Cont. Cas.(Crl.) 2/2014. Case: Court on its Own Motion Vs Seema Sapra. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | Cont. Cas.(Crl.) 2/2014 |
| Counsel | For Respondents: Party-in-Person |
| Judges | Valmiki J. Mehta and P. S. Teji, JJ. |
| Issue | Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 14, 14(1), 14(2), 15, 18 |
| Judgement Date | December 17, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
-
A Division Bench of this Court vide its Order dated 6.5.2014 issued contempt notice to Ms. Seema Sapra, writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1280/2012. This Order dated 6.5.2014 passed by the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru reads as under:--
Upon the Court assembling after lunch today, Ms. Seema Sapra presented herself and accused one of us (Vibhu Bakhru, J.) of corruption. Despite being cautioned, she persisted in leveling the same accusation. The context was constitution of Bench of Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru which according to Ms. Sapra was done in an improper manner and, to use her own words, 'deceptively'. The Court was of the opinion, and continuous to maintain the said opinion, that the speech made by Ms. Seema Sapra amounts to criminal contempt in the face of the Court and is punishable under Section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Accordingly, the Court required Ms.Seema Sapra to be presented at 04.00 PM. She complied with this request.
Upon being informed that the Court wishes to proceed against her, Ms. Sapra expressed the desire that this Bench should not proceed with the matter and that she exercises her option under Section 14(2) to have the matter heard by another Bench. The Court hereby issues notice of contempt to Ms. Seema Sapra who is present in Court.
In the light of the above, the following charge is hereby framed:
That today (i.e. on 6.5.2014) at 02:30 PM, you Ms. Seema Sapra have committed contempt on the face of the Court which is punishable under Section 14(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by stating that one of us (Vibhu Bakhru, J.) is 'corrupt' and has indulged in deceitful practice of sitting in a Bench with Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar in an unscheduled manner.
Ms. Seema Sapra was present when the above charge was read out. The matter is directed to be listed before another Bench of which neither of us is a member, subject to the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 26th May, 2014.
All rights and contentions of the alleged contemnor Ms. Seema Sapra are reserved.
-
A reference to the Order dated 6.5.2014 shows that contempt notice was issued to Ms. Seema Sapra (hereinafter referred to as 'noticee' or 'contemnor') because the noticee stated that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru is corrupt and has indulged in deceitful practice of sitting in a Bench with Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar in an unscheduled manner.
-
Before turning to the issue of contempt certain aspects with respect to the main writ petition W.P.(C) No. 1280/2012 filed by the noticee have to be noticed. This writ petition, essentially in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, was filed by the noticee in the year 2012 and the same was ultimately dismissed by this Court vide its Judgment dated 2.3.2015. The last two paras 27 and 28 of the Judgment dated 2.3.2015 dismissing the W.P.(C) No. 1280/2012 read as under:--
27. In view of the above, this writ petition is a totally frivolous and a mala fide petition, and it is also an abuse of the process of the law. The present writ petition was never a genuine PIL and it was only an action of a disgruntled employee who was thrown out of her employment and such a petitioner/employee through this PIL is seeking to take vendetta against her erstwhile employer with whom she has enmity. By the time the judgment in the case was reserved vide order dated 3.2.2015, volumes of the writ petition had reached to number 35 ending at page Nos. 12,440.
28. In view of the above, the various orders passed by this Court, and the wild and reckless allegations made by the petitioner against all and sundry including Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the Supreme Court, the present is a classic case of abuse of PIL process where the writ petition must be and is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 2 lacs to be deposited within 3 months with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Authority and payment of which costs shall be a condition precedent for the petitioner to initiate any fresh independent litigation on any of the subject matters of the present proceedings. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
-
The Judgment dated 2.3.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 1280/2012 shows that the noticee caused the recusal of as many as 28 Judges of this Court from hearing W.P.(C) No. 1280/2012. This aspect is noted in para 7 of the Judgment dated 2.3.2015. We are stating this fact because even in the present contempt petition when we wanted to hear and dispose of the contempt notice, the noticee on 30.10.2015 asked this Bench to recuse from the matter. Asking Benches to recuse is a habit for the noticee. On 30.10.2015 we declined this prayer of the noticee, as we had also declined the same prayer made for recusal of this Bench from hearing the main W.P.(C) No. 1280/2012. The Order dated 30.10.2015 records the submissions of the noticee as also the request made for recusal of this Bench and initial repeated refusals to argue the contempt petition. This Order dated 30.10.2015 reads as under:--
1. On 6.8.2015, although there were no reasons for once again allowing the stated contemnor to file the reply to the contempt petition, yet, eight weeks time was again granted, but, this opportunity has not been utilized for filing of the reply. Earlier, orders had been passed on 26.5.2014, 25.9.2014 and 10.11.2014 to file reply but still reply was not filed and consequently last opportunity was granted by the order dated 6.8.2015.
2. It is noted that the grounds were taken during the hearings in this petition of the year 2014 that the stated contemnor had fractured her leg and therefore was seeking time to address arguments.
3. It may also be noted that the main writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 1280/2012 already stands dismissed by the judgment of this Court dated 2.3.2015.
4. In view of the above, right of the stated contemnor Ms. Seema Sapra to file the reply is closed. Ms. Seema Sapra is directed to address arguments in the case.
5. At this stage, Ms. Seema Sapra, the stated contemnor states that this Court should recuse itself from the matter as this Court had decided the main writ petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial