CAPTAIN VIRENDER KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                       CAPTAIN VIRENDER KUMAR
                                    v.
                         UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                  AUGUST 16, 1993

B                   (AM. AHMADI AND S. MOHAN, JJ.]

          Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

         Contempt of Coult-Undignified language, unwanmited adjectives in
  petition-Aggressive behaviour in Registry of Cowt-Having regard go his age
C and physical condition, apology of petitioner accepted.
         The petitioner, an advocate, moved a public interest petition claim-
  ing to be motivated to cleanse the judiciary. The petition was found not to
  have been drafted in dignified language and to abound in the use of
  unwarranted adjectives. He was given an opportunity to file a revised
D petition, but he effected only a change of words in the original petition. He
  was reported to have turned aggressive and issued threats in the Registry,
  and to have insisted that the Court had permitted him to make such
  changes. In a revised petition, he made allegations against the Registry,
  and the Registrar General's report was challenged as false, frivolous and
E highly mischievous.
          On the Court expressing its displeasure at the language used, he
                                                                                  .
    tendered an apology.

          Dismissing the petition, this Court
F
          HELD: 1. Having regard to his age and his physical condition, his
    apology is accepted notwithstanding the fact that his petition abounds in
    language which is far from dignified. The petitioner in his zeal to project
    himself as a saviour of the judiciary has made allegations against one and
    sundry and sought reliefs which betray confused thinking. Suo motu action
G   is not necessary on such allegations. (552-B-C]

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Diary No. 1705/91.

          (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

H         Petitioner in person.
                                        550
                      CAPT. V. KUMAR v. U.0.1.                         551

      The following order of the Court was delivered :                       A

       The petitioner, an Advocate of this Court, claiming to be motivated
by a desire to cleanse the judiciary, moved this petition by way of a public
interest litigation for certain reliefs directed against Respondents Nos. 1 to
7 but principally against Respondent No. 3 for suo motu contempt action. B
When this petition came up for admission before us on 11th February, 1992
we found that the petition was not drafted in dignified language and
abounded in the use of unwarranted adjectives. With a view to giving the
petitioner an opportunity to present a properly drafted revised petition, we
directed the Registry that if a revised petition is filed, the same may be
annexed to this petition. Thereafter the petitioner instead of presenting a C
revised petition replaced a couple of words in the original petition itself.
On 27th February, 1992 this Court observed that this action was not
consistent with the order of 11.th February, 1992 by which only a revised
petition was permitted and amendments in the original petition had not
been allowed. The report of the Registry was called tu explain why the D
amendments were allowed. The report filed by the Registry dated 5th
March, 1992 revealed that the concerned Section Officer had objected to
the petitioner effecting change of words but the petitioner became aggres-
sive and give threats and insisted on filing the revised petition later and
reiterated that he was permitted by the Court to correct a few words in the
present petition. On 6th March, 1992 when the petition came up before E
the Court, this Court observed that it would like the petitioner to explain
his conduct as emanating from the Registry's report dated 5th March, 1992.
A copy of the report was also supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter the
petitioner filed a revised petition and submitted his explana_lion in the form
of an affidavit along with Annexures which we did not consider to be F
satisfactory. Allegations were also made against the Registry and the
Registrar General's report was challenged as false, frivolous and highly
mischievous. After hearing the petitioner on 22nd March, 1993, we drew
his attention to the language used as well as the allegations made therein
and expressed our displeasure in that regard. Thereafter the petitioner
filed another affidavit dated 24th March, 1993 to the following effect:        G

        'That, the petitioner, to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court, has
        the highest respect, faith and regard in the majesty of this Hon'ble
        Court. Tu preserve and pursue this end, he had since 1970s
        invariably taken active part, in npkeeping this citadel of justice - H
    552                  SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1993)SUPP.1S.C.R.

A            notwithstanding, his deteriorating state of the 1965 Sialkot-front
             sustained severe spinal war-injuries.

            That, in utmost humility, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court, most
            graciously be pleased to accept the apology and drop the said
            inquiry proceedings, so that the case can be heard on merits, soon.'
B
  We .accept his apology even though we are not satisfied with his explana-
  tion. W~ however, hope that the petitioner will be more careful in future
  in the choice of his language and in his dealings with the Registry. Having
  regard to his age and his physical condition we have accepted his apology
  notwithstanding the fact that his petition abounds in language which is far
C from dignified. The petitioner in his zeal to project himself as a saviour of
  the judiciary has · made allegations against one and sundry and sought
  reliefs which betray confused thinking. We are not required to deal with
  them as we do not consider suo motu action ner.essary on such allegations.
  Besides, in view of the subsequent developments that have taken place,
D we think it is best that we close this sad saga. We, therefore, ,sunimarily
  reject this petition.

    U.R.                                                    Petition dismissed.