Supreme Court overturns contempt conviction for false affidavit: R.S. Sehrawat vs. Rajeev Malhotra (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 5th September 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 796

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Can a government employee be held in contempt of court for allegedly filing a false affidavit, even when the affidavit is supported by official records? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of R.S. Sehrawat vs. Rajeev Malhotra, overturning a contempt conviction by the Delhi High Court. This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the need for clear evidence in contempt proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, with the opinion authored by Justice Khanwilkar.

Case Background

The case began with a writ petition filed by Rajeev Malhotra (respondent No. 1) against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and several officials, including R.S. Sehrawat (the appellant). Malhotra alleged that the officials had initially allowed him to carry out unauthorized construction on his property in Sainik Farms, New Delhi, and then unilaterally demolished it. He sought action against these officials for their alleged misconduct.

The High Court of Delhi, acting on a previous order from 1997 that prohibited unauthorized construction, issued notices to the MCD and police officials, including the appellant, R.S. Sehrawat, a Junior Engineer with the MCD. The court asked them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for allowing the unauthorized construction. In response, the officials filed affidavits explaining their actions. R.S. Sehrawat, in his affidavit, stated that he had demolished several unauthorized structures, including the one in question, and submitted compliance reports to his superiors. He also provided photographs and office submissions as evidence of the demolition.

The High Court, however, appointed a committee of advocates to inspect the site. Based on the committee’s report, the High Court issued a show-cause notice to the officials, including the appellant, for contempt of court, alleging that they had filed false affidavits. The High Court found R.S. Sehrawat guilty of contempt, sentencing him to 30 days of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000. This decision was upheld in a review petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the appellant and other officials based on the allegation that they had allowed unauthorized construction despite a previous court order. The High Court issued an initial show cause notice on 6th December 2000, based on the violation of the order dated November 3, 1997 in C.W.P. No. 7441 of 1993. After reviewing the affidavits and the report from the committee of advocates, the High Court issued a second show cause notice on 24th January 2001 to the appellant for filing an incorrect and misleading affidavit. Despite the appellant’s explanations and supporting documents, the High Court found him guilty of contempt. The review petition was dismissed by the High Court on 10th May 2006, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically Section 2(b) which defines criminal contempt as any act that “tends to substantially interfere with the due course of justice.” The Supreme Court also referred to the general principles governing contempt proceedings, emphasizing that they are quasi-criminal in nature and require a high standard of proof, similar to criminal cases. The Court also highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, including the need for a specific charge and the opportunity for the accused to present their defense.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court did not frame a proper charge against him. The initial notice was for non-compliance with the 1997 order, while the second was for filing a false affidavit.
• He contended that his affidavits dated 3rd January 2001 and 8th February 2001, revealed the factual position regarding the demolition of unauthorized structures.
• He argued that the High Court overlooked his explanation that the unauthorized structure was demolished on 7th June 2000 and again on 14th/15th September 2000.
• The appellant emphasized that he provided contemporaneous records, including office submissions, press reports, and photographs, to support his claim of demolition.
• He also highlighted that the High Court did not consider his request to play video clippings from news channels that recorded the demolition.
• He pointed out that the committee of advocates’ report was prepared after a significant time gap, during which reconstruction of the structures was possible.
• The appellant also brought to the notice of the Court that he had faced departmental action on the same set of facts and was exonerated in the enquiry.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent No. 1 and the Amicus Curiae argued that the High Court’s approach and conclusion were correct.
• They contended that there was no error in the High Court’s finding that the appellant had filed a false affidavit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant for contempt of court for filing a false affidavit.
2. Whether the High Court followed proper procedure in initiating and conducting contempt proceedings against the appellant.
3. Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed contempt of court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Sahdeo Alias Sahdeo Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2010) 3 SCC 705]* to emphasize that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and require the same standard of proof as criminal cases.
• The Court cited Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai Vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and Anr. [(2011) 5 SCC 496]* to highlight that a prima facie case of “deliberate falsehood” is required for prosecution in contempt proceedings.
• The Court referred to Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. Vs. Syed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors. [(2001) 3 SCC 739]* to reiterate that the standard of proof in contempt proceedings is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Lack of Specific Charge: The High Court did not frame a specific charge against the appellant, violating the principles of natural justice and due process.
• Contemporaneous Records: The High Court overlooked the contemporaneous records (office submissions, press reports, photographs) provided by the appellant, which supported his claim of demolition.
• Time Gap in Committee Report: The High Court relied on the committee’s report, which was prepared after a significant time gap, during which reconstruction of the structures was possible.
• Standard of Proof: The Supreme Court emphasized that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not met in this case.
• Departmental Enquiry: The appellant was exonerated in a departmental enquiry on the same facts, which further supported his claim.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, stating that the appellant should have been given a specific charge to meet. The court also noted that the High Court failed to consider the contemporaneous records submitted by the appellant, which supported his claim that the demolition had indeed taken place. The court also highlighted that the committee report was prepared after a gap of several months, during which reconstruction was possible. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not meet the standard of proof required in contempt proceedings, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted that the appellant was exonerated in a departmental enquiry on the same facts, which further supported his claim. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s decision was not supported by the evidence and was therefore unsustainable.

The court stated, “The High Court made no attempt to verify or examine the contemporaneous record relied upon by the appellant in support of his plea that the factual position stated in the affidavit filed by him was borne out and reinforced from the said record.” The court further observed, “The finding recorded by the High Court that the property was not razed to the ground based on the report prepared in January, 2001, therefore, is not the correct approach and is manifestly wrong.” The court also noted, “As a matter of fact, the appellant ought to succeed on the singular ground that the High Court unjustly proceeded against him without framing formal charges or furnishing such charges to him.”

Key Takeaways

• Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and require a high standard of proof, similar to criminal cases.
• Specific charges must be framed against the alleged contemnor, and they must be given a fair opportunity to present their defense.
• Courts must consider all evidence, including contemporaneous records, and not rely solely on reports prepared after a significant time gap.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the alleged contemnor if the evidence does not establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Exoneration in a departmental enquiry on the same facts can be a relevant factor in contempt proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment and order and dropped the show cause notices issued to the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that contempt proceedings for filing a false affidavit cannot be sustained if the affidavit is supported by contemporaneous official records and without a specific charge being framed against the contemnor. This judgment reinforces the principle that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and require a high standard of proof and adherence to procedural fairness. This case also clarifies that merely because a report is prepared by a committee, it does not mean that it is the final word and that the court must consider the other evidence on record.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in R.S. Sehrawat vs. Rajeev Malhotra is a significant reminder of the importance of due process and the high standard of proof required in contempt proceedings. The Court emphasized that a contempt conviction cannot be sustained without a specific charge and a thorough examination of all available evidence. This judgment underscores the need for courts to consider contemporaneous records and to provide the alleged contemnor with a fair opportunity to present their defense. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that contempt powers are used judiciously and that individuals are not punished based on mere probabilities or conjectures.