1998 JTR(SC) 852
2000 10 SCC 331 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 97 ; 2000 KHC 4279
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C.Agrawal : S.P.Kurdukar : S.S.M.Quadri
Subramanian Swamy
Versus
Rama Krishna Hegde
Case No. : 9 of 1999
Date of Decision : 8/25/98
Advocates Appeared: Arora Hetu : Bhat K.N. : Bhat Lalit Mohini : Bhat S.Ravindra : Desai Ashok H. : Gupta Bina : Nath Naveen R. : Parameswaran P. : Raval Kirit N. : Ray Rakhi : Sangal Bharat : Sharma T.C. : Sisodia Pallav : Swamy Subramanian : Thakur D.D.
The court referred questions regarding the necessity of Attorney General's consent for contempt petitions, the limitation period for suo motu proceedings, the jurisdictional status of a judge acting as a commission chairman, and the plea of truth as a defence to a Constitution Bench.
Act
Referred
:CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT
: S.15, S.20
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 15 and 20 - Maintainability of contempt petition - Consent of Attorney General or Solicitor General - Whether suo motu proceedings can be initiated in the absence of such consent - Limitation period for initiation of suo motu proceedings - Whether a one-year bar operates against such proceedings. (Para 1)
(B) Contempt of Court - Jurisdiction of a Judge acting as a Commissioner in a commission of enquiry - Whether functions discharged as a commissioner are statutory functions independent of the jurisdiction of the apex court - Whether alleged contempt of a sitting Judge in relation to such statutory functions constitutes contempt of the court itself. (Para 2)
(C) Contempt of Court - Defence of truth - Whether truth can be pleaded as a defence in contempt proceedings. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Contempt petitions were filed regarding comments made against a judge of the apex court who had served as the Chairman of an Enquiry Commission appointed by the central government. Objections were raised regarding the lack of consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General and the expiration of the one-year limitation period for suo motu proceedings. Additionally, it was argued that the judge, while acting as a commissioner, was performing statutory functions independent of the court's jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the questions raised, including the maintainability of the petitions, the nature of the judge's jurisdiction as a commissioner, and the admissibility of truth as a defence, are of general public importance.
Issues: Whether suo motu contempt proceedings can be initiated without the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General; whether Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, bars such proceedings after one year; whether a judge acting as a commissioner exercises the jurisdiction of the court; and whether truth is a valid defence in contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the issues involved are of general public importance and require detailed consideration, they must be decided by a Constitution Bench.
Result: Matters referred to a Constitution Bench.
(B) Contempt of Court - Jurisdiction of a Judge acting as a Commissioner in a commission of enquiry - Whether functions discharged as a commissioner are statutory functions independent of the jurisdiction of the apex court - Whether alleged contempt of a sitting Judge in relation to such statutory functions constitutes contempt of the court itself. (Para 2)
(C) Contempt of Court - Defence of truth - Whether truth can be pleaded as a defence in contempt proceedings. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Contempt petitions were filed regarding comments made against a judge of the apex court who had served as the Chairman of an Enquiry Commission appointed by the central government. Objections were raised regarding the lack of consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General and the expiration of the one-year limitation period for suo motu proceedings. Additionally, it was argued that the judge, while acting as a commissioner, was performing statutory functions independent of the court's jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the questions raised, including the maintainability of the petitions, the nature of the judge's jurisdiction as a commissioner, and the admissibility of truth as a defence, are of general public importance.
Issues: Whether suo motu contempt proceedings can be initiated without the consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General; whether Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, bars such proceedings after one year; whether a judge acting as a commissioner exercises the jurisdiction of the court; and whether truth is a valid defence in contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the issues involved are of general public importance and require detailed consideration, they must be decided by a Constitution Bench.
Result: Matters referred to a Constitution Bench.
Truth - The counsel for the alleged contemners argued that the decision in this case regarding truth as a defense in contempt proceedings requires reconsideration.
(1) THESE contempt matters relate to comments made by the alleged contemners against Shri Justice Kuldip Singh after he had submitted his report as Chairman of the Enquiry Commission set up by the Central Government. In Contempt Petition No. 9 of 1990 an objection has been raised by Shri D.D. Thakur, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the alleged contemner that the petition is not maintainable since consent of the Attorney General for India or the Solicitor General for India was not obtained as required by Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A question arises as to whether in the absence of the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General suo motu proceedings can be initiated against the alleged contemner. Shri D.D. Thakur has, however, submitted that since the alleged contempt arose more than one year back. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would operate as a bar against the initiation of suo motu proceedings for contempt against the alleged contemner.
(2) IN Contempt Petitions Nos. 11 and 12 of 1990 there is the opinion of the Attorney General expressing the view that when a Supreme Court Judge is appointed as a Commissioner in a commission of enquiry he does not carry with him all the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the functions discharged by him are statutory functions independent of the jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court and, therefore, the alleged contempt of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court in relation to the statutory functions discharged by him as a commissioner cannot in law be regarded as a contempt of the Supreme Court itself.
(3) THE learned counsel for the alleged contemners have urged that truth can be pleaded as a defence in contempt proceedings and that the decision of this Court in Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra needs reconsideration. In our opinion, the questions that arise for consideration in these matters are of general public importance which are required to be considered by a Constitution Bench. We, therefore, direct that the matters be placed before a Constitution Bench.