Decided on-: 11-09-1991
BENCH-: SINGH, K.N. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
FACTS
In this case, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) N.L. Patel faced non-cooperation from local police, causing trial delays. Despite complaints to higher authorities, no action was taken. CJM Patel filed complaints against Inspector S.R. Sharma and others. In response, Sharma coerced and assaulted Patel at the police headquarters. The Supreme Court, investigating through Justice R., accepted the report, convicting Sharma and the District Superintendent of Police. Both were sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The Court criticized Patel's conduct, issuing strict guidelines for police actions involving judicial officers.
ISSUES
1. Contempt of Court by Police Inspector:
- Examining actions of Inspector S.R. Sharma for potential contempt of court.
- Assessing implications of Sharma's conduct on the dignity and functioning of the court.
2. Supreme Court's Authority in Contempt Cases:
- Evaluating the authority of the Supreme Court to intervene in decisions by subordinate courts, specifically in contempt cases.
- Analyzing the permissibility of such intervention and its legal implications.
3. Insecurity of Judicial Officers Nationwide:
- Investigating the reasons behind the perceived insecurity of judicial officers, judges, and magistrates nationwide.
- Understanding factors contributing to this insecurity for the effective functioning of the judiciary.
4. Supreme Court's Jurisdiction in Contempt Matters:
- Exploring whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in cases involving contempt.
- Examining constitutional provisions and the legal framework guiding the Supreme Court's involvement in contempt matters.
5. Bar Associations' Response:
- Analyzing the response of various Bar Associations (Delhi Judicial Service Association, All India Judges Association, Bar Council of UP, Judicial Service of Gujarat, etc.).
- Questioning the approach through telegrams and petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution in safeguarding the dignity and honor of the judiciary, and considering appropriate legal recourse.
RULES
Article 129 of the Indian Constitution
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution
JUDGMENT
In response to widespread public concern and numerous petitions filed by lawyers, the Supreme Court approached this case with utmost seriousness. Taking cognizance of the situation, the Apex Court promptly ordered the immediate removal of the Police Inspector and five other officers involved. Simultaneously, the Court issued mandatory guidelines governing the arrest of judicial officers. The sentencing of the Police Inspector to six months' imprisonment and a fine of 2,000 rupees, along with penalties for the other officers, underscored the gravity of the misconduct. The judgment clarified the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 129, emphasizing its confinement to contempt against itself and its lack of authority to indict individuals for contempt of lower courts. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 was highlighted as the legislative basis for empowering the Supreme Court solely in matters of contempt against itself, while High Courts retained primary jurisdiction for contempt of subordinate courts under Sections 11 and 15 of the Act.
Comments