KALYANESHWARIversusU.0.I. & ORS.

                       [2011] 6 S.C.R. 774


A                       KALYANESHWARI
                                   v.
                            U.0.1. & ORS.
                (Writ Petition (C) No. 260 of 2004)
                          MAY 12, 2011
B
       [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
                 SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

        Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Contempt petition against
C public interest litigant-NGO and its official - On the ground
  that they had abused the process of law by fifing petitions
  under the guise of public interest, against one business rival
  at the behest of another - Issuance of show cause notice -
  Contemners hardly disputed the observations made by
o Supreme Court in the show cause notice - Contemners only
  attempted to tender an unconditional apology for their acts
  and omissions - Held: Though unconditional apology was
  tendered but the bonafide and intent of the contemnors
  tendering such an apology is not < ertain - Contemnors are
E liable to be punished for their offensive and contemptuous
  behaviour which undermined the dignity of the courts of law
  and justice administration system and also prejudicially
  affected the rights of parties who were not even impleaded as
  parties in the public interest litigation - Certain directions
F issued - Administration of Justice.
        Contempt of Court - Power of Court to punish for
    contempt - Explained.

       Contempt of Court - Circumstances where court can
G reject an apology that has been tendered - Explained.

         'BK', Secretary of the petitioner NGO had filed a writ
    petition before the Gujarat High Court and prayed that the
    respondents' asbestos manufacturing unit be closed and
H                               774
          KALYANESHWARI v. U.0.1. & ORS.               775

demolished. The same was rejected since the petition had      A
been filed at the behest of rival industrial groups and was
not bona fide. The said judgment of the Gujarat High Court
had attained finality but 'BK' disregarding the said fact
filed a Writ Petition before this Court to brush aside the
                                                              I
judgment of the High Court stating that the Gujarat High      B
Court had failed to apply its mind. This Court disposed
of the Writ Petition with certain directions.

     Besides disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court also
noticed the contemptuous behaviour of the petitioner          C
NGO and its officials and issued show-cause notice to the
petitioner NGO and its Secretary 'BK' in his personal
capacity, to show cause why proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against
them. 'BK' filed a response affidavit on behalf of the
petitioner NGO as well as himself and tendered his            D
unconditional apology and prayed for dropping of the
contempt proceedings.

    Issuing certain directions, the Court
                                                              E
     HELD: 1.1 The apology tendered even at the outset
of proceedings has to be bona fide, should demonstrate
repentance and sincere regret on the part of the
contemner lest the administration of justice is permitted
to be crudely hampered with immunity by the persons
                                                              F
involved in the process of litigation or otherwise. An
apology which lacks bona fides and is intended to
truncate the process of law with the ulterior motive of
escaping the likely consequences of such flagrant
violation of the orders of the Court and disrespect to the
administration of justice, cannot be accepted. [Para          G
6][782-H; 783-A-C]
     Prem Surana v. Additional Munsif and Judicial
Magistrate (2002) 6SCC 722: 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 524 -
referred to.                                                  H
    776      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A      1.2 The rule of law has to be maintained whatever be
  the consequences. The 'welfare of people' is the supreme
  law and this enunciates adequately the ideal of 'law'. This
  could only be achieved when justice is administered
  lawfully, judiciously, without any fear and without being
B hampered or throttled by unscrupulous elements. The
  administration of justice is dependent upon obedience or
  execution of the orders of the Court. The contemptuous
  act which interfered with administration of justice on one
  hand and impinge upon the dignity of institution of justice
c on the other, bringing down its respect in the eye of the
  commoner, are acts which may not fall in the category of
  cases where the Court can accept the apology of the
  contemner even if it is tendered at the threshold of the
  proceedings. [Para 7] [783-D-F]
D     Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union
  (1970) 3 SCC 98; M. Y. Shareef v. The Hon'ble Judges of the
  High Court of Nagpur AIR 1955 SC 19: 1955 SCR 757; L.D.
  Jaikwal v. State of U.P. (1984) 3 SCC 405: 1984 (3) SCR
  833; Advocate-General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya
  •
E Pradesh Khair Industries (1980) 3 SCC 311 - referred to.
          Black's Law Dictionary 8th edn., 1999 - referred to.

       1.3 Making of scandalous allegations against the
  judicial system always needs to be discouraged.
F Moreover, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the
  constitutional Courts allegedly in the name of public
  interest and using it as a platform for lowering the dignity
  of the institution of justice is an act which besides being
  contemptuous also is undesirable. [Para 13] [785-A-B]
G
        M.B. Sanghi Advocate v. High Court of Punjab and
    Haryana (1991) 3SCC 600: 1991 (3) SCR 312 - relied on.

      2.1 In the instant case, the ·contemner certainly
H abused the process of law by filing petitions, under the
          KALYANESHWARI v. U.0.1. & ORS.                 777

guise of public interest, against one business rival at the     A
behest of another. The writ petition filed by him before
this Court was obviously filed with the intent of creating
imp.ediments in the establishment and operation of
in.du~~n~J units dealing with the mining, manufacture and
production of Asbestos and its products which are               8
carrying''out their operations in accordance with law and
withollfih'fringing the rights of any person. [Para 15] [785-
F-G]   '' .

     *Consumer Education and Research Center v. Union of
India (1995)SCC 42.: 1995 (1) SCR 626; B.K. Sharma v. C
Union of India AIR 2005 Guj 203 ..! referred to.
     2.2 The respondent-contemners, in their reply-
affidavit, have hardly disputed the observations made by
this Court in the show cause notice issued to them. They        D
have only attempted to tender an unconditional apology
for their various acts and omissions. The bonafide and
intent of the respondents in tendering such an apology
is not certain. The examination of the factual matrix of the
instant case and conduct of the respondent-contemners,          E
particularly the reply filed by them, places it beyond
ambiguity that they have committed the following acts
and omissions intentionally, which have undermined the
dignity of this Court and the justice delivery system:

    (a) The contemners have abused the process of law           F
    to the extent that it impinged upon the dignity of the
    justice delivery system as well as prejudicially
    affected the rights of other private parties.
    (b) The contemners have withheld material facts from        G
    the Court which were in their personal knowledge.
    While withholding such material facts, they have also
    persisted upon filing petitions after petitions in the
    name of public interest with somewhat similar reliefs.
                                                                H
    778      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A         (c) The contemner, made irresponsible remarks and
          statements against the High Court without any
          justifiable cause in law.

          (d) The public interest litigation instituted by the
          contemner lacks bona fide and, in fact, was instituted
8
          at the behest of a rival industrial group which was
          interested in banning of the activity of mining and
          manufacturing of asbestos and its products by
          obtaining certain orders and directions from this
          Court. A definite attempt was made by the
c         contemners to secure a ban on these activities with
          ultimate intention of increasing the demand of cast
          and ductile iron products as it has come on record
          that they are some of the suitable substitutes for
          asbestos. Thus, it was litigation initiated with ulterior
D         motive of causing industrial imbalance and financial
          loss to the industry of asbestos through the process
          of court.

          (e) The contemner has also filed petitions and
E         affidavits either with incorrect facts or with facts
          which even to the knowledge of the contemner were
          not true. [Para 3 and 22] [702-B-C; 787-G-H; 788-A-
          H; 789-A-C]

      2.3 The Court has to keep in mind that there is a duty
F upon the courts to eliminate the cause of such litigation.
  The maxim Justitia est duplex, viz., severe puniens, et vere
  praevenniens by its very virtue imposes dual obligation
  upon the Courts of considering various facets of severe
  punishment on the one hand and really and efficiently
G preventing crime on the other, with the ultimate object of
  maintaining the dignity of law. In other words, the Court
  has to balance the quantum of punishment keeping in
  view the seriousness of the offence committed by the
  contemners. Repeated contemptuous behaviour of the
H contemners before the High Court as well as this Court
          KALYANESHWARI v. U.0.1. & ORS.                 779


certainly needs to be deprecated and punished in                A
accordance with law. Even if somewhat liberal view were
to be taken still it is the duty of this Court to ensure that
such unscrupulous and undesirable public interest
litigation be not instituted in the Courts of law so as to
waste the valuable time of the Courts as well as preserve       B
the faith of the public in the justice delivery system. [Para
23) [789-D-F]

     2.4 The contemners when asked to address the
quantum of sentence, again tendered an apology but
none of the contemptuous behaviour spelled out in the           C
order dated 21st January, 2011 was denied by the
contemners at any stage of the proceedings or even in
their reply affidavit to the show cause notice. Having
given due consideration to all the relevant factors and
behaviour of the contemners, the contemners are liable          D
to be punished for their offensive and contemptuous
behaviour which has undermined the dignity of the
Courts of law and justice administration system as well
as prejudicially affected the rights of third parties who, in
fact, were not even impleaded as parties in the public          E
interest petitions. They have squandered the valuable
time of this Court which could have been devoted more
fruitfully in dealing with the pending cases and matters
of greater urgency and importance. [Paras 24 and 25)
[789-G-H; 790-A-C]                                              F

    2.5 The contemner is awarded sentence of simple
imprisonment till rising of this Court. A sentence of fine
of Rs.2,000/- is also imposed on the. contemners, to be
paid within one week from today. In default, he would           G
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
A cost of Rs.1,00,000/- is imposed upon the contemners
to be paid to the S.C. Legal Services Committee. The
Registrar of Societies, Government of NCT of Delhi is
directed to take action against the contemner-society in        H
    780       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A accordance with law and submit its action-taken report,
  interim or final, to this Court within six weeks from today.
  [Para 26) [790-D-G]

                       Case Law Reference:
B         [2002) 1 Suppl. SCR 524       Referred to.     Para 6
          (1970) 3 sec 98               Referred to.     Para 10
          [1955) SCR 757                Referred to.     Para 11

c         [1984) 3 SCR 833              Relied on.       Para 12
          [1991) 3SCR 312               Referred to.     Para 13
          [1995) 1 SCR 626              Referred to.     Para 16
          AIR 2005 Guj 203              Referred to.     Para 17
D
          (1980) 3 sec 311              Referred to.     Para 21
          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Suo Motu Contempt
    Petition In Writ Petition (C) No. 260 of 2004.

E         Ashish Mohan, K.K. Mohan for the Petitioner.

      H.P. Raval, Mohan Parasaran, ASG, Harish Chandra,
  S.W.A. Qadri, Rekha Pandey, S.S. Rawat, Mukesh Verma,
  Saima Bakshi, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, D.K. Thakur, C.K.
F Sharma, Anil Katiyar, A.K. Sharma, D.S. Mehra for the
  Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. In our detailed order dated
G 21st January, 2011, besides disposing of the Writ Petition No.
  260 of 2004 with the directions as contained in paragraph 16
  of that order, we noticed the contemptuous behaviour of the
  petitioner NGO and its officials and had issued show-cause
  notice to the petitioner Kalyaneshwari and its Secretary Shri
H B.K. Sharma, in his personal capacity, which reads as under:
          KALYANESHWARI v. U.0.1. & ORS.                     781
             [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
    "Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, particularly,   A
    B.K. Sharma, we hereby issue notice to him as well as the
    petitioner to show cause why proceedings under the
    Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against them
    and/or in addition/alternative, why exemplary cost be not
    imposed upon them. Further, we also call upon the               s
    petitioner to show cause why the Registrar, Government
    of NCT, Delhi be not directed to take action against them
    in accordance with law."

      2. In response to this show-cause notice, Shri B.K. Sharma
had filed a response affidavit dated 22nd March, 2011 on behalf C
of Kalyaneshwari as well as himself. This is a very short affidavit
of seven paragraphs in which the petitioner has rendered his
unconditional apology and prayed before this Court not to
initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
He further prayed to discharge the notice of contempt and drop D
proceedings for imposition of cost and revocation of license
and registration of the NGO Kalayneshwari. Relevant portion
of the said affidavit reads as under:
    "2. THAT deponent herein tenders his unconditional              E
    apology to this Hon'ble Court with folded hands concerning
    all actions in respect of which this Hon'ble Court has been
    pleased to issue Show Cause Notice as to why
    proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be
    not initiated against the Petitioner and the deponent herein    F
    and further as to why exemplary costs be not imposed
    upon them and their license be not cancelled/revoked.

    3. THAT deponent herein unconditionally withdraws each
    and every averment and allegation made by the Petitioner
    in respect of the Judgment of the Hon'ble high Court of G
    Gujarat dated 9.12.2004 passed in Special Civil
    Application Nos. 14460, 14813 and 14819 of 2004 titled
    B.K. Sharma v. Union of India and others reported in AIR
    2005 Gujarat Page 203. Petitioner further withdraws all
    such pleadings made in this regard in the affidavit filed by H
    782      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 6 S.C.R.

A         the petitioner through deponent in response to the order
          dated 13.8.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Court as well as
          all the consequent proceedings."

         3. There is no doubt that at the very initial stage, the
    respondents have tendered apology and prayed for dropping
8
    of the contempt proceedings. We are not quite certain as to
    the bona fide and intent of the respondents in tendering such
    an apology. For a Court to accept the apology in a contempt
    action, it is required that such apology should be bona fide and
    in actual repentance of the conduct which invited initiation of
C   contempt proceedings. Furthermore, the conduct should be
    such which can be ignored without compromising the dignity
    of the Court. 'Contempt' is disorderly conduct of a contemner
    causing serious damage to the institution of justice
    administration. Such conduct, with reference to its adverse
D   effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified into
    two categories: one which has a transient effect on the system
    and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither away by the
    passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to
    the institution and administration of justice. The latter conduct
E   would normally be unforgivable.

       4. Institutional tolerance which the judiciary possesses,
  keeping in mind the larger interest of the public and
  administration of justice, should not be misunderstood as
F weakness of the system. Maintaining the magnanimity of law
  is the linchpin to the wheels of justice. Therefore, in certain
  cases, it would be inevitable for the Court to take recourse to
  rigours of the statute.
       5. It is the seriousness of the irresponsible acts of the
G contemners and the degree of harm caused to the institution
  and administration of justice which would decisively determine
  the course which the Court should adopt, i.e. either drop the
  contempt proceedings or continue proceedings against the
  contemner in accordance with law.
H
            KALYANESHWARI v. U.0.1. & ORS.                        783
               [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
        6. The apology tendered even at the outset of proceedings         A
  has to be bona fide, should demonstrate repentance and
  sincere regret on the part of the contemner lest the
  administration of justice is permitted to be crudely hampered
 with immunity by the persons involved in the process of litigation
  or otherwise. An apology which lacks bona tides and is                  B
  intended to truncate the process of law with the ulterior motive
  of escaping the likely consequences of such flagrant violation
  of the orders of the Court and disrespect to the administration
  of justice cannot be accepted. In the case of Prem Surana v.
  Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate [(2002) 6 SCC 722]            c
  this Court sternly reprimanded a contemner who had slapped
  the Presiding Officer in open court and held that "the slap on
  the face of the judicial officer is in fact a slap on the face of the
  justice delivery system in the country and as such question of
  acceptance of any apology or an undertaking does not and                0
  cannot arise, neither can there be any question of any leniency
. as regards the .sentence."
       7. The rule of law has to be maintained whatever be the.
 consequences. The 'welfare of people' is the supreme law and
this enunciates adequately the ideal of 'law'. This could only be E
 achieved when justice is administered lawfully, judiciously,
without any fear and without being hampered or throttled by
 unscrupulous elements. The administration of justice is
 dependent upon obedience or execution of the orders of the
 Court. The contemptuous act which interfered with F
 administration of justice on one hand and impinge upon the
dignity of institution of justice on the other, bringing down its
 respect in the eye of the commoner, are acts which may not
-fall in the category of cases where the Court can accept the
 apology of the contemner even if it is tendered at the threshold G
 of the proceedings.
      8. The Black's Law Dictionary (8th edn., 1999) defines
 'Contempt' as, "Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of
 a Court or legislature." It also auds that "Because such conduct
 interferes with the administration of justice, it is punishable."        H
    784       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A        9. This special jurisdiction has to be unquestionably
    invoked when the offending acts are intentional by the
    contemner at the cost of eroding the system of administration
    of justice which practice is necessarily required to be
    deprecated at the very initial stage.
B
       10. In the case of Aligarh Municipal Boardv. Ekka Tonga
  Mazdoor Union [(1970) 3 SCC 98], this Court said that it is
  the seriousness of the irresponsible acts of the conternners and
  the degree of harm caused to the administration of justice which
C would decisively determine whether the matter should be tried
  as a criminal contempt or not.

         11. In the case of M. Y. Shareefv. The Hon'ble Judges of
    the High Court of Nagpur [AIR 1955 SC 19], this Court while
    explaining the requirements of genuine apology held as under:
D
          "45 .....With regard to apology in proceedings for contempt
          of court, it is well-settled that an apology is not a weapon
          of defense to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it
          intended to operate as a universal, panacea, but it is
          intended to be evidence of real contriteness."
E
        12. Similar observations were made by this Court in the
    case of L.D. Jaikwal v. State of UP. [(1984) 3 sec 405],
    wherein this Court held as under:

F         "6. We do not think that merely because the appellant has
          tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence
          and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a
          person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the
          grossest imputations against him has to do, is to go ahead
G         and scandalize him, and later on tender a formal empty
          apology which costs him practically nothing. If such an
          apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an
          exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a "licence"
          to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with
          impunity..... ."
H
             KALYANESHWARI v. U.0.1. & ORS.                        785
                [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
          13. Making of scandalous allegations against the judicial A
    system always needs to be discouraged. Moreover, invoking
    the extraordinary jurisdiction of the constitutional Courts
    allegedly in the name of public interest and using it as a platform
    for lowering the dignity of the institution of justice is an act which
  · besides being contemptuous also is undesirable. This Court, B
    in the case of M.B. Sanghi Advocate v. High Court of Punjab
    & Haryana [(1991) 3 SCC 600], has cautioned against the
    growing tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers
    by disgruntled elements who fail to secure desired orders.
    While observing that it was high time that such tendency is to c
    be nipped in the bud, this Court said, "such causes raise larger
    issues touching the independence of not only the concerned
    Judge, but the entire institution ... It is high time that we realize
    that the much cherished judicial independence has to be
   protected not only from the executive or the legislature, but also
                                                                           0
· ·from those who are an integral part of the system:·

       14. We have referred to the above judgments of this Court
  with an intention to indicate the callous attitude of the
  contemners despite the directions of this Court in paragraph
  16 of its order dated 21st January, 2011. Such contem;:ituous          E
  actions of the contemners have increased with passage of time
  rather than being reduced.

      15. In the present case, Shri B.K. Sharma has certainly
 abused the process of law by filing petitions, under the guise F
 of public interest, against one business rival at the behest of
 another. The writ petition filed by him before this Court was
 obviously filed with the intent of creating impediments in the
 establishment and operation of industrial units dealing with the
 mining, manufacture and production of Asbestos and its G
 products which are carrying out their operations in accordance
 with law and without infringing the rights of any person.
     16. This Court in the case of Consumer Education and
 Research Center v. Union of India [(1995) 3 SCC 42], had
 pronounced a detailed judgment giving directions in relation to         H
    786     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A various matters pertaining to operation of units engaged in
  manufacture and production of asbestos and its products. This
  resulted in presentation of a Bill in this regard by the Central
  Government before the Rajya Sabha. Despite the detailed
  directions already given in the above judgment of this Court and
B introduction of a Bill before the Parliament, Shri B.K. Sharma
  persisted in filing petitions after petitions praying for complete
  ban on manufacture, import and use of asbestos to secure
  unlawful closure of asbestos industry for the purpose of settling
  business rivalry.
c      17. Sh. B.K. Sharma had filed a writ petition before the
  Gujarat High Court titled as B.K. Sharma v. Union of India, [AIR
  2005 Guj 203) in which every attempt was made to prevent
  respondent No.5 in that case, M/s. Sopai Ltd., from completing
  construction of its asbestos production unit and proceeding
D further with any activity. In fact, it was prayed that construction
  raised by them be demolished which was declined by the
  Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court also declined to
  accept the prayer for closure of that asbestos manufacturing
  unit and held in specific terms that the petition had been filed
E at the behest of rival industrial groups and lacks bona fide.

       18. Shri B.K. Sharma, disregarding the fact that this
  judgment of the Gujarat High Court had attained finality on whole
  factual matrix, filed Writ Petition No. 260 of 2004 before this
F Court and tried to brush aside the judgment of the Gu1arat High
  Court stating, "Gujarat High Court had failed to apply its mind".
   Besides making such irresponsible statement against the
  judgment of a constitutional Court, Shri B.K. Sharma miserably
  failed to explain and clarify as to why the present petition was
G filed in face of the judgment of this court in the case of
   Consumer Education and Research Centre (supra).
        19. Shri B.K. Sharma even went to the extent of filing
    incorrect affidavits before this Court and the Court was
    compelled to pass an order on 27th August, 2010 directing him
H
           KALYANESHWARI v. U.0.1. & ORS.                     787
              [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
to explain his conduct in reference to the observations made . A
by the Gujarat High Court in the said judgment.

      20. It was argued before the Court, by several of the
respondents, on different occasions that the whole purpose of
filing the present writ petition was to secure.a ban on mining        8
and manufacture of asbestos which would inevitably result in
increase in the demand of cast and ductile iron products as
they are a suitable substitute for asbestos. ft was, thus, argued
that the petition before the Gujarat High Court as well as this
petition has been filed at the behest of the industrial group         C
engaged in production of cast and ductile iron products.

     21. It is a settled principle of law that contempt is a matter
primarily between the Court and the contemner. The Court has
to take into consideration the behaviour of the contemner,
attendant circumstances and its impact upon the justice delivery      D
system. If the conduct of the contemner is such that it hampers
the justice delivery system as well lowers the dignity of the
Courts, then the Courts are expected to take somewhat
stringent view to prevent further institutiona.1 damage and to
protect the faith of the public in the justice delivery system. In    E
the case of Advocate-General, State of Bihar v. Mis. Madhya
Pradesh Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC 311], this Court took
the view that abuse of the process of court, calculated to hamper
the due course of judicial proceedings or the orderly
administration of justice, is contempt of court. Where the            F
conduct is reprehensible as to warrant condemnation, then the
Court essentially should take such contempt proceedings to
their logical end. There cannot be mercy shown by the Court
at the cost of injury to the institution of justice system.

    22. The respondent-contemners, in their reply-affidavit,          G
have hardly disputed the observations made by this Court in
the show cause notice issued to them. They have only
attempted to tender an unconditional apology for their various
acts and omissions which certainly were prejudicial to the
administration of justice and hav~ even adversely affected the        H
    788         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A rights of the other parties in the disguise of a petition filed in
  public interest. The contemners have abused the process of law
  by instituting various petitions under the garb of 'Public Interest
  Litigation' and have succeeded, at least partially, in damaging
  the asbestos industry in the country. They even withheld the
B facts from the Court which were within their personal knowledge.
  The examination of the factual matrix of the present case and
  conduct of the respondent-contemners, particularly the reply
  filed by them, places it beyond ambiguity that they have
  committed the following acts and omissions intentionally, which
c have undermined the dignity of this Court and the justice
  delivery system:

          (a)    The contemners have abused the process of law
                 to the extent that it impinged upon the dignity of the
                 justice delivery system as well as prejudicially
D                affected the rights of other private parties.

          (b)    The contemners have withheld material facts from
                 the Court which were in their personal knowledge.
                 While withholding such material facts, they have
E                also persisted upon filing petitiuns after petitions in
                 the name of public interest with somewhat similar
                 reliefs.

          (c)    The contemner, B.K. Sharma, has made
                 irresponsible remarks and statements against the
F                Gujarat High Court without any justifiable cause in
                 law.

          (d)    The public interest litigation [Writ Petition (C) No.
                 260 of 2004] instituted by the contemner lacks bona
G                fide and, in fact, was instituted at the behest of a
                 rival industrial group which was interested in
                 banning of the activity of mining and manufacturing
                 of asbestos and its products by obtaining certain
                 orders and directions from this Court. A definite
H                attempt was made by the conternners to secure a
            KALYANESHWARI v. U.0.1. & ORS.                     789
               [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
             ban on these activities with ultimate intention of        A
             increasing the demand of cast and ductile iron
             products as it has come on record that they are
             some of the suitable substitutes for asbestos. Thus,
             it was litigation initiated with ulterior motive of
             causing industrial imbalance and financial loss to        8
             the industry of asbestos through the process of
             court.

      {e)    The contemner has also filed petitions and affidavits
             either with incorrect facts or with facts which even
             to the knowledge of the corrtemner were not true.         C

      23. Despite this, the Court has to keep in mind that there
is a duty upon the courts to eliminate the cause of such litigation.
The maxim Justitia est duplex, viz., severe puniens, et vere
praevenniens by its very virtue imposes dual obligation upon           o
the Courts of considering various facets of severe punishment
on the one hand and really and efficiently preventing crime on
the other, with the ultimate object of maintaining the dignity of
law. In other words, the Court has to balance the quantum of
punishment keeping in view the seriousness of the offence              E
committed by the contemners. Repeated contemptuous
behaviour of the contemners before the Gujarat High Court as
well as this Court certainly needs to be deprecated and
punished in accordance with law. Even if we were to take
somewhat liberal view, s~ill it is the duty of this Court to ensure
                                                                       F
that such unscrupulous and undesirable public interest litigation
be not instituted in the Courts of law so as to waste the valuable
time of the Courts as well as preserve the faith of the public in
the justice delivery system.                  ·

     24. The contemners when asked to address the quantum              G
of sentence, again tendered an apology but no11e of the
contemptuous behaviour spelled out in our order dated 21st
January, 2011 was denied .by the contemners at any stage of
the proceedings or even in their reply affidavit to the show cause
notice.                                                                H
    790       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A       25. Having given our due consideration to all the relevant
  factors and behaviour of the contemners, we have no hesitation
  in holding that the contemners are liable to be punished for their
  offensive and contemptuous behaviour which has undermined
  the dignity of the Courts of law and justice administration system
9 as well as prejudicially affected the rights of third parties who,
  in fact, were not even impleaded as parties in the public interest
  petitions. They have squandered the valuable time of this Court
  which could have been devoted more fruitfully in dealing with
  the pending cases and matters of greater urgency and
C importance.

           26. In these circumstances, we direct as follows:

            (1)   We order and award sentence of simple
                  imprisonment till rising of this Court to the
0                 contemner, Shri B.K. Sharma.

            (2)   We also impose a sentence of fine of Rs.2,000/-
                  on the contemners, to be paid within one week from
                  today. In default, he shall undergo simple
                  imprisonment for a period uf one week.
E
            (3)   Lastly, we impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the
                  contemners to be paid to the S.C. Legal Services
                  Committee.

F           (4)   We also hereby direct the Registrar of Societies,
                  Government of NCT of Delhi to take action against
                  the contemner-society, namely Kalyaneshwari, in
                  accordance with law and submit its action-taken
                  report, interim or final, to this Court within six weeks
                  from today.
G
    N.J.                                               Matter Pending.