the seal due to the pressure from a mob of about 1500 people who had gathered at the site. He claimed that the mob goaded him to break the seal, which they believed was “illegally” placed.

The Court noted that Shri Tiwari, instead of pacifying the mob and directing them to act in accordance with the law, succumbed to the mob’s pressure and broke the seal. The Court found this behavior to be irresponsible and a clear violation of the rule of law.

The Amicus Curiae, representing the Monitoring Committee, clarified that the sealing of the premises was an independent act by the Veterinary Services Department of the EDMC and had nothing to do with the Monitoring Committee.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue before the Court was:

• Whether Shri Manoj Tiwari’s act of breaking the seal constituted contempt of court and a violation of the rule of law.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The focus was on the conduct of Shri Manoj Tiwari and the principle of upholding the rule of law.

Judgment

The Court did not rely on any specific authorities in its reasoning.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with the blatant disregard for the rule of law displayed by Shri Manoj Tiwari, an elected Member of Parliament. The Court emphasized that an elected representative should uphold the law and not succumb to mob pressure. The Court was also dismayed by the “machismo and brazen manner” in which Shri Tiwari acted. The Court was further concerned by Shri Tiwari’s allegations against the Monitoring Committee.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that an elected representative should uphold the law rather than succumbing to mob pressure. The Court stated, “We are extremely pained by the machismo and brazen manner in which Shri Manoj Tiwari took the law into his own hands and broke or tampered with the seal on Shri Prem Singh’s premises.” The Court further noted, “Should an elected representative of the people defy the rule of law in this manner?” The Court also observed, “The misplaced bravado of Shri Manoj Tiwari and his chest thumping immediately after the hearing on 3rd October, 2018 and making serious but frivolous allegations against the Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court is a clear indication of how low Shri Manoj Tiwari can stoop and displays his total lack of respect for any rule of law.”

The Court considered the argument that Shri Tiwari was pressured by a mob but rejected it, stating that an elected official should lead the public towards the rule of law rather than follow the mob. The Court did not pursue contempt proceedings against Shri Tiwari but expressed hope that his political party would take appropriate action.

Key Takeaways

• Elected representatives are expected to uphold the rule of law and not take the law into their own hands.
• Mob pressure is not a valid justification for violating the law.
• The Supreme Court expects elected officials to act responsibly and not engage in “machismo and brazen” behavior.
• Frivolous allegations against court-appointed committees are strongly deprecated.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The proceedings against Shri Manoj Tiwari were closed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that elected representatives must uphold the rule of law and not succumb to mob pressure. This judgment reinforces the importance of respecting the legal process and the authority of the courts. There was no change in the previous position of law, but it reaffirmed the established principles of the rule of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India addressed the issue of an elected MP breaking a seal placed by a municipal authority. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and the responsibilities of elected officials. While the Court did not pursue contempt proceedings, it strongly condemned the behavior of Shri Manoj Tiwari and expressed hope that his political party would take appropriate action.