0704 05 Contempt of Court Case : PN Duda Vs V P Shiv Shankar

 0704 05 Contempt of Court Case :  PN Duda Vs V P Shiv Shankar

CASE NAME: PN Duda Vs V P Shiv Shankar

PETITIONER: PN Duda               RESPONDENT: V P Shiv Shankar

BENCH:   

Sabyasachi Mukharji (J)

S Rangnathan

 

CITATION:  

Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1208, 1988 SCR (3) 547

 

ACT INCLUDE:  

Contempt of Court Act, 1971

 

FACTS:

In this case, respondent No. 1, Shri P. Shiv Shankar, Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, addressed the Hyderabad Bar Council meeting.

Petitioner PN Duda J, filed a petition alleging that in speech the respondent had made statements defamatory to the dignity of the Supreme Court, attributed the Court to favoritism towards rich people and used very intemperate and indecent language and in the speech had derogatory words to the Court Judges and court proceedings. 

An application for initiation of contempt under Section 15 (1), (a) and (b) of the Act read with Explanation (1) and Rule 3 (a), (b) and (c), where Shri P. Shivshankar made, Attorney General and Solicitor General as parties.

PN Duda wrote a letter to the Attorney General for Consent to take contempt action against P Shiv Shankar. A copy of this letter was also sent to the Solicitor General of India. While seeking consent, the petitioner had also mentioned that the case against the Law Minister, the Attorney General may have been embarrassed to consent to the operation and given these allegations. The Attorney General felt that the Attorney General's office had credibility and authority, therefore neither declined nor sanctioned prosecution.

The court held that the petitioner cannot approach the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent without the consent of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General.

       Respondent No. 1, filed an affidavit in reply to the notice issued by the Court. He stated that, he spoke about accountability of legislature, executive and judiciary and commented on the responsibility of all the three organs and their theoretical implications. He also clarified that I had no intention to disrespect any institution, or its functionaries compared to the Supreme Court. It was further stated that contempt petitions cannot be maintained without the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

Meanwhile, Advocate RN Trivedi, filed an application claiming right to be impleaded as a party, stating that the Attorney General and Solicitor General should not have been made a party to the contempt petition and that the alleged Attorney-General and Solicitor General of jurisdiction had not constituted contempt within the meaning of Article 2(c).

 

JUDGEMENT:

The Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, dismissed the petition and disposed of the application filed by Shri RN Trivedi.         

         It is stated that any criticism of the judiciary or judges which obstructs the administration of justice or undermines confidence in the objective view of judges and makes a mockery of the administration of justice, should be prevented. Trust in the administration of justice is one of the pillars by which a democratic institution functions and survives.

 Below is the summarized Judgement

     This petition, if treated as one filed under Section 15(1) read c. with rule 3(a) is not in proper form and, if treated as one filed under rules 3(b) and 3(c), is not maintainable as it is not filed by the Attorney General/Solicitor General or by any person with his consent.

     In either event the petitioner should not have added to the petition respondents other than the person who, according to the petitioner, is guilty of contempt of court and so their names should be deleted from the array of parties.

   In case the Attorney General/Solicitor General refuse consent or decline to act, their decision is not judicially reviewable and petitioner's remedy is to approach the Court for action under rule 3(a).

  The Attorney General/Solicitor General acted properly in declining to deal with the petitioner's application either way

   Considering the petition as nothing more than information under rule 3(a) on which this Court may or may not take Suo-Motu action. 

    After hearing counsel for the alleged contemner, we think there is no need to initiate proceedings against respondent No. 1 for contempt of court. I, therefore, agree that the petition should be dismissed.

 

Download