Holding

The Speaker is not immune from contempt proceedings; his refusal to obey Supreme Court orders constitutes criminal contempt, and the Court may direct the Government to produce him, using necessary force.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard a contempt petition filed by I. Manilal Singh, Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, who alleged that Dr. H. Borobabu Singh, the Speaker of the Assembly, had ordered his compulsory retirement as retaliation for implementing the Court’s earlier orders quashing the disqualification of certain legislators. Despite multiple orders directing the Speaker to appear personally before the Court and to obey its directions, he repeatedly failed to do so, claiming immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution. The Court held that such immunity does not extend to contempt proceedings and that his wilful refusal amounted to criminal contempt. Invoking its constitutional powers under Articles 129, 141, 142 and 144, the Court directed the Government of India to produce the Speaker, even authorising the use of minimal force if necessary. The Speaker eventually appeared, expressed regret, and the contempt proceedings were terminated.

Issues considered

The Speaker of a State Legislative Assembly is immune from contempt of the Supreme Court and from personal appearance orders.
Whether wilful refusal to obey Supreme Court orders constitutes criminal contempt.
Whether the Supreme Court may direct the Government of India to produce a contemner, including the use of force, under its constitutional powers.
Whether contempt proceedings should continue after the contemner complies and expresses regret.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 129, s. Article 141, s. Article 142, s. Article 144, s. Article 145, s. Article 32, s. Article 361
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. Section 12, s. Section 13, s. Section 2, s. Section 3
Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975s. Rule 10, s. Rule 11, s. Rule 3, s. Rule 6

Subjects

contempt of courtSpeaker immunityArticle 361Supreme Court powersrule of lawjudicial reviewTenth ScheduleManipur Legislative Assembly

Judgment

I. MANILAL SINGH A
v.
'r· DR. H. BOROBABU SINGH AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 5, 1993
-4
[LM. SHARMA, CJ., M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.S. VERMA, B
K JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.)

....,.. Constitution of India, 1950: Altic/es 32, 129, 141, 142, 144, 145 and 361.

Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court,
1975: Rules 3, 6, 10 and 11.
c
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : Sections 2, 3, 12 and 13.

Speaker of Legislative Assembl~Supreme Court's orders-Repeatedly
resisting implementation of-l'rima facie case of contempt made out-
~
D
Repeated and categorical refusal to appear in Court-Claiming immunity as
Speake,.-Govemment of India-Directed. to produce contemner in Court.

· Or. H. Borobabu Singh, the first respondent in the Contempt Peli·
lion held the office of Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly.
E
This Court having held that the Speaker while deciding the question
of disqualification of a Member of the ·Legislative Assembly under the
Tenth Schedule to the Constitution acts as a statutory authority, in which
capacity the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review by the High
Court and this Court, made certain orders quashing the disqualification
of certain members of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. F

In spite of the clear decision of this Court it was submitted, the
_,....., contemner continued to resist the lmplementati(ln of such orders made by
this Court.

The petitioner In the contempt petition I. Manilal Singh was then G
the Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, and as the Secretary
be took steps to Implement this Court's orders. The allegation made by ·
him was that the contemner Dr. H. Borobabu Singh got annoyed with him
~ for bis attempt to secure obedience and implementation of this Court's
orders and, therefore, as an act of reprisat, the contemner bad made an H
/ 769
.~

no SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] l S.C.R.

A order of his compulsory retirement.

The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of his compulsory
retirement, alleging that it was ma/a fide being an act of reprisal by the
contemner for the petitioner's obedience of this Court's orders. This
Court stayed the operation of the order of compulsory retirement as well
B as the order of suspension passed by the contemner. The petitioner then
complained that the contemner was not permitting him to function as the
Secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, and was also not paying
him bis salary and other dues; and that another person bad been ap-
pointed by the contemner to function as the Secretary. ·~

c On July 22, 1992, this Court made an order reiterating that the
petitioner shall be allowed to function as the Becretary of the Manipur
Legislative Assembly without delay and that all concerned will enable him
to so function. Further directions were also given.

D As a result of the grievance made by the petitioner that in spite of
the orders of this Court, he was neither allowed to function as the
Secretary nor paid his salary etc. another order was made on August 4,
1992 directing the Chief Secretary of the State to ensure that the direction
given for payment of dues was promptly obeyed.
E
On August 25, 1992 the Court after recording that the action to retire
the petitioner from service on August 31, 1992 as Joint Secretary appeared
to be prima fade in violation of the Court's order, stayed the operation of
the order; expressen its concern at the apathy exhibited towards obedience
of the mandate under Article 144 of the Constitution, and after bearing all
F the counsel made an order directing that the Chief Secretary, Deputy •
Secretary of the Legislative Assembly and the contemner should be per-
sonally present in Court at the next hearing in September 9, 1992.
....__
On the aforesaid date the Chief Secretary and the Deputy Secretary
were personally present, but on behalf of the contemner bis Counsel
G sought an adjournment till September 22, 1992 on 'be ground that the
Manipur Legisla:ivt Assembly was in session, which was granted.

On September 25, 1992 the contemner did not appear in person but
his Counsel filed an affidavit that he is immune from the directions of the ~
H Court in view of his constitutional position as Speaker. The Court heard ·
~
MANILAL v. DR. H. BOROBABU 771

the Counsel and ~ected the contention, and alijourned the matter to A
October 20,' tm; requiring the contemner to give a written undertaking
Y before be left the conntry as a member of the Indian Parliamentary
delegation that be wonld appear In the Court.

1be contemner did not give the aforesaid undertaking and when the
matter was taken up on November 12, 1992, the contemner was not present B
and the ..n1y thing done by blm was to file an am.davit dated November 6,
1992 Indicating that he would' not personally appear before the Court.

In the aforesaid circumstances and having regard to the attitude
adopted by the contemner it became necessary for the Court to consider C
the making of necessary consequential orders to secure the presence of the
contemner. It accordingly heard arguments on December 8, 1992.

The Attorney General of India submitted that the undisputed and the
unequivocal stand taken by the contemner left no doubt about his wilful and
~ contumacious disregard and disobedience of the Court's orders which is D
without any doubt by itself sufficient to constitute criminal contempt of this
Court. That, apart from the power which this Court has under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder, the powers of this
I Conrt under several provisions ofthe Constitution oflndia is wide enough to
indicate that the procedure available to it for ensuring compliance of its
orders includes the taking of all steps considered necessary to ensure E
_,/._ compliance of this Court's orders which is a constitutional obligation of the
' ~ Court, to uphold the rule of law; and that the Court also had the power to
direct the Government of India to take the necessary steps to produce the
contemner in the Court if the ordinary course of requiring a Magistrate to
produce him in the Court is considered inappropriate. The Solicitor General F
of India on behalf of the Government of India; and the Counsel for the Chief
Secretary and the petitioner supported the submissions of the Attorney
. General, while the Counsel for the contemner reiterated the stand taken by
__,__ __ thecontemner, that by virtue of the office orthe Speaker which he holds, he Is
immune from the Court's process even in a contempt matter which does not
relate to his function as Speaker inside the House. G

Directing the production of the contemner Dr. H. Borobabu Singh
before the Court on March 23, 1993.

HELD : 1. The undisputed facts expose the conduct of the contem-
ner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh, in refusing to obey the orders of this Court H

I
...
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 1 S.C.R.

A .!irecting him to appear in person in this Court to enable the hearing of
the contempt proceedings against him, after the tentative opinion formed
by this Court that his wilful and contumacious violation of this Court's .__,,,,,,
orders and deliberate obstrnction of the persons acting i.1 the aid of this
Court's orders coupled with his act of reprisal against the Secretary of the
Legislative Assembly for obeying the orders made by this Court, make out
B a prima facie case of 'criminal contempt', as recorded in the orders made
and known to him. [780G-H, 781AJ

2. The contemner's repeated and categorical refusal to appear in
~
person in this Court in spite of this Court's orders and grant of consider·
c able indulgence to him is clear from the statements made in his affidavits
and through his counsel, who has appeared for him throughout. [782B]

3. From the documents tiled by the Union of India, it is evident that
even the Union Home Minister has strongly advised the contemner to
desist from the course he has chosen to adopt and to obey the orders of
D this Court, which is his constitutional obligation. [783C) y

4. Articles 141, 142 and 144 of the Constitutiou are well-kuowu and
they are mentioned for the benefit of the contemner who has wilfully and \
deliberately refused to obey and ignored not merely the orders of this
E Court but has also chosen to ignore the provisions in the Constitution
itself, to which be must have sworn allegiance before taking bis seat as a
Member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. [782H]
~
...
5. The immunity given by Article 361 of the Constitution is not to
F a Speaker and no other provis_ion supports the submission made by the
contemner.

6. It is unfortunate that a person who bolds the constitutional -~
office of Speaker of a Legislative Assembly has chosen to ignore the
co'!stitutional mandate that this country is governed by the 'rule of law'
G and what the law is, is for this Court to declare in disch~rge of its
~.linstUutional onligation which binds all in accordance with Article 141
of Constitution of India, and Article 144 then says that all authorities
are to act in aid of the orders made by this Court. The contemner has '
chosen to ignore also the obvious corollary of c11le of law that no person ~
H is above law. [782F·G]
I!
MANILAL v. DR. H. BOROBABU 773

7. Haying doen its best to make the contemn er see reason and be A
'
present by granting indulgence repeatedly, to the extent that the Attorney
Generti said that the indulgence and leniency was being construed as the
weakness of the Court, this Court Is constrained to now take the only
appropriate and logical course to which the Court is driven in .these
cricumstances, viz. to require the production or the contemner Dr. H. B
Borohabu Singh in person before this Court. It is the constitutional duty
of this Court to uphold the majesty oflaw and justify the confidence of the
people, that no one in this country is above the law and governance is not
cl-- or men but or the 'rule or law'. [7838-D]

8. The Government of India is directed to produce Dr. H. Borobabu C
Singh in person in this Court on the next date of hearing taking such steps
as are necessary for the purpose. The Government of India would be
entitled to take all steps, which are necessary including the use of mini-
mum force which may be required for compliance. [784H, 785A]

9. A copy of the order to be sent forthwith by the Registrar (Judicial) D
to Home Secretary, Government of India for prompt compliance. The next
date of hearing fixed for March 23, 1993. (7858)

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No. 82 of
1992.
E
WITH

Writ Petition No. 232 of 1992.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
F
Vijay Kumar and Shiv Kumar Suri for the Petitioner/Applicant.

Milan K. Banerjee, Attorney General, D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General,
V.C. Mahajan, Kapil Sibal, Ms·. A. Subhashini, Gaurab Banarjee, K.
Swamy, Ms. S. Janani, S.K. Battacharya and L.K. Poonaro for the Respon- G
dents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

This matter came up for our consideration on December 8, 1992
pursuant to the order dated November 24, 1992, to decide the appropriate H
TI4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 1 S.C.R.

A order which needs to be made in the existing situation. A brief resume of
the events leading to the present stage may first be given. '>

This Court has held that the Speaker while deciding the question of
disqualification of a Member of the Legislative. Assembly under the Tenth
Schedule to the Constitution acts as a statutory authority, in which capacity
B the Speaker's decision is subject to judicial review by the High Court and
this Court. Pursuant thereto, certain orders were made by this Court in
proceedings arising out of the order of disqualification of certain members,
made by the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh who holds the office of
Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, in spite of the clear decision
c of this Court that an order made under the Tenth Schedule by the Speaker
relating to the disqualification of a Member of the Legislative Assembly is
subject to judicial review and the Speaker while making an order under the
Tenth Schedule acts merely as a statutory authority amenable to the court's
jurisdiction in that capacity, the contemner continued to resist the impel-
D mentation of such orders made by this Court. The petitioner, I. Manila!
Singh was then the Secreatry of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. In b.s
capacity as Secretary of the Assembly, the petitioner, I. Manila! Singh took
steps to implement thi:. Court's orders. The allegation made by I. Manila!
Singh is that the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh got annoyed with him
for his attempt to secure obedience and implementation of this Court's
E orders and, therefore, as an act of reprisal, the contemner has made an
order of his compulsory retirement. The petitioner, I. Manila! Singh,
therefore, challenged the order of his compulsory retirement made by the
contemner inter alia on the ground that it was ma/a fide being an act of
reprisal by the contemner for the petitioner's obedience of this Court's
orders. This Court stayed the operation of the impugned order of compul-
F
sory retirement of the petitioner, I. Manila! Singh as well as the order of
his sus.pension passed by the contemner. The petitioner then complained
that in spite of this Court's orders, the contemner was not permitting him
to function a< the secreta.ry of the Manipur Legislative Assembly and was
also not paying him his ;alary and other dues; and that another person had
G been appomted by the contemner to function as the Secretary.

On July 22, 1992, this Court made an order reiterating that the
petitioner, I. Manila] Singh shall be allowed Lo function as the Secretary of
the Manipur Legislative Assembly without delay and that all concerned will
H enable him to so function, and some further directions were also given.
MANILAL v. DR. H. BOROBABU 775

On August 4, 1992 another order was made by this Court as a result A
of the grievance made by the petitioner, I. Manila! Singh that in spite of
the orders of this Court, he was neither allowed to function as the Secretary
of the Legislative Assembly nor had he been paid his salary etc. In that
order, this Court further directed the Chief Secretary of the State of
Manipur to ensure that the direction given for payment of dues to the B
petitioner was promptly obeyed.

When the matter was again taken up on August 25, 1992, the
petitioner, I. Manila) Singh stated that another order had been made on
August 19, 1992 declaring that the petitioner is to retire from service on
August 31, 1992 as Joint Secretary which was in disobedience of this C
Court's orders, and was a further act of reprisal against him by the
contemner. Accordingly, in the order dated August 25, 1992, this Court
after recording that this action appears to be prima facie in violation of this
Court's order, stayed the operation of the order dated August 19, 1992.
The order after mentioning the statement made by the learned counsel for D
the Chief Secretary, H.V. Goswami expressed this Court's concern at the
apathy exhibited towards obedience of the mandate under Article 144 of
the Constitution and after hearing all the counsel including Shri S.K.
Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the contemner, directed that the Chief
Secretary, H.V. Goswami, Deputy Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assemb-
ly, R.K. Chinglensana Singh and Dr. H. Borobabu Singh should be per- E
sonally present in court at the next hearing which was fixed for September
8, 1992. On September 8, 1992 the matter was adjourned to September 9,
1992.

On September 9, 1992, the Chief Secretary, Manipur, H.V. Goswami F
and R.K. Chinglensana Singh, Deputy Secretary, Manipur Legislative As-
sembly were personally present. On behalf of Dr. H. Borobabu Singh who
did not appear, a request was made by his counsel, Shri Bhattacharya to
adjourn the matter till after September 22, 1992 on the ground that the
Manipur Legislative Assembly was in session. The matter was, therefore,
adjourned to September 25, 1992. G

On Septembe1 25, 1992, in spite of earlier order in the contempt
proceediilg directing Dr. H. Borobabu Singh to appear in person, ne did
not appear. His counsel, Shri Bhattacharya filed an affidavit stating inter
alia that Dr. H. Borobabu Singh is immune from such directions of the H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R.

A court in view of his constitutional position as Speaker. Accordingly, Shri
Bhattacharya was heard on his objection which was found to be without
substance. On September 25, 1992, the Court while rejecting the contention
of Shri Bh•ttacharya stated as under :-

B ' ......This is a case in which Dr. Singh's function is not as a
Speaker in the House. The facts of the case which are on
record in this matter clearly show that Dr. Singh was acting
as Authority under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution
and in that capacity certain orders were passed which gave
rise to the present contempt petition. In a petition filed by
c the petitioner, Manila! Singh, directions issued by this
Court relating to his service conditions which have, accord-
ing to the· allegations, not been respected by Dr. Singh. In
this context and background, we do not have any doubt that
the capacity in which Dr. Singh was functioning was not
D that of the Speaker of the House, but as administrative head
of the Secretariat of the Legislature in relation to the rights
of one of the employees. Accordingly, we hold that there
is no merit at all in the plea raised regarding the jurisdiction
of this Court and the objection is, therefore, rejected.

E
2. We asked Mr. G. Ramaswamy, learned Attorney
General ,o examine the matter ·and indicate his opinion as
to the enforceability of the directions of this Court requir-
ing the personal appearance of Dr. H. Borobabu Singh in
F Court. On earlier occasion also, learned Attorney General
had indicated that this Court would have been justified in
taking a far stricter view of the conduct of Dr. Singh and
it is an appropriate case where it is not only within the
power of this Court, but also its bounden duty to take such
steps which .will reassure the people of their faith in, and
G respect for the Institution, now that it is obvions that the
indulgence granted so far to Dr. H. Borobabu Singh has
been misplaced. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India fully
supports the opinion and submission of learned Attorney
H General.
MANILAL v. DR. H. BOROBABU m
-!
3. Mr. Kapil Sibal who represents the Chief Secretary of A
~ Manipur also expressed his opinion on these lines."

The remaining part of the order then considered the fact that Dr. H.
Borobabu Singh was included as a Member of the Indian Parliamentary
delegation to attend a conference abroad and the Court adjourned the
B
matter to October 20, 1992 requiring the contemner, Dr. H. Borohahu
Singh to give a written Undertaking, before he left the country that he
--1 _would appear in the Court, and the Government of India was required to
ensure compliance of that direction. It is sufficient to mention that the
contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh did not give such an undertaking in
c
- spite of the persuasion of senior officers of the Government of India as
well as the Union Home Minister, as appears from the documents filed on
behalf of the Government of India. Accordingly, the Government of India
did not permit the contemner to leave the country.

~ When the matter was taken up on October 20, 1992, the contemner, D
Dr. H. Borobabu Singh did not appear in spite of the earlier direction given
and the indulgence granted to him. However, his counsel, Shri Bhat-
tacharya prayed for a short adjournment on the ground that he would be
advising Dr. H. Borohahu Singh to file an unconditional affidavit to appear
in person in court in pursuance to the direction of the court and to make
_l. a separate application for condoning his absence and exempting him from E
personal appearance in the court. In spite of the background, we granted
further indulgence to the contemner and accepting the request of Shri
Bhattacharya adjourned the case to October 23, 1992 stating that if in
addition to the unconditional affidavit to appear personally in the court
pursuant. to the direction, a separate application, as indicated by Shri F
Bhattacharya, for condoning his absence and exempting him from personal
_,,...__ appearence was filed by the contemner, the same would he considered on
its merits. At the request of Shri Bhattacharya, learned counsel for Dr. H.
Borobabu ·Singh, we again adjourned the matter to November 12, 1992
recording his statement in the order as under :-
G
"Mr. S.K Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for Dr. H.
Borobabu Singh states that he has been instructed per-
sonally by Dr. H.B. Singh to make a statement in this Court
that Dr. H.B. Singh will be filing his affidavit in the terms
of our order of the last date. We asked Mr. Bhattacharya H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R.

A to clarify whether our order has been correctly understood
that the affidavit has to be filed giving an unconditional
undertaking to appear in this Court in pursuance of a
direction by this Court and the application which Dr. H.
B. Singh Wants to make with a prayer for dispensing with
his personal presence will be filed separately and be r it a
B
condition of the affidavit. He states that the position has
been correctly understood by Dr. H. B. Singh who has
instructed Mr. Bhattacharya w state accordingly. Mr. Bhat-
tacharya further states that the affidavit could not be filed
today as Dr. H.B. Singh could not come to Delhi because
c of the prevailing deterioration of law and order situation
due to insurgency in the eastern part of the country due to
which he was advised by the authorities responsible for his
security not to undertake a journey to Delhi at this stage.
-
He has also referred to the partial disruption in the air
services between Manipur and Delhi. Mr. Bhattacharya
D
adds that the affidavit shall be filed by the 5th or the 6th
November, 1992.'

When the matter was taken on November 12, 1992, the contemner,
Dr. H. Borobabu Singh was again not present and the only thing done by
E him in the meantime was to file an affidavit dated November 6, 1992 ....__
indicating that he would not personally appear before the Court. Thus, in
spite of the clear statement made by Shri Bhattacharya on instructions of
Dr. H. Borobabu Singh as stated by him and recorded in the order dated
October 23. 1992, the contemner once again remained absent and neither
F filed the requisite affidavit containing his undertaking to appear nor made
any application praying for condoning his absence and exempting him from
personal presence for cogent reasons. ......__

In these circumstances, it became necessary to consider the making
G of necessary consequential orders. The matter was, therefore, adjourned
to November, 24, 1992 to hear the learned Attorney General of India and
all the other counsel appearing in the case for deciding the future course
of action. On November 24, 1992, the learned Solicitor General informed
the Court that Mr. G. Ramaswamy had resigned from the office of Attor-
ney General and, therefore, the matter may be adjourned to enable his
H successor-in-office to assist the court with his arguments. The matter was,
MANILAL~DR.H.BOROBABU .779

therefore, adjourned to December 8, 1992. A
On December 8, 1992 we have heard the learned Attorney General
of India, the Solicitor General, on behalf of Union of India, Shri Kapil
Sibal, learned counsel for the Chief Secretary of the State of Manipur, Shri
S.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu B
Singh and learned counsel for the petitioner.

It may be mentioned that the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh has
filed affidavits, the last being of December 7, 1992, making it amply clear
repeatedly that he would not obey the orders of this Court directing his
personal presence in the contempt matter nor would he make any applica- C
lion for condoning his absence and exempting him from personal presence
for any cogent reasons. The only reason indicated in the affidavit filed by
Dr. H. Borobabu Singh and also reiterated by his counse~ Shri S.K.
Bhattacharya is that by virtue of the office of Speaker of the Manipur
Legislative Assembly held by Dr. H. Borobabu Singh, he is immune from D
the process of this Court even in a cor:tempt proceeding where the direc-
tion for his personal presence has been given as a result of prima facie
opinion formed by the court that he has wilfully disobeyed the orders of
this Court in a capacity which does not relate to his functions as Speaker
inside the House and has further deterred certain persons including the
Chief Secretary of the State and officers of the Ass.embly Secretariat from E
acting in aid of this Court's directions/orders in addition to taking ad-
ministrative action against the petitioner. I. Manila! Singh, Secretary of the
Manipur Legislative Assembly as an act of reprisal for his· acting in aid of
this Court's orde.rs. This stand has been taken and continues to be persisted
in, in spite of the contention being considered and rejected expressly on F
merits including in the order dated September 25, 1992. The question,
therefore, is of the action to be taken and the kind of order which it would
be appropriate to make in these circumstances for implementation of this
Court's orders, to uphold the majesty of law for preservation of the 'rule
of law'.
G

,.. The learned Attorney General submitted that the undisputed facts
and the unequivocal stand taken by the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh
leave no doubt about his wilful and contumacious disregard and dis-
obedience of this .Court's orders which is without any doubt .liy itself
sufficient to constitute criminal contempt of this Court. The learned Allor- H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R.

A ney General submitted that apart from the power which this Court has
under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder,
the power of this Court under several provisions of the Constitution of
India is wide enough to indicate that the procedure available to it fur
ensuring compliance of its orders directing the personal presence of the
B contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh are not confined merely to the
provisions in the Contempt of Courts Act and the Rules framed there-
under. The learned Attorney General added that all steps considered
necessary to ensure co@pliance of this Court's order requiring the personal
presence in this Court of the c<intemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh, are
available to this Court which has a constitutional obligation to uphold the
C role of law. He submitted that the stage has now reached when this step
can no longer be avoided due to the continuing contemptuous conduct of
the contemner in persistently refusing to obey this Court's orders requiring
-
his personal pr .'.seuce in this contempt matter. The learned Attorney
General added that lhis Court also has the power to direct the Government
D of India to take the necessary steps to produce the contemner, Dr. H.
Borobabu Singh in this Court if the ordinary course of requiring a
magistrate to produce him in the court is considered inappropriate in the
present case. The learned Solicitor General of India on behalf of the
Government of India supported the submissions of the learned Attorney
General of India and assured us that in case the Court considered it
E necessary to direct the Government of India to take the necessary steps to
produce the contemner. Dr. H. Borobabu Singh the direction wollld be
duly and promptly complied with Shri Kapil Sibal on behalf of the Chief
Secretary of the State of Manipur also supported the submission and so
did the counsel for the petitioner, I. Manila! Singh, Shri S.K. Bhattacharya,
F learned counsel for the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh reiterated the
stand taken by the contemner that by virtue of the office of the Speakar
which he holds, he is immune from the court's process even in a contempt
matter like this which does not relate to his function as Speaker inside the
House.

G The undisputed facts expose the conduct of the contemner, Dr. H.
Borobabu Singh, evident from the statement contained in his affidavits filed
in this Court refusing to obey the orders of this Court directing him to
appear in person in this Court to enable the hearing of the contempt
proceedings against him, after the tentative opinion formed by this Court
H that his wilful and contemptuous violation of this Court's orders and
MANilAL v. DR. H. BOROBABU 781

deliberate obstruction of the persons acting in the aid of this Court's orders A
coupled with his act of reprisal against the Secretary of the Legislative
Assembly for obeying the orders made by this Court make out a prima facie
~e of 'criminal contempt', was recorded in the orders made in the
presence of his counsel and known to him. The contemner had refuse<! to
accept the .notices sent to him directly but continued to be represented by B
counsel, Shri S.K. Bhattacharya through whom he communicated with the
Cmtrt, in addition to filing some of his own affidavits to clearly indicate his
refusal to appear in Court The only reason given by him, through counsel
and in his affidavits is, that he being Speaker of a Legislative Assembly, is
immune from process of court even in such a proceedin~
c
-
The present situation arises as a result of repeated and emphatic
refusal of the contemner to appear in person in this Court after due notice
of the fact that his presence is required before the court on the date fixed
for the hearing of the contempt proceeding to answer this charge of
criminal contempt committed by him by acts done which were not per- D
formed as a Speaker within the House.

Reference may now be made to some provisions of law applicable to
the situation as indicated by the learned Attorney General and the other
counsel supporting his submissions.
E
'The Rules to Regulate Procee~ for Contempt of the Supreme
Court, 1975' framed by this Court provide in Rule 3 that the Court may
take action even suo motu in such a matter. Rule 6 requires the contemner,
unless otherwise ordered, to appear in person before the Court as directed
on the date fixed for hearing of the proceeding and to continue to remain F
present during hearing till the proceeding is finally disposed of by order of
the Court. Rule 10 provides that the Court may direct the Attorney
General or the Solicitor General to appear and assist the Court It is in
this manner that the Attorney General was directed to appear and assist
the Court which the Solicitor General appeared in this matter for the
Union of India. Rule 11 provides that the Court may, if it has reason to G
believe, that the person charged is absconding or is other.vise evading
service of notice, or if he fails to appear in person or to continue to remain
present in person in pursuance of the directions, direct a warrant bailable
or non-bailable for his arrest, addressed to one or more police officers and
the warrant shall be executed by the officer or officers to whom it is H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R.

A directed. These Rules, therefore, provides for procuring the personal
appearance of the contemner in this Court if the Court has reason to
believe that the contemner is evading service or he fails to appear in person y
in spite of the directions of this Court. In the present case, the contemner's
repeated and categorical refusal to appear in this Court in spite of this
B Court's orders and grru;i~ of considerable indulgence to him till now is clear
from the statements made in his affidavits and through his counsel, who
has appeared for him throughout.

The learned Attorney General, the learned Solicitor General and
Shri Kapil Sibal are right in their submission that the power of this Court
C in such matters is not confined merely to the provisions of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder but is plenary to
punish any person for contempt of court, and for that purpose to require
hi~ presence in persol) in this Court in the manner considered appropriate
-
in the facts of the case. They refer particularly to Articles 129 and 142 apart
D from Article 145 of the Constitution of India.

Article 129 says that the Supreme Court shall be a court of record
and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish
for contempt of itself.

E Article 142 provides for enforcement of decrees and orders of
Supreme Court and lays down that the Supreme Court shall have all and
every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance
of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the
investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself, Article 141 declares
F the binding effect of the law declared by the Supreme Court which is a
clear provision to indicate that the meaning of 'law' is to be understood as
declared by the Supreme Court. Obviously, it is not for any one else
including the Speaker to decide what the 'law' is, and make an interpreta-
tion of the 'law' contrary to the declaration of law made by the Supreme
G Court. Article 144 contains the constitutional obligation of all authorities
in the territory of India to· act in aid of the Supreme Court. These
provisions are well-known and they are mentioned in this order once again
in the· present case merely for the benefit of the contemner who has ·vilfully
and deliberately refused to obey and ignored not merely the orders of this
Court but has also chosen to ignore the provisions in the Constitution itself,
H to which he must have sworn allegiance before taking his seat as a Member
MANil.AL v. DR. H. BOROBABU 783

of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. A

"-,.-' The contention of the contemner's immunity from the process of this
Court even in a contempt proceeding, wherein a prima facie case of
criminal contempt is made out against him, requiring his personal presence
to answer that charge and to be present at the hearing, hinted by the
contemner in his affidavits and raised by his counsel is totally misconceived, · B
and this was indicated to his counsel repeatedly. The immunity given by
Article 381 of the Constitution is not to a Speaker and no other provision
supports this submission.

From the documents filed by the Union of India, it is evident that c
- even the Union Home Minister has strongly advised the contemner to
desist from the course he has chosen to adopt and to obey the orders of
this Court, which is his constitutional obligation. The present Attorney
~
General as well as his predecessor-in-office and the Solicitor General have
also categorically and repeatedly expressed their opinion that it is the duty D
"'?'- of the contemner to obey the orders of this Court and appear in this Court
in person as directed. Shri Kapil Sibal who appears for the Chief Secretary
of the State of Manipur has also expressed the same view in his submis-
sions.

After hearing learned counsel al length on December 8, 1992 we had E
reserved the order for further reflection. On further and in-depth con-
sideration of this matter on account of the fact that the coniemner also
happens lo occupy the office of Speaker of a Legislative Assembly, we find
that there is no escape from the obvious and logical conclusion emerging
from the submissions made by the learned Attorney General of India and F
endorsed by the learned Solicitor General of India and Shri Kapil Sibal.
While we reach this unfortunate decision in discharge of our constitutional
__,,,,..-,_, obligation, we draw some solace from the fact that this situation is the
creation of the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh himself who continues
to persist in his contumacy by repeatedly declaring that he would not obey
the orders of this Court directing his personal appearance to participate G
in the contempt proceedings against him. It is unfortunate that a person
who holds the constitutional office of Speaker of a Legislative Assembly
_..__ has chosen to ignore the constitutional mandate that this country is
governed by the 'rule of law' and what the law is, is for this Court io declare
in discharge of its constitutional obligation which binds all in accordance H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 1 S.C.R.

A with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and Article 144 then says that
all authorities are to act in aid of the orders made by this Court. The
contemner has chosen to ignore also the obvious corollary of rule of law
that no person is above law. Having done our best to make the contemner
see reason and be present by granting him indulgence repeatedly to the
B extent that the learned Attorney General of India at one of the earlier
stages said that our indulgence and leniency was being construed as the
weakness of the court, we are constxained to now take the only appropriate
and logical course to which the court is driven in these circumstances. That
obvious course is to require the production of the contemner, Dr. H.
Borobabu Singh in person before this Court, giving such a direction to the
C authority considered to be appropriate, in the circumstances of the case,
to ensure compliance of this order.

It is our consitutional duty which requires us to make this order, to
uphold the majesty of law and justify the confidence of the people, that no
D one in this country is above the law and governance is not of men but of
the 'rule of law'. It is unfortunate that this action has to be taken against a
person who happens to be the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly, but that
does not permit us to apply the law differently to him when he was wilfully
and con!umaciouly driven the court to this course. We must remind our-
selves that the 'rule of law' permits no one to claim to be above the la'."
E and it means - 'be you ever so high the law is above you.' It was said long
back : 'to seek to be wiser than the laws, is forbidden by the law'.

We are also of the opinion that the issuance of a direction to any
Magistrate to produce the contemner in this Court would be merely an
F exercise in futility in view of the obvious conduct of the contemner which
includes the threat even to the Chief Secretary of the State as indicated by
him. The learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of
India submitted that in case it is considered appropriate to issue such a
direction to the Government of India, necessary action in this behalf would
be taken by the Government of India to comply with !he order. We have
G no doubt that in the existing situation to which this Court has been driven
by the wilful and contumacim1s conduct of the contemner himself, the only
appropriate order to make is to direct the Government of India to produce
the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh in person in this Court on the next
date of bearing, taking such steps as are necessary for the purpose. We
H direct, accordingly. It is further clarified that the Government of India
MANUAL v. DR. H. BOROBABU 785

would be entitled to take all such steps, which are necessary including the A
use of minimum force which may be required, for compliance of this
Court's order directing the production of the contemner in this Court. A
copy of this order be sent forthwith by the Registrar {Judicial) to the Hon!i
Secretary, Government of India for prompt compliance. The next date of
hearing is fixed for March 23, 1993 on which .date the Government of India B
must produce the contemner, Dr. H. Borobabu Singh before this Court.

List on March 23, 1993.

ORDER

In obedience to the earlier directions of this Court, Dr. H. Borobabu C
Singh is present in person in Court. We take note of his earlier affidavit
filed on 183.93 that he has fully complied with all the orders and directions
relating to the case of Manilal Singh. Dr. Singh has also expressed regret
for the unhappy events. We appreciate this gesture on his part, though he
could have done the same much earlier. We take note of this· and drop all D
further proceedings in the matter.

These contempt proceedings, therefore, come to an end.

N.V.K. Petitions dropped.

•