Holding

A court may summarily punish contempt committed in its presence without issuing a notice under Section 14, as Articles 129 and 142 empower it to protect the dignity of the judiciary in such exceptional circumstances.

Summary

Petitioners filed multiple writ petitions under Article 32 alleging various grievances, but their pleadings were deemed per se contempt of the Supreme Court. During the hearing, they disrupted proceedings, used abusive language, and one petitioner threw a footwear at the judges, all in the presence of senior law officers and the public. The presiding judge summarily held them guilty of criminal contempt in the face of the Court and sentenced them to three months' imprisonment without issuing a notice under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A second judge objected, insisting on compliance with the statutory notice provisions, leading to referral to a three‑judge bench. The bench held that, under Articles 129 and 142, the Court may summarily punish contempt committed in its presence, and that Section 14 does not preclude such summary proceedings in exceptional cases. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with costs, the contempt sentence upheld, bail recalled, and arrest warrants issued.

Issues considered

Whether a court may summarily punish contempt committed in its presence without complying with the notice and hearing requirements of Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether the presiding judge had jurisdiction to pass a summary contempt order under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution.
Whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were per se contempt and liable to be dismissed.
Whether the three‑month imprisonment sentence imposed on the contemnors is valid.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 14(a), s. 14(b), s. 14(c), s. 14(d)

Subjects

contempt of courtsummary contemptArticle 129Article 142Contempt of Courts Actcriminal contemptwrit petitionper se contemptdignity of judiciary

Judgment

(2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 317

LEILA DAVID A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Crl) No. D 22040 of 2008)

OCTOBER 21, 2009
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR, G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 129 and 142 - Contempt in the face of the c
Supreme Court - During the course of hearing, writ petitioners
disrupting court proceedings, using offensive, intemperate
and abusive language - One of the petitioners throwing an
object at Judges - Presiding Judge finding the behaviour of
petitioners as contemptuous, held them guilty of criminal D
-1
contempt of the Court and sentenced them to three months'
imprisonment - The other Judge comprising the Bench being
of the view that petitioners could not have been punished for
contempt without due compliance of s.14 (a) to (d) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, matter referred to 3 Judge Bench -
HELD: The Presiding Judge was well within his jurisdiction in
E
passing a summary order having regard to Articles 129 and
142 of the Constitution - Though s. 14 of the Act contemplates
. ._ +
issuance of notice and an opportunity to contemnors, it does
not preclude the court from taking recourse to summary
proceedings in appropriate case, like the incident of the F
instant nature which took place within the presence and sight
of Judges of the Court, and the public at large and amounted
to contempt in the face of the Court and, as such, required to
be dealt with at the time of incident itself - The procedure
adopted by the Presiding Judge and the sentence imposed G
on contemnors upheld - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 14.

Words and Phrases:

317 H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
,_
318

A Expression "Contempt in the face of the Supreme Court"
\
as occurring in s. 14 of the Contempt of Court Act -
Connotation of.

Writ petitions filed by the petitioners/contemnors
...,
B under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, and the
supporting affidavits were found to have contained
allegations to be per se contempt of the Court. The
petitioners were asked to withdraw the allegations but
r
they refused to do so and stated that they stood by the ')<
)&.
c said averments. Ultimately, contempt proceedings were
initiated against the writ petitioners. On the date fixed
when the hearing commenced, the writ petitioners '1-c
disrupted the proceedings by. using very offensive,
intemperate an~ abusive language at a high pitch. The
Presiding Judge recorded in his order that one of the
D petitioners stated that the Judges should be jailed for r- r.
having initiated the proceedings against them and that
they should be punished for not taking care of their '
fundamental rights; yet, another petitioner went to the
extent of throwing a footwear at the Judges. The
E Presiding Judge recorded that all of this happened in the )=
presence of Solicitor General of India, the other senior law
officers, and a large number of advocates including the
President of the Supreme Court Advocates~n-Record +-'
Association. The behaviour of the petitioners as held by
F the Presiding Judge as contemptuous in the· face of the ~ '
Court. Since the petitioners stood by what they had said
and done.in,th~ Court, the Presiding Judge felt that.there
was no need to issue any further notice, and holding
them guilty of criminal contempt of the Court, inflicted a
G punishment of three month's simple imprisonment on
them 1 • However, the said course of action did not meet
the approval of the other Judge comprising the Bench,
who by a separate order of even date observed that the
writ petitioners could not have been punished for
H '1. (2009) 4 SCR 1171.
LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 319
_,
i
contempt without due compliance with the provisions of A
s.14(1) (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
J
1971. He was of the view that Court's power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India was not meant to
circumvent the statutory requirements. In view of the
difference of opinion as to the procedure to be adopted B
before the petitioners should be found guilty of contempt
of court and sentenced, the matter was directed to be
placed before the Chief Justice of India and a direction
was given that the contemnors would remain in custody
~
till the matter could be heard by an appropriate Bench. The
matter alongwith an application for intervention filed by
c
the Supreme Court Bar Association was ultimately placed
before a three Judge Bench which fixed a date for hearing
and meanwhile enlarged the contemnors on bail. When
the matter was listed before the instant 3 Judge Bench
and the contempt proceedings were taken up for D
consideration, the contemnors refused to make any
submission and insisted that the hearing of the writ
petitions which had already been concluded, be
reopened. The Court requested the Attorney General for
India, the Solicitor General of India and the President of E
the Supreme Court Bar Association to make their
submissions in regard to the two orders on account of
which the matter was referred to the Bench. o·n a
~" subsequent date, an unnumbered application was filed
asking the Bench to recuse itself from the case. However, F
the Bench rejected the prayer. Despite the same, the
contemnors continued to use indecorous, indecent,
slanderous and. offensive language. The Court gave an
opportunity to the writ petitioners/contemnors to redeem
themselves which opportunity they deliberately spurned G
and proceeded to file a fresh writ petition which was
replete with the earlier scandalous remarks and fresh
expletives. The said writ petition was dismissed on
20.8.2009.
H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S,C.R.

,_
"'~
A Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. As far as the first batch of writ petitions filed \
by the contemnors are concerned, the very nature of the
pleadings and the prayers made therein require the same
to be dismissed in limine. The said writ petitions are
B dismissed with cost of Rupees one lac in respect of each
writ petition to be paid by the writ petitioners into ·the
Registry of the Court. [Para 16] (331-C-E]
2.1. As far as the suo motu proceedings for contempt
are concerned, the Presiding Judge was well within his ~
c jurisdiction in passing a summary order, having regard
to the provisions of Articles 129 and 142 of the
Constitution of India. Although, s.14 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, lays down the procedure to be followed
in cases of criminal contempt in the face of the court, it
D does not preclude the court from taking recourse to
summary proceedings when a deliberate and wilful )....

contumacious incident takes place in front of the eyes of
the Judges and the public at large. While, as pointed out
by the other Judge comprising the Bench, it is a statutory
E requirement and a salutary principle that a person should
not be condemned unheard, particularly, in a case
relating to contempt of court involving a summary
'procedure, and shou,ld be· given an opportunity of
showing cause against the action proposed to be taken ~A

F against him/her, there are exceptional circumstances in
which such a procedure may be discarded as being
redundant. The incident, which took place within the
confines of the court room, was witnessed by a large
number of people, and the throwing of the footwear was
G also admitted by the contemnor concerned, who without
expressing any regret for her conduct stood by what she
had done and was supported by the other contemnors . .,.....
In the light of such admission, the summary procedure
followed by the Presiding Judge cannot be faulted. [Para
H 17] [331-F-H; 332-A-C]
• LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 321

2.2. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, A
I deals with contempt in the face of the Supreme Court or ,
the High Court. The expression "Contempt in the face of
the Supreme Court" has been interpreted to mean an
incident taking place within the sight of the Judges and
others present at the time of the incident, who had B
witnessed such incident. [Para 18]

Re.: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584; re: Nand
Lal Balwani (1999) 2 SCC 743; Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of
India and another (1988) 3 sec 255, relied on.
c
2.3. Section 14 no doubt contemplates issuance of
notice and an opportunity to the contemnors to answer
the charges in the notice to satisfy the principles of
natural justice. However, where an incident of the instant
nature takes place within the presence and sight of the D
Judges of the Court, the same amounts to contempt in
the face of the Court and is required to be dealt with at
the time of the incident itself. This is necessary for the
dignity and majesty of the courts to be maintained. [Para
19] [333-D-E] E

2.4. When an object, such as a footwear, is thrown
at the Presiding Officer in a court proceeding, the object
"' .,, is not merely to scandalize or humiliate the Judge, but to
scandalize the institution itself and thereby lower its F
dignity in the eyes of the public. [Para 19] (333-E-F]

2.5. In the instant case, after being given an
opportunity to explain their conduct, not only have the
contemnors shown no remorse for their unseemly
behaviour, but they have gone even further by filing a G
fresh writ petition in which apart from repeating the
•., scandalous remarks made earlier, certain new
dimensions in the use of unseemly and intemperate
'anguage have been resorted to, to further denigrate and
scandalize and over-awe the Court. This is one of such H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A cases where no leniency can be shown as the
contemnors have taken the liberal attitude shown to them ~ "
by the Court as licence for indulging in indecorous
behaviour and making scandalous allegations not only
against the judiciary, but those holding the highest
B positions in the country. The writ proceedings have been
taken in gross abuse of the process of court, with the
deliberate and wilful intention of lowering the image and
dignity not only of the Court and the judiciary, but to vilify
the highest constitutional functionaries. [Para 19] [333-F- 'f
c H; 334-A-B]

2.6. In the circumstances, while agreeinSJ with the
procedure adopted by the Presiding Judge in the facts
of the case, the sentence which has been imposed on the f:
contemnors is not interfered with. The interim order
0 granting bail to the contemnors is recalled. They would lie,
serve out the sentence. [Para 20] [334-C]
Case Law Reference:
(1995) 2 sec 584 relied on Para 10
E
(1999) 2 sec 743 relied on Para 1s·
(1988) 3 sec 255 relied on Para 18
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
F Criminal 0. No. 22040 of 2008.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

WITH

G Crl.M.P.No.12870/2008 in W.P.(Crl.)No.022040/2008,
W.P.(Crl.)No.024281/2008,W.P.(Crl.)No.025985/2008, Suo
Motu Contempt Pet.(Crl.)No.3/2008 in W.P. (Crl.)No.022040/ ,_
2008, Suo Motu· Contempt Pet.(Crl.) No.7/2009, Suo Motu
Contempt Pet.(C)No.225/2008, Suo Motu Contempt
H
--f
( LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 323

• .f
Pet.(C)No.226/2008 in SLP(C) No.9434/2006 and Suo Motu A
Contempt Pet.(C) No. 228/2008 in SLP(Crl) No ........ ./2007
(Crl. M.P. No. 553/2007).

Leila David (Petitioner-in-person), G.E. Vahanvati, AG
(A.C.), Gopal Subramanium, SG, M.N. Krishnamani, Sandeep
B
Narain for the appearing parties.

The Order of the Court was delivered by
Ai(
ORDER
c
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Writ Petition (Crl.) D. No.22040
of 2008 (since renumbered as Writ Petition (Crl.) No.91 of
2008) was filed by one Leila David in this Court on 4th August,
2008, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for
the following reliefs :
-""' D
1. Writ of Mandamus directing the Maharashtra Govt.
to ensure that the Petitioner is able to reside in her
home without any illegal interference, threats,
harassment or visits from the police.
E
2. Writ of Mandamus directing Director of CBI/
Ministry of Home Affairs- organize Interpol
.,._ r protection to Ms. Lydia Desai, Mrs. Priscilla
D'souza and Ms. Rebecca Desai in Australia.
I 3. Writ of Mandamus directing army protection to F
BOSS School members and their families in India,
since all levels of police, politicians and judges are
involved in this Genocide and the situation is set to
escalate.
G
4. Writ of Mandamus directing criminal proceedings
--I and strongest punishment to following judges of
Bombay High Court, for being party to the 1
Genocide:
H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009]': 15 (ADDL.) S.C:H:

A a. R.M.S. Khandeparkar _

b. P.V. Kakade

c. Ranjana Desai

B d. D.B. Bhosale

e. B.H: M_arlap~lle . J __ .
. ,·_.

f. Roshan Dalvi
~; :! r ! ' 1 ~,
c g. D.G. Deshpande

h: V.K. Tahilramani
. t' .

i. Swatanter Kumar - "':' ••. ~ , • _,,.- \ I J
~ --
D j. J.P. Devadhar
:!·. (.:, ' · ' ...
._, ~- t f • '

k. JN Patel·

I. Nishita· Mhatre
- - ~~
. '.
• t"

E 5. Writ of Mandamus directing immediate arrest and
strongest punishment fo" the anu.:soss '.petitioners who
have filed bogus cases, initiate CnatiohWide witch-hunt a
a
and destroyed~· pioneering orgahizatiori" ana:the lives of
brilliant young educationist, only to gairf ~oritrol over their ''
F adult son and .d~ugh_ter.

2. In the meantime; another' Writ· Petition;~- being Writ
Petition '(Crl.) D. No.24281 of2008 (since renumbered as Writ
Petition (Crl.) No.92 of '2008) Was filed by~'orie 'Ms. Annette
Kotian and the same was taken up for consideration along with
G the Writ Petition filed by_ Leila David on 29th August, 2008. At
the outset, this CO!Jrt bbserv~d thar~<?'me. 9:f the; allegations ~-
made in the two writ ·petitions; as "Yell: as in, th~- supporting
affidavits, appeared. prima faCie to be per~:~J- c,q~tempt of this
Court. Although, the petitioners were asked to Withdraw the
H allegations made, they refused to do so and submitted that they
LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 325
[ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

stood by the said averments and strongly urged the Court to A
} issue process to arrest the 12 Judges of the High Court of
Bombay mentioned in prayer (4) to the Writ Petition. In view of
the obstinate stand taken by the petitioners, who were
appearing in person, the Court had no alternative but to issue
notice as to why contempt proceedings should not be issued B
against them. The matters were thereafter directed to be placed
before the appropriate Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Dr.
Justice Arijit Pasayat (as His Lordship then was).
~

3. The said two writ petitions along with a third Writ
Petition, being WP (Crl)' D. No.25985 of 2008, filed by one
c
Pavithra Murali and four Special Leave Petitions were listed
before the Bench presided over by Dr. Justice Pasayat on 10th
September, 2008. While the writ petitioners appeared in
person, the respondents were duly represented by counsel and
after hearing the petitioners, the Court was of the view that the D
show cause reply was equally contumacious and some action
was required to be taken against the petitioners for contempt
cit this Court. Accordingly, the Court initiated proceedings for
contempt and observed that charges would be framed. Since
the wrif petitioners were appearing in person, the Court E
appointed Mr. G.E. Vahanvati (who was then the learned
Solicitor General) to act as amicus curiae, in the matter. The
matters were directed to be listed on 18th November, 2008,
'--1'
with liberty to the petitioners to file any further response if they
wished to by 10th November, 2008. The Special Leave F
Petitions, which had appeared along with the writ petitions,
were de-linRed. The writ petitions and the suo motu contempt
proceedings were taken up for consideration on 20th March,
... 2009. As it appears from the record, when the hearing
' commenced, the writ petitioners disrupted the proceedings by G
using .very offensive, intemperate and abusive language at a
-( high pitch. The order recorded by Dr. Justice Pasayat indicates
that one of the petitioners had gone to the extent of saying that
the Judges should be jailed for having initiated proceedings
against them and that the Judges should be punished for not H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

\
A taking care of their fundamental rights. One of the writ
petitioners, namely, Dr. Sarita Parikh, went to the extent of -\
throwing a footwear at the Judges. His Lordship also recorded
that all this happened in the presence of the learned Solicitor
General of India (now Attorney General for India}, two learned
B Additional Solicitor Generals and a large number of learned
counsel and advocates, including the President of the Supreme
Court Advocates-on-Record Association. Having recorded the
said incidents which had occurred within the sight of the Hon'ble
Judges and the other persons present in Court, Dr. Justice '1'-
c Pasayat held such behaviour to be contemptuous in the face
of the Court. Since the petitioners stood by what they had said
and done in Court, His Lordship felt that there was no need to
issue any notice and holding them to be guilty of criminal
contempt of this Court, inflicted a punishment of three months'
simple imprisonment on them.
D
.,,,,
4. The said course of action did not meet the approval of
the otherlearned Judge, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar
Ganguly, who by a separate order of even date, observed that.
the writ petitioners could not have been punished for contempt
E '-without due compliance with the provisions of Section
14(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. His
Lordship was also of the view that the Court's power under
Article '\42 was not meant to circumvent the statutory
requirementt.. His Lordship, accordingly, observed as follows : +-
F
"Therefore, in this view of the matter, I cannot agree
with the view expressed in the order of His Lordship Justice
Pasayat, for sending the alleged contemnors to prison for
allegedly committing the contempt in the face of the Court
G without following the mandate of the Statute under Section
14. I, therefore, cannot at all agree with His Lordship's
order by which sentence has been imposed. I am of the .,....
view that the liberty of those persons cannot be affected
in this manner without proceeding against them under
Section 14 of the Act. In my opinion Section 14 is in
H
LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 327
[ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

f
consonance with aperson's fundamental right under'A.rticle A
21."

5. Having regard to the difference of opinion as to the
pro~edure to be adopted before the petitioners could be found
guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced, the matter was
directed to be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India
9',
and a direction was given that the contemnors would remain in
custody till the matter could be heard by an appropriate Bench.
~
6. On the same day the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted
a Bench comprising the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal (as c
His Lordship then was), the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi
and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and directed the matter
to be placed before the said Bench on 23.3.2009 at 2.00 p.m.
A direction was also given for production of the contemnors
_,,., before the said Bench on the said date. Pursuant to the said D
order, the matters were duly listed before the said Bench and
were adjourned till 13th April, 2009. In the meantime, the alleged
contemnors were enlarged on bail and the application for
intervention filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association was
allowed. On 15th April, 2009, the matters were released by the E
aforesaid Bench and were subsequently placed before this
Bench.
~ t 7. The matters were thereafter taken up by this Bench on
5th May, 2009, when the Writ Petitions filed by the alleged
contemnors were taken up for consideration for the purpose of F
issuance of notice and were, thereafter, directed to be listed
on 16th July, 2009, at 10.30 a.m. for passing orders. The
contempt proceedings were also directed to be listed for
consideration on that date.
G
...., 8. On 16th July, 2009, when the two differing orders dated
20.3.2009, in the Contempt Pfopeedings were taken up for
consideration, the alleged contenmors refused to make any
submissions and insisted:lba'Mhe hearing of the Writ Petitions,
which had already been cbnclu~ed, be reopened. Having no H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.. R.

A other alternative this Court requested the learned Attorney
General, the learned Solicitor General as well as the President
of the Supreme Court Bar Association to make their
submissions in regard to the two orders on account of which
the matter was referred to this Bench.
B -
9. The learned Attorney General s.upported the view taken ·
by Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and submitted that Section: 14 of~
the Contempt of Courts Act, 197·1, did not preclude the. Court
from deciding the contempt matter summarily when such ~
contempt was committed in the face of the Court. The learned
c Attorney General submitted that while Section 14 provides~a;
procedure to be normally followed so as to give the coritemnors ·
an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed
to be taken, in cases of the instant nature where the incident
had taken place within the precincts of the Court room and ·
D within the sight of_all present therein, inCluding the Hon'ble i-
Judges who constituted the Bench, there could be little
justification in going through the procedure prescribed in
Section 14 in order to establish that the alleged .contemnors
had, in fact, committed contempt of Court. The learned Attorney
E General submitted that the footWear was thrown at the Hcin'ble
Judges within the vision of everyone present in the Court and ·
the very attitude of the aUeged contemnors was not only
demeaning but contumacious as V\(ell anq .calcul.ated to +~
scandalize and lower the image of the Court and the Judiciary ..
F as a whole. Apart.from the above the learned Attorney_ General
also submitted that the language used in the writ 'petitions .arid
the reliefs prayed fqr was also aimed at scandalizing the Court
and debasing the judicial process in. the eyes of the public. It
was urged that the alleged contemnor.s have sca.nt. regard, fpr
G the Courts and the judicial process a'nd were required to be
dealt with firmly in order to uphold the dignity and majesty of
the Courts. 't-
'
10 .. In support of his submissfons the. learnE~d A~~orney'
General referred to several decisions, and, in particular, .that·
H
LEILA DAVID v. STATE ·OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 329
[ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

of a three Judge Bench of this ·court in the case of Vinay A
f-
Chandra Mishra [(1995) 2 SCC 584], which was criminal a
contempt proceeding initiated by this Court on a letter received
from the Acting Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court
alleging highly contumacious conduct on the part of' Shri Vi nay
Chandra Mishra, a Senior Advocate a·nd President ofthe Bar B
and Chairman of the Bar Council of India, which not only tended
to scandalize and over-awe the court, but to lower its dignity in
the eyes of the public. This Court, accordingly, in exercise of
its powers under Article 129 and Article 142 of the Constitution,
s·entenced the contemnor; Vinay Chandra Mishra, to undergo c
simple imprisonment for 6 weeks and also suspended him from
practising as an advocate for a period of 3 years from the date
of the order. The sentence of imprisonment was, however, kept
_., suspended for a period of 4 years with the- ~rovisiol} for
activating the same in case the'contemnor was convicted"for D
-¥
any other offence of contempt of court within the said perio~.
12. The learned Solicitor General and the President of the
Bar Association, while adopting the submissions made by the
learned Attorney General, submitted that the contempt having
been committed·in the face of the-court, following the procedure E
in Section 14 would be redundant, since the incident nad taken
place in full public view and within the view of the Judges and
~ + no other explanation ·could be given with regard to the -said
incident. Furthermore, the contemnors did not show any sign
.. of remorse· or· repentance for their conduet, but continued to F
behave intemperately, throwing all decorum to the winds.
- - .
13. The learned Solicitor General also contended that
despite having been given several opportunities-to purge their
contumacious behaviour, not only had the alleged contemnors G
remained defiant, but they had compounded the offence by filing
~-- a fresh writ petition, wherein, not only were the earlier
statements reiterated, but the Office of the President of India,
the Prime Minister, Attorney General and other high dignitaries
were also scandalized and denigrated. The learned SoliCitor
H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A General submitted that this was not a case where the
contemnors had committed an error unintentionally, but the
actions of the contemnors were deliberate and wilful and were
carried out purposefully. Accordingly, the contemnors did not
deserve any leniency and were required to be dealt with in a
B firm manner. At this stage, we had invited the contemnors.to
make their submissions with regard to the contempt
proceedings taken against them and the submissions made by
the learned Attorney General as well as the Solicitor General
and the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. As
c the contemnors submitted that they required some time to
consider the judgments cited by the Attorney General, the
matter was adjourned.

14.. On 20th August, 2009, when the matter was taken up
once again, an unnumbered application filed in W.P. (Crl.) Diary "
D No.2428/2008 was found on record asking the Bench to recuse ¥-
itself from the present case. For the reasons given in our order
of 20th August, 2009, such prayer was rejected and despite
being given an opportunity to express regret for their
scandalous behaviour, not only Ms. Annette Kotian, one of the
E writ petitioners, but the other contemnors continued to use
indecorous, indecent, slan.derous and offensive language,
. claiming that it was their fundamental right to protect themselves
under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reference was also made +f
to Article 19 and Ms. Kotian submitted that she was addressing
F the Court in keeping with the fundamental, right to free speech
"
guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. Ultimately, Ms.
Kotian speaking for herself and the other contemnors,
contended that since all the orders which had been passed by
this Court violate the fundamental rights of the contemnors, there
G was no need for further submissions to be made in the contempt
matter.
~-
15. Dr. Sarita Parikh submitted that she had thrown the
footwear in order to make the learned Judges sitting on the
Bench aware of her constitutional and fundamental rights which
H
/

LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 331
[ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
she claim~d had been violated. This Bench, therefore, had no A
(
, r option· but to reject the application filed by Ms. Kotian asking
this Bench to recuse itself from the case. On the other hand,
the fresh writ petition which was filed by the contemnors was
taken up for consideration and for the reasons recorded in our
- order of 2oth August, 2009, the same was also dismissed.

16. As far as the first batch of writ petitions filed by the
8

contemnors are concerned, the very nature of the pleadings and
~
the prayers made therein, require the same to be dismissed
in limine. Despite the above, we had given an opportunity to
the writ petitioners/contemnors to redeem themselves, which c
--i opportunity they deliberately spurned and proceeded to file a
fresh writ petition, which, as indicated hereinabove was replete

- ·¥
with the earlier scandalous remarks and fresh expletives. We,
therefore have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions filed
by Leila David, Ms. Annette Kotian and Ms. Pavithra Murali,
with cost of Rs.1 lakh in respect of each writ petition to be paid
D

by the writ petitioners into the Registry of this Court within 12
weeks from date, failing which further action will be taken
against them. As and when such deposits are made, the
--i
Registry shall keep the same in short-term Fixed Deposits E
pending further orders.

17. As far as the suo motu proceedings for contempt are
~ ~ concerned, we are of the view that Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat
was well within his jurisdiction in passing a summary· order, F
I( having regard to the provisions of Articles 129 and 142 of the
Constitution of India. Although, Section 14 of the Contempt of
----.
(
Courts Act, 1971, lays down the procedure to be followed in
cases of criminal contempt in the face of the court, it does not
Olli( preclude the court from taking recourse, to summary
G
• proceedings when a deliberate and wilful contumacious incident
takes place in front of their eyes and the public at large,
~
including Senior Law Officers, such as the Attorney General for
India who was then the Solicitor General of India. While, as
='4c
'
pointed out by Mr. Justice Ganguly, it is a statutory requirement
H
~-
332 SUPREME:COURT'REPORTS [20b9]'::.15·(ADDLf S.C.R.
,:"', ' ...

A and ·a salutaiy principle that.a person should:notbe condemned~
0

unheard; particularly'=in.a caseirelatJngst6 contempt ot Court: _,
invohiing~a. sumrriary~procedure; and.:should be ·given an:
opportunity. of'showing:cause;againstthe .. action proposed to~
be •taken,against~him/her,<'there'. are exceptional circumstances.
B in whith~su'ch =a" procedure maf be discarded -as' being~
redundant..
Q,, . The incident
l'- t r {.
"'•'
which took place
~ .- • r.
I ~
in the court room ·t' ' t -•. ) ~ • C'" ' ' "":'- • ~- > , • .!"'." ,0. - '"' -: ,.

presided ¥~'"!
..
over by
':'J\""":~~
'"'.' •·
Dr." JUstice
; ' •
Pasayat ~
wa·s
•""'.·'"'"·, ·, --r.,. ...
·~1.'
Withiri"the·
·•
confines
~.-. ~ -~- -'l ...,._.~, .. ..._.,,.,.,

of the--court room· and ·was witnessed b_y a large numbe·r of
:""!: • .;;. ?' -~ ·~.;
::'1 ~ "'\ ~
"'.' ·,.. ::-- '- + ~":· • -. '• - ~ ". • ..,
: '!; •'·. '"' '. ·- .!: .. ?" 1 n - t

people and the ·throwing
• _,- ·- • " ": ,. . ••. . . . . . ' ' r.T~, ~·
of the footwear was· also aamttted by~ ~r ~> ~

c Dr. Sarita· Parikh, who :without expressing ·any-regret 'for her
,,J ,- '• ,,.._ '1' '"f '' - ..... ' • ", \

co-nciuct :sto6lf- 'wffatslle by and· supported by had cione., was·
the-'l
.. ~
ottler~'contemnot~:·'
·.:t~•... .... - ....
~~':" .• ,.. ,,.,
~
ln'·fhe~llgh(of
_.., =--. (,. -
~· ......
~.·
's;uch
"': ........
admission;
·-- ...
the·,. . . ~·· ,~ ~

summa~ procedure followed ·byDr:...Justice Pasayat cannot'be
.:Y, 1
. '_,:;. ·- l ~"!'.... t';.. ~ ~ . ...-.. I , f ' ,.. ·~ ' .. ~. ~\ ~
fauUed:~•,.- -· ~ · ··-· '-, --- · .: :. .,..,_· c- ... ·. -·
• • ' "' ')- , - • , "'" " "
'- · •
~-s~ ~ ::.: 1 ()•~ .. ·a,,:. t ~V/ :.; ... ~ ~·. .3.,.. r -·:-~~..~~ ~ --~ ;··1 - •.. .: · .:_; · ... ::.-.:1:·~~ (·
D !;;.-- ; -18. Se'ctiorl' 14 'of the Contemptof'Courts Act, 1971, deals:
with~contempt ·in·~he·face'of':the.iSuprenie CourFor..the. High;
Court~~ifhe· expression 'fContempt·.in:the face:-Of.the!Supreme::
Court:• has'beetr,interpreted,to mean~.an.incident taking ;place.
within'the·sight'of;the,learned Judges and others presentat the"
-E timef'of fhe-.jncrdentr-who had'. witnessed such inciden~: ln~re:
Nand Lal Balwani ((1999) 2 SCC 743], it was:held,that.where.
an Advocate
"~ir. ~~-, ....
shouted slogans and
.,.~•5-
, ..... ...-.• 4r - -
hurled
iP- · "'> ·-
a shoe
,,.,. ..
.-f".'.i•"'•
towards the
"'i'"":·~.
...,,.. · •· • -
Court causing
·:.:~,f:!;;;>~·-· ' -
inte_rterence i '..
with
°'..,,
judicial
~-•L"";. -.
prpceedings
· ., :
and did not ~·,, £ - - ..,. .. • • .- "'1-r< - .,, .• - •.,

even·tender an"apology, ·he would'be·:liable for contempt in-the
-F face.Ef
;::.>'.;. ~
,....
ttie ..lf ..._._
colirt.
ft-'. was·o6served:by
.-, ~
the.Bench of tliree
~"J.-- .,t. - -
~"'
Juage·s· lo-r- " - . ... "' '• •- - ·1 ... '1: P" - ,..,

which heard fhe·
·,, ,_..,'!'.f"'":-7'•~···~
matter
•-?'....,,
that
·1·.·····-. -"1-
•.
'law ·'does
.•.•.,:t! _~
not give- a' lawyer,
r- r···~· '· _,.., "'

UrlSatisfied with the ·resu1t~of·any litigation; iicence to permit
him.~e'fFtfie=iib~'rty.:tifcauslhg?
. ...., ............ ,., ..... lt ..... .: . .,... ~"• ....
dis.respect iorthe -court~or-
~ ~.,. ,'< i:-: , ... ,,..._ ___"'.. l •. ,., '1, . ·.· - . ·-

aftemQtirlg, in'a·n·y'manner,·to"lower the· dignity of the Court·: It·
~G w~faiso obsier\fed,that Codrts;cou'ld
~ [' ,;:- '"' • ..,_)~l r ,.. ~......... r• !'To.",, • ~ ::t . • ,.,
be-·intimidafud info·,
·~ · ~ , ""' ·• ... ,. - "f'
'nof ~ •t .- .. ,,..;_ , . ,. -

pass'ing favourable·· orders: Consequ~ntly/ 'on·· account of his
cbntii·rnatiobs'concfJct; 'tfiis'COurt
.,~,. ~~·.,.,r~:_.,_ ,i ....t .... _ . • .
1 .... ,.~_.,_,_..
sente6ced the 'conJemnor-to· ~I ,.~ ..-- •• ~
7
'1'" I· •. ',,. ""I~-.• .....,·...- . ~,;

sliffer:·four· m9riths simple" impdsdrihient and_ to pay a fin·e of
,,,..._ /" •."· t _r,.il"': ..... , .... _~ • • -'."'"-' r•l> '',p ~.rii'· --.•-4 ,.. •~I "

Rs.2.-000/-.
;...-, ..... ',,. ~··~~-·('\' In another deCisibn ~' ~
of.,,
this Court in Charan
.·~- ... ·_
.-·, ~ . ~.
Lal-~Sahu.-
'H v~ 'Unlod'of India "iind~ariother [{1988) 3 'SCC 255]; a··petition:
LEILA DAVID v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 333
I [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
filed by an experienced advocate of this Court by way of a public A
f interest litigation was couched in unsavoury language and an
intentional attempt was made to indulge in mudslinging against
the advocates, the Supreme Court and other constitutional
,,.. institutions. Many of the allegations made by him were likely to
lower the prestige of the Supreme Court: It was also alleged B
that the Supreme Court had become a constitutional liability
without having control over the illegal acts of the Government.
~
This Court held that the pleadings in the writ petition gave the-
impression that they were clearly intended to denigrate the
Su-preme ·court in the esteem of the people of India: In the facts c
of the case, the petitioner therein was prima facie held to be
- . - ~

guilty of contempt of Court. ~ '-

,., 19. Section 14 of the Contempt of, Courts Act no doubt_
contemplates issuance of notice and an opportunity to the
4' contemnors t6 answer the charges in the notice to satisfy the D·
principles of natural justice. However, where an incident of the
instant nature takes place within the presence and sight of the
learned Judges, the same amounts to contempt in-the face of
the Court and is required to be dealt with at the time of the
inCident itself: This· is necessary for the dignity and majesty of E
the Courts to be maintained. When an object, such as a
footwear, is thrown at the Presiding Officer in a Court
~ + proceeding, the object is not to merely scandalize o-r humiliate
+. L ; < \

l-.-
the Judge, but to ·scandalize the institution itself. . and
-
thereby
lower its dignity in the eyes of the public. In the instant case, F
after being giver,i an. opportunity to explain their conduct, not only
have the contemnors shown no remorse for their unseemly

- behaviour, but they have gone even further by filing a fresh writ
petition in which apart from repeating the scandalous remarks
made earlier, certain new dimensions in the use of unseemly G
and intemperate language have been resorted to to further
denigrate and scandalize and over-awe the Court. This is one
of such cases where no leniency can be shown as the
contemnors have taken the liberal attitude shown to them by
the_.Court as licence for indulging in indecorous behaviour and
--( H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A making scandalous allegations not only against the judiciary, but -\.
those holding the highest positions in the country. The writ
proceedings have been taken in gross abuse of the process
of Court, with the deliberate and wilful intention of lowering the
image and dignity not only of the Court and the judiciary, but to
'
B vilify the highest constitutional functionaries.
20. In such circumstances, while agreeing with the
procedure adopted by Dr. Justjce Pasayat in the facts of this
case, we are not inclined to interfere with the sentence which
has been imposed on the contemnors. The order dated 23rd
c March, 2009, granting bail to the contemnors is hereby recalled.
The Secretary General is directed to take the contemnors into
custody forthwith and to arrange to have them sent to the
appropriate jail to serve out the sentence.

D 21. Let arrest warrants be issued against Leila David and ~
Pavithra Murali, who are not present in Court today, despite our
directions. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, is directed
to take steps to execute the arrest warrants and to take them
into custody and to arrange for their detention in prison in terms
E of the order passed on 20th March, 2009; and the order being
passed today.
22. Let copies of this order be made available to the +~
Registry for communication to the Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai, forthwith.
F
R.P. Matters disposed of.