By Vineet Malik | December 30, 2021 | London, England
In January this year, three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) presided by Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph issued notice to Metropolitan Magistrate Ankush Pundlikrao Khanorkar, 68th Court, Borivali, Mumbai in a contempt of court matter filed by one Manubhai Hargovandas Patel.
The Controversy
Patel challenged the elementary rules of law of admissibility of contempt petition and breach of statutory procedures of extension of stay in India’s top court.
Misconduct of the Trial Court Judge
The contempt petition highlighted Khanorkar’s misconduct for demeaning the law of the land for allegedly passing unlawful orders in a criminal matter being proceeded against the Income Tax sleuths. The matter pertained to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 amended by the Parliament in 2018.
The contempt petition also stated, Khanorkar shielded the corrupt Income Tax Officers from getting convicted.
Out of the three-judge bench who issued notice to Khanorkar, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman retired in August this year.
After a gap of 11 months, two-judge bench of the SC presided by Justices Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha dropped the contempt notice issued against Khanorkar through an unreasoned order passed on 2 December.
As a matter of fact, Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph happens to be the same Judge who had issued the notice in January.
Unreasoned order passed by two-judge bench of the Supreme Court
The order states, “After hearing the petitioner-in-person/applicant and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondent/alleged contemnor, we are of the view that the applicant/petitioner-in-person is right in so far as the contention against the order passed by the Registrar of this Court deciding to lodge the petition but so far as the question as to whether we should proceed in the matter against the respondent for the alleged contempt, we are of the view that the further proceedings must be dropped. Accordingly, contempt of the court petition shall stand dropped against the respondent/alleged contemnor.”
Petitioner doesn’t give up
Patel with a resolute mindset has now filed a Miscellaneous Application under Chapter 1-3 (XVII) of practice and office procedure of the Supreme Court, Articles 14, 21 and 145(3) of the Constitution of India and Sections 151 and 152 of Civil Procedure Code with a plea to place the matter before larger bench to decide substantial question of law and recall the order passed by the two-judge bench.
The Miscellaneous Application states, “The dropping of notice without discussing any facts and without giving any reason has violated Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Honorable Court protected corrupt and criminal minded Judicial Officer for the reasons best known to the two-judge bench. It is the duty of the Honorable SC to take stringent action against corrupt Judicial Officer in order to have corruption free judicial institution for the healthy democracy under Article 51A of the Constitution of India.”
In the matter of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr, the SC stated, “The law laid down by the SC in a decision delivered by a larger strength is binding on any subsequent bench of lesser or co-equal strength.
In the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Chandra Nandi, the SC stated, “We find that it is an unreasoned order. The High Court neither discussed the issues arising in the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reasons as to why it has allowed the writ petition and granted the reliefs to the writ petitioner which were declined by the Tribunal.”
In the matter of Authorized officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr Vs. Mathew K.C, the SC stated, “It is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law stands well settled. Any departure, if permissible has to be for reasons discussed of the case falling under a defined exception duly discussed after noticing the relevant law.”
Former District and Sessions Judge S. S Upadhyay, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh says, “In absence of reasons behind conclusion arrived at, order passed by a court would be illegal and liable to be set aside. Reasons are treated to be the hearts and beats of a just decision. Even an administrative order can’t be passed without assigning reasons. It is immaterial, whether an order is passed against a Judge or an ordinary person.”
In the matter of P.S.R Sadhanatham Vs. Arunachalam and Anr, the Constitutional bench of the SC stated, “Justice is functionally outraged not only when an innocent person is punished but also when a guilty criminal gets away with it, stultifying the legal system.”
Former SC Judge Kurian Joseph while giving a speech in a webinar organized by National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) in 2020 said, “Anyone can criticize the judgment or judicial system.”
The Constitution of India has placed upon the judiciary, the responsibility to interpret the law and ensure proper administration of justice. Violations which are likely to impinge where-in, the court system must be punished to prevent repetition of such behavior and the adverse impact on public faith in judiciary.”
Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud of the SC in October this year said, “It is the basic right of the Citizens to know what goes on in the Court.”
The Miscellaneous Application is scheduled to be listed in the SC after court vacations in January 2022.
The Revelation will continue to report on further orders passed by the SC in the given matter.
Comments