0704 04 Contempt of Court Case : Charan Lal Sahu Vs Union of India

 

0704 04 Contempt of Court Case: Charan Lal Sahu Vs Union of India
 
CASE NAME: Charan Lal Sahu Vs Union of India
 
PETITIONER: Charan Lal Sahu                RESPONDENT: Union of India

BENCH: Rangnath Misra KN Singh (J)

CITATION: 1988 AIR 107, 1988 SCR (1) 441

ACT INCLUDE:  Contempt of Court Act, 1971

FACTS:

Lawyer Charanlal Sahu was an experienced Supreme Court lawyer.

Charanlal Sahu had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court.

He has alleged this at one place in the writ petition. "Thus the function of the judge is a cocktail based on Western common law and American techniques, because the function of the judge is unproductive and outdated according to the socio-economic conditions of the country."

     The petitioner states that, "This court has become a constitutional liability without checking the illegal acts of the government, thus the people for whom the Constitution is intended have now turned against it, who are disillusioned with the fear that justice is the will."

     At another place the petitioner has said that this Court is sleeping like Kumbhakarna on the issues.

 JUDGEMENT:

 The Supreme Court prima facie opined that the petition is framed with the intention of contempt of court and therefore the petitioner is guilty of contempt. Writ Petition is negligently framed. In many places the statements are meaningless. In many other places they are contradictory. The allegations are frivolous, and many irrelevant facts are presented in the petition to increase its size.

     The petition has been made with the intention of the petitioner to cast aspersions on the institution. While withdrawing the petition, the petitioner has held himself as one blameless person and all others including the social institutions are guilty. We are surprised that a practicing and experienced lawyer in this court should behave so irresponsibly. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

     The writ petition is likely to tarnish the reputation of the court as the highest judicial institution. The petitioner has certainly crossed the limit of self-restraint in a Public Interest Litigation. It therefore directs the Registry to take appropriate proceedings for contempt and a notice is issued to the petitioner on 09 November 1987 calling upon him personally to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under the Contempt of Court Act.

     

Download