CHARAN LAL SAHUversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                                 CHARAN LAL SAHU
                                                                                  A
                                                v.
                              UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                                   OCTOBER 9, 1987

                  [RANGANATH MISRA AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]                           13

            Contempt of Court Act, 1971: s.15-Writ Petition by way of public
       interest litigation-Couched in unsavoury language with a designed
       attempt to lower the prestige of the Court-Petitioner issued show cause
       for contempt of Court.

f--         The petitioner, an advocate, filed the application by way of a
                                                                                  c
       public interest litigation alleging that the working of the J odges of the
       apex Court was cocktail, based on Western Common Law and Ameri·
       can techniques; that the Court had become a constitotioual liability
       without having control over the illegal acts of Government, and that the
       Court was sleeping over the issues.                                        D

                Dismissing the writ petition,

             HELD: The petitioner is prima facie guilty of contempt. The
       petition is clearly intended to denigrate the Court in the esteem of
       the people of India. The allegations are clumsy. It is an intentional E
       attempt at lowering the prestige of the Court as the apex J11dicial Insti·


-      tution. [442G, D; 443Al

             The Registry to draw up an appropriate proceeding for contempt
       of court and issue notice to the petitioner. [443Cl
                                                                                  F
..{,         The petition is an act against public interest. The petitioner has
       certainly overstepped the limit of self restraint so much necessary
       in such litigation. The Registry directed not to entertain any
       public interest litigation application filed by the petitioner in
       future. [443E]
                                                                                  G
                ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 849 of
        1987.

                (Under Article 32 of the Constitution ofindia).

                Petitioner·in·person and M.S. Ganesh for the petitioner.           H

                                                441
    442                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1988] I S.C.R.

         K. Parasaran, Attorney General and Ms. A. Subhashini for the
A
    Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered:

                                    ORDER
a
          This application has been filed by an Advocate of this Court by
    way of a public interest litigation. It had been listed earlier and learned
    Attorney General had entered appearance on behalf of the Union of
    India.

       We have heard the petition. It has been couched in unsavoury
c language and the petitioner seems to have made an intentional attempt ......J.
    to indulge in mud-slinging against the advocates, this Court in particu-          I
    lar as also other constitutional institutions. Many of the allegations in
    his writ petition are likely to lower the prestige of this Couri as the
    apex judicial institution. At one place in the writ petition, he has
D   alleged:-

                "Thus the working of the Judges are cocktail based on
                Western Common Laws and American techniques, as such
                unproductive and out dated according to socio-economic
                conditions of the country."                                       ,.-.
                                                                                   I..
E
    At one another place, the petitioner has stated that:

                "This Court has become a constitutional liability without
                having control over the illegal acts of the Government
                ...... Thus the people for whom the Constitution is meant
p               have now turned down their faces against it which is a            (
                did-illusionment for fear that justice is a will of the Wisp."    }
          Yet at another place the petitioner has stated that this Court is
    sleeping over the issues like 'Kumbhkama.' The reading of the writ
    petition gives the impression that it is clearly intended to denigrate this
q   Court in the esteem of the people of India. We are of the priam facie
    view that the petition has been drawn up with a designed purpose of
    bringing the Court into contempt and the petitioner is, therefore,
    prima facie guilty of contempt.

         The writ petition has been drafted in a careless manner. At
H   several places the pleadings are meaningless. At several other places
                             CHARAN LAL v.U.0.1.                          443

    they are contradictory. The allegations are clumsy and several irrele·       A
    vant facts have been put into the petition to inflate its size.

          The petitioner has left out no institution from his attempt of
    mud-slinging. We have a feeling that while drawing up the petition the
    petitioner has considered himself to be the only blemishless person
    and everyone else including social institutions to be blame-worthy. We       B
    are surprised that an advocate practising in this Court with consi·
    derable experience has choosen to act in such an irresponsible manner.
    The writ petition, in our opinion, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
    We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition.

         We direct the Registry to draw up an appropriate proceeding for         c
    contempt and issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show
    cause in person on 9.11.1987 as to why he may not be proceeded under
    the Contempt of Court Act.

          At page 41 of his petition, the petitioner has stated:·
                                                                                 D
                "This is a public interest litigation in the interest of inde·
                pendence of judiciary and social justice ....... "

    We are of the view that the petition is an act against public interest.
    The petitioner has certainly over-stepped the limit of self-restraint, so
    much necessray in a public interest litigation. We direct the Registry E
    not to entertain any application by way of public interest litigation by


-
    the petitioner in future.

    P.S.S.                                                 Petition dismissed.