E-Paper
No law can take away court’s power to punish for contempt: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench said, “The power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this court which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment”
Even Parliament can’t take away the power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt, the top court ruled on Wednesday, stressing that the authority is bestowed by the Constitution itself, and therefore no law can be enacted to mitigate or nullify it.
“The power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this court which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment,” said the bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh as it drew a distinction between Articles 142 and 129.
Article 142 (2) states that “subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament” the Supreme Court shall have all and every power to make any order on punishment of any contempt of itself. However, Article 129 lays down that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record, and shall have all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt.
“The comparison of the two provisions show that whereas the founding fathers felt that the powers under clause (2) of Article 142 could be subject to any law made by the Parliament, there is no such restriction as far as Article 129 is concerned... this is a constitutional power which cannot be taken away or in any manner abridged by statute,” the bench underscored.
Parliament framed the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, laying down procedure and punishment.
The Act divides contempt into civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt refers to the wilful disobedience of an order of any court whereas criminal contempt includes any act or publication which: scandalises the court, prejudices any judicial proceeding or interferes with the administration of justice in any other manner.
The SC judgment on Wednesday, however, maintained that its power to punish for contempt of itself is not dependent on statutory enactment but that it draws this power from the Constitution itself.
The judgment came as the court held Rajiv Dahiya, managing director of Rajasthan-based NGO Suraz India Trust, guilty of contempt of court. Proceedings were initiated against Dahiya after he failed to deposit the penalty of ₹25 lakh imposed on him in May 2017 for filing about a dozen frivolous petitions, and writing letters and filing leadings levelling accusations against the sitting and retired judges of the court. Dahiya even wrote to the President seeking sanction to prosecute the judges.
The court gave Dahiya several opportunities to deposit the fine and tender an unconditional apology, but he didn’t budge.
Holding his conduct to be contemptuous, the bench said: “There is no absolute licence, when appearing in person, to indulge in making aspersions as a tendency to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters. Motivated and calculated attempts to bring down the image of the judiciary in the estimation of the public and impair the administration of justice must bester themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law.”
It emphasised that the rationale behind the contempt jurisdiction is to maintain the dignity of the institution of judicial forums.
“It is not a vindictive exercise nor are inappropriate statements by themselves capable of lowering the dignity of a judge. These are often ignored but where despite all latitude a perennial litigant seeks to justify his existence by throwing mud at all and sundry, the court has to step in,” said the court.
Commenting on Dahiya’s demenaour, the bench said his attempt is to have his way or he will throw mud at all and sundry so that judges may finally back off to ward off more mud.
