DR. D.C. SAXENA vs HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA. Supreme Court, 19-07-1997
| Date | 19 July 1997 |
| Parties | DR. D.C. SAXENAHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 30
PETITIONER:
DR. D.C. SAXENA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/07/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
K. Ramaswamy, J.
In a clash of competing interests in constitutional
contours, this case calls to strike a balance between the
freedom of speech and expression, a salutary right in a
liberal democratic society and paramount countervailing duty
to maintain public confidence in the administration of
justice. The petitioner has initiated public interest
litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution to direct
Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao, the President of Indian National
Congress and the former Prime Minister of the country to pay
a sum of Rs.8.29 lakhs and odd said to be due to the union
of Indian for use of Indian Air Force aircraft or
helicopters from October 1, 1993 to November 30, 1993. When
writ Petition No. 432/95 was posted for hearing on July
17,1995 before the learned Chief Justice of India and
brother Justice S.C. Sen the solicitor General for India,
Shri Dipankar P. Gupta was sent for and the Court directed
him to have the averments verified to be correct and
directed the petition to be listed after two weeks. On
August 7,1995, the writ petition came before the Bench
comprising the learned CJI, Justice S.C. Sen and Justice
K.S. Paripoornan. It is not in dispute that the Solicitor
General had placed the record before the Court and upon
perusal thereof and after hearing the petitioner-in-person,
the Bench summarily "dismissed"" the writ petition which had
triggered the petitioner to file yet another writ petition,
this time against the learned Chief Justice of India,
Justice A.M. Ahmadi. The Registry raised objections for its
maintainability but, at eh insistence of the petitioner, it
was posted, with office objections, for hearing, as
unregistered Writ petition (c) NO. -17209/95 on January
13,1996 before a Bench of three learned Judges, viz. Justice
J.S. Bharuchal. The petitioner, again appearing in person,
persisted to justify the averments made against the learned
CJI, Justice A.M. Ahmadi in the writ petition. In spite of
the Court having pointed out that the averments were
scandalous, the proceeding of the Court did indicate that
the petitioner reiterated that he "stood by the averments
made therein" and sought for declaration [1] that Justice
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 30
A.M. Ahmadi is unfit to hold the office as Chief Justice of
India; [2] that he should be tripped of his citizenship; [3]
to direct registration of an FIR against him under various
provisions of Indian penal Code for committing forgery and
fraud and under the prevention of Corruption Act; (4) to
direct prosecution of him under the prevention of Corruption
Act; (5) to direct him to defray from his personal pocket
the expenses incurred by the petitioner in filing the two
writ petitions, i.e., W.P. No. 432/95 and the second writ
petition; (6) to direct justice A.M. Ahmadi to reimburse
from his pocket to the public exchequer the entire loss
caused to the State,. as a consequence of non-payment of the
dues by Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao with interest at 18% per
annum and (7) other consequential directions.
After hearing the petitioner, the Bench dismissed the
second writ petition with the order as under:
"The several averments in the writ
petition are scandalous and it is
surprising that the petitioner, who
is said to be a Professor in a
University, has chosen to draft and
file such a writ petition. His
understanding of the meaning of
Article 32 of the Constitution, is
to say the least, preposterous. The
allegations made are reckless and
disclose irresponsibility on the
part of the petitioner. This writ
petition is wholly misconceived and
is an abuse of the process of the
Court. The writ petition has no
merit.
The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
In view of the attitude of the
petitioner even at the hearing,
when the persisted in this stand
and, on our asking him, reiterated
that he stood by the scandalous
averment made therein, we consider
it our duty to issue to the
petitioner a notice to show cause
why proceedings to punish him for
contempt of this Court should not
be initiated against him. The
Registry to take the necessary
steps for registering the matter as
a contempt petition. The petitioner
who is present-in-person is given
notice of the contempt petition. He
is required to file his reply
within four wheels to show cause
why proceedings for contempt should
not be initiated against him. We
request the learned Solicitor
General to assist the Court in this
contempt matter.
List the matter after notice of the
date fixed by Registry is given to
Dr. D.C. Saxena and the Solicitor
General."
While dismissing the petition, this Court observed in
the later part of the order the petitioner’s conduct in his
persistence to stand by the scandalous averments made
against the learned Chief Justice of India. This Court was
To continue reading
Request your trial