Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
following reliefs :
“a) Issue appropriate order or direction expunging/deleting the
remarks made against the counsel for present
intervenor/applicant herein that the conduct of the
counsel/applicant herein amounted to contempt or prima facie
contempt of court, namely the following :
“74. The present case is indeed a case in point. Repeatedly,
counsel for the petitioners and intervenors have attempted to
inform the court that they have no personal agenda and that
they have instituted these proceedings to protect judicial
independence. An aura of good faith has been sought to be
created by submitting that the true purpose of seeking an
inquiry into the circumstances relating to the death of Judge
Loya is to protect the district judiciary(…)”
“75.[…] Ms Jaising has joined the fray by requesting that this
court to issue contempt notices to the Administrative
Committee of the Bombay High Court…”
“76. […] The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors
scandalises the process of the court and prima facie
constitutes criminal contempt…”
“78. [...] The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors is,
as we have indicated, lacking in bona fides and reveals a
misuse of judicial process.”
b) Issue appropriate order or direction issuing a clarification
that the counsel for the present intervener/applicant herein has
not furthered any submissions or engaged in conduct which
may amount to contempt of Court if it so deems fit;
c) Call for High Court of Bombay for the records of the meeting
of administrative committee of the High Court dated
25.06.2014 to ascertain the reasons for transfer to Judge
Utpat, and to ascertain whether the consent of this Hon’ble
Court was obtained or whether this Hon’ble Court was kept
informed that Judge Utpat was being transferred;”
In the batch of cases which was adjudicated upon in the judgment of this Court
dated 19 April 2018 Ms Jaising represented an intervenor (Admiral Ramdas).
2 Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing on behalf of the applicant
submitted that whatever be the conduct of the other learned counsel who
appeared on behalf of the petitioners and intervenors before this Court, Ms
Jaising has had no intention to make any submission that would denigrate or
scandalise the judiciary. It was urged that in making the submission about the
Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court she has not scandalised
the judiciary and that neither the written submissions nor the oral submissions
would amount to scandalising the process of the Court. Dr Singhvi urged that
the observations contained in paragraphs 74, 75, 76 and 78 of the judgment
(extracted in prayer clause (a) above) would appear to give the impression that
all counsel before the Court had made the same submission, though each of
the arguing counsel had urged distinct submissions. It has been submitted that
Ms Jaising has a standing of over five decades at the Bar and that her track
record would indicate anything but a desire to denigrate the judiciary.
3 Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
State of Maharashtra opposed the application. Learned counsel submitted that
each one of the submissions attributed to Ms Jaising was in fact urged by her
in the course of the proceedings. Mr Rohatgi drew the attention of the Court to
prayer clause (c) of the Miscellaneous Application by which the records of the
meeting of the Administrative Committee of the High Court dated 25 June 2014
are sought to be summoned to ascertain the reasons for the transfer of Judge
Utpat, and to ascertain whether the consent of this Court was obtained (and
whether it was kept informed of his proposed transfer). Mr Rohatgi submitted
that prayer (c) is indicative of the fact that the Miscellaneous Application has
not been filed to pursue her own interest as counsel practicing before this Court
but to revive the controversy which has been settled by the judgment of this
Court.
4 Faced with the objection raised by Mr Rohatgi in regard to prayer clause
(c) of the application, Dr Singhvi submitted in the course of his rejoinder that
the prayer is being given up. It would be necessary to record Mr Rohatgi’s
submission that if, as submitted by Dr Singhvi, the inclusion of prayer clause (c)
was inadvertent, the statement that the prayer is being given up ought to have
been made before submissions commenced, prior to an objection being raised
on his behalf.
5 The first aspect of the matter which needs to be noted is that paragraph
75 of the judgment records the submission which was urged by the applicant
namely, that contempt notices should be issued to the Administrative
Committee of the High Court. That such a submission was made is not in
dispute. In fact in paragraph 9.3 of the Miscellaneous Application, the applicant
has repeated the submission, reiterating that it was urged before this Court.
Prayer clause (c) of the application as it was originally filed was based on that
submission.
6 The application proceeds on the basis that the observations which were
made in regard to the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors attach to the
applicant personally. In paragraphs 76 and 78, this Court has adverted to “the
conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors” (emphasis supplied). If the
applicant identifies with the intervenor, that is a matter of perception for counsel.
The observations of the Court advert to the conduct of the petitioners and
intervenors. The findings of this Court are based on what was argued during
the course of the hearing.
7 The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.
[Dipak Misra]
[A M Khanwilkar]
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
New Delhi; September 26, 2018