Holding

The Court barred Suraz India Trust and its chairman from filing any public‑interest litigation and imposed exemplary costs of Rs 25 lakhs for abuse of the judicial process.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by Suraz India Trust, which had repeatedly approached the Court with 64 public‑interest litigations and several contempt petitions, none of which resulted in any relief. The Court found that the Trust’s actions amounted to an abuse of the judicial process, wasting valuable judicial time and targeting judges and court officials with baseless allegations. Consequently, the Court barred the Trust and its chairman, Rajiv Daiya, from filing any public‑interest litigation in any court and imposed exemplary costs of Rs 25 lakhs. The order also directed the Trust to record the judgment in all pending matters and to deposit the costs within three months. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s repeated filing of public‑interest litigations and contempt petitions constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Whether the Supreme Court can restrain a party from filing any future public‑interest litigation.
Whether exemplary costs can be imposed for frivolous and vexatious petitions.
Whether the Court has jurisdiction under Article 32 to issue such directions.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 124(4), s. Article 14, s. Article 32
Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968s. Section 3
Right to Information Act, 2005
Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order X Rule 6(1), s. Order XXXVIII

Subjects

abuse of processpublic interest litigationfrivolous petitionscontempt of courtexemplary costsSupreme Court Rulesjudicial timeArticle 32Article 124Section 3 Judges Enquiry Act

Judgment

[2017] 8 S.C.R. 1

SURAZ INDIA TRUST A
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2016)
MAYOl,2017 B

[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI,
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.j
Administration of Justice - Abuse of process of law - C
Misconceived petitions - Petitioner-Trust repeatedly invoked the
jurisdiction of Supreme Court by filing 64 misconceived petitions -
As per record, petitioner did not find any success despite repeated
endeavours - Petitioner took grievance to the highest executive
fanctionaries - It also aired protestation against the officers of the
· Registry of Supreme Court, even filed contempt petition against the D
then Chief Justice and expressed his ire against the other Judges -
Held: The waste of judicial time is a matter of serious concern -
The course of action adopted by the petitioner was not in consonance
with law - Filing of contempt petitions on issues which lacked
justification, highlighted the petitioners misadventures - All such E
misadventures have to be dealt with sternly, so as to prevent abuse
of judicial time - Therefore, petitioner directly or through any
individual refrained absolutely, from filing any cause in public
interest, before any Court of this country - To discourage
. indiscretion of instant nature, cost of Rs.25 lakhs imposed on the
petitioner - Public Interest Litigation. F
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The narration recorded hereinabove, leaves no
room for any doubt, that the petitioner's (Suraz India Trust)
. actions, in repeatedly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, were
clearly uncalled for. In 64 of the cases, when Suraz India Trust G
approached this Court, it did not find ariy success whatsoever,
and not a single direction, ever came to be issued by this Court,
out of its repeated endeavours. No one, who does not understand
the nicety of legal issues, as has been demonstrated by the actions
of Suraz India Trust, can be permitted to endlessly waste Court, H
1. . .
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A time. The different contempt petitions filed by Suraz India Trust,
against a Chief Justice (whilst he was still in office), and against
the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, amongst others,
were wholly groundless, baseless and ill-founded. [Para 231 [30-
A-CI
B 2. The waste of judicial time of this Court, is a matter of
serious concern. The course of action adopted by the petitioner
(despite its alleged, bona fide intention), was not in consonance
with law. When the petitioner did not get the orders that it hoped
for (or, felt it was entitled to), the petitioner pointedly expressed
its anger, towards all and sundry ... and even by name. The
c petitioner took its grievance, to the highest executive
functionaries in this country. The petitioner agitated its claim,
by airing its grievances to the Chief Justice of India and the
Judges of this Court - at their private residences. The petitioner
aired its protestation, even against the Secretary General of the
D Supreme Court. These officers were targeted because they had
filed/lodged matters filed by Suraz India Trust, for the simple
reason, that they were not maintainable. Having considered the
same, the administrative determination by officers of the Registry
of this Court, was fully justified. IPara 24) )30-D-FI
E 3. The posting of a matter filed by the petitioner, by the
then Chief Justice, before a three-Judge Bench, was also a matter
which was unnecessarily agitated repeatedly. Even by filing
contempt petitions against the then Chief Justice himself. Filing
contempt petitions, one after the other, on issues which lacked
justification, also highlighted the Trust's illegitimate
F misadventures. Mr. Rajiv Daiya, appearing for the petitioner
Trust, is an emboldened persona. He has expressed his ire even
against six Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, including its Chief
Justice, and against three Judges of the Supreme Court, besides
its Chief Justice. All these actions of the petitioner were wholly
G unjustified. Mr. Rajiv Daiya did not attempt, to even make the
slightest effort, to reason out the same, or to demonstrate the
veracity of his actions. l:laving gone through the hearing, over a
length of time expressed hereinabove, the least one can say is,
that the petitioner has been seriously remiss, in his judicial
interventions. [Para 251 [30-G-H; 31-A-BI
H
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 3

4. Extremely important matters are taken up for A
consideration on a daily basis, and they lag behind sometimes,
because individuals who were not competent to assist this Court,
. insist without due cause, to be granted a prolonged.bearing.
Hearing is sometimes sought (as in the instant case) even in
matters, which the petitioners themselves are incompetent to B
understand and handle. All such misadventures have to be dealt
with sternly, so as to prevent abuse of judicial time. Specially by
such individuals, who freely cast imaginary and scandalous
accusations, in making out their submissions. [Para 26)[31-B-CI
5. Suraz India Trust cannot be let off without any remedial
consequences, for its filing of misconceived petitions. It is, C
therefore directed that Suraz India Trust shall henceforth refrain
itself absolutely, from filing any cause in public interest, before
any Court in this country. Similarly, Mr. Rajiv Daiya shall
absolutely refrain himself from filing any cause in public interest,
either directly or through any other individual, hereinafter, in any . D
Court. In all pending matters, whether before this Court or
before any other High Court, which may have been initiated by
Suraz India Trust and/or by Mr. Rajiv Daiya, as a cause in public
interest, it shall be imperative for Suraz India Trust/Mr. Rajiv
Daiya, to place the instant judgment/order on the record of the
case, in case the petitioner decides not to withdraw the same E
unilaterally. [Para 27)(31-E-F[
6. For the judicial time wasted by Suraz India Trust, it is
considered just and appropriate to impose exemplary costs on it.
This is imperative, as it would discourage, the instant nature of
indiscretion, not only at the hands of Suraz India Trust, but also F
at the ha11ds of other similarly placed individuals, who may have
been emboldened, to adopt the course treaded by Mr. Rajiv Daiya.
The costs imposed on the petitioner are hereby quantified as
Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs only). [Para 281 [31-G-H]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitioll(Civil) No. G-
880 of 2016.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
Raj iv Daiya, Adv. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI l. The application for
permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.
2. When the instant writ petition originally came up for hearing
on27.3.2017, this Court passed the following order:
"1. Mr. Raj iv Daiya has entered appearance on behalf of the
B petitioner. He is not a qualified advocate, but he appears in this
case in-person, on behalf of the Suraz India Trust. in his capacity
as its Chairman. We have had the opportunitv to hear him on
some occasions. In the above view of the matter, the Registry
was required to furnish to this Court, details of all the petitions
filed by Suraz India Trust. In compliance thereof. the same have
c been provided to us. in a separate compilation.
2. One set of the aforesaid compilation has been handed over to
Mr. Dai ya in the Court today. We would request him to respond
to the same. so as to enable us to determine whether he should
be permitted to file petitions in public interest. on account of the
D apparent indication in the compilation furnished to him. that he
has never succeeded in any petition despite the long list of cases
filed on behalf of Suraz India Trust. He may respond, within
four weeks from today.
3. Post of hearing on 24'h April, 2017."
E (emphasis is ours)
3. It is necessary to record, that the details of all the petitions,
filed by Suraz India Trust, were placed on the record of this case, by the
Registry, on the asking of the Chief Justice (in his administrative capacity).
The information had been sought by him, because on earlier occasions,
F petitions filed by Suraz India Trust (-all raising causes in public interest),
were found to be devoid of any merit, and were summarily dismissed. A
brief summary thereof, is being extracted hereunder:
"SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PIL (WRIT) SECTION
G The status of matters filed by Suraz India Trust is given below:
SI. Nature of Date of Relief Sought Status I
No Matter Filing Remarks

1 (i) W.P.(C) 26.3.2009 (a) Direct the respondent Dis missed on
No. Election Commission of 4.5.2009
H 136/2009
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF. INDIA 5
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

India to follow the A
mandatory provisions of
rule 49-B(l) of the
Rules of 1961 meant for
preparation of balloting
unit of voting machine in
the forthcoming MP B
election of 2009
containing such
particulais and such
language which may
enable the Elector to
formally express his
choice by ballot in case c
he decides to refrain
from voting

(ii) R.P.(C) . 19.52009 (a) The order Dismissed on
No. impugned dated4.5.2009 15.9.2009
1041/2009 may kindly be recalled
inW.P.(C)
D
and reviewed, and the
No. written submissions
136/2009 may kindly be

ordered to be taken on
record and the same may
kindly be ordered to be E
treated as part and parcel
of the review petition,
and the notice may
kindly be issued to the
Election Commission as
the onus to prove their
action shift upon .the
F
respondent in view of the
settled proposition of
law laid down ·in the.
cases and as averred
hereinabove in para 6(E),
and the writ petition may G
kindly be ordeiect to be
tagged and adjudicated
with the Writ Petition
No. 161 of 2004 (PUCL
& anr. vs. UOI & anr.)

H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 2 {i) W.P.(C) 4.5.2009 (a) Declare the Dismissed as
No. provisions of rule withdrawn on
241/2009 2(1Xcl, 4(1 ). 5(3), 14.9.2009
5(5XiiJ. 6, 7(IJ(bJ, 9(1).
10(1), 10(2) and 12 of
the Rajasthan Right to
B Information (High Court
& Subordinate Court)
Rules, 2006 as ultra
vims same being
inconsistent with and in
contravention to the
provisions of the Right
c to Information Act, 2005

3 (i) W.P.(C) 25.6.2009 (a) Declare the Dismissed on
No. provisions of Rule 3 of 19.10.2009
280/2009 Order XL of the
Supreme Court Rules,
1966 as ultra-virus same
D being inconsistent with
and in contravention to
the provisions of Article
137 and 145 so also
Article 14 of the
Constitution of India
E
(ii) R.P.(C) 4.11.2009 (a) The order Dismissed on
No. impugned dated 2.2.2010
884/2010 19.10.2009 may kindly
In W.P.(C) \ be recalled and
No. reviewed, and the writ
280/2009 Id petition may kindly be •
F adjudicated on merits
and demerits of the case
•
after hearing both the
parties

4 (i) W.P.(C) 19.9.2009 (a) Quash and set Dismissed on
No. aside the order/circular 10.9.2010
G 439/2009 No. F.20/Judl./2009
dated 5th May, 2009 of
Ld. Registrar (Judi.),
Supreme Court of India,
being violative of Article
14 and 32 of the
H Constitution of India
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 7
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

A
(ii) R.P.(C) 17.9.2010 (a)The Order impugned Dismissed
No.17/2011 dated 10.9.2010 may on 2.2.2011 ·
in W.P.(C) kindly be recalled and
No. reviewed, and the writ
439/2009 petition may kindly be
decided after issuing B
the notice to the
respondent and after
hearing both the parties
~ on the merits and
demerits of the case in·
the interest of justice
5 (i) W.P. (C) 10.9.2009 (a)Declare the section Disposed of c
469 of2009 47 and 128 of the on 6.12.2010
Criminal Procedure
Amendment Act, 1923
as ultra-virus and
unconstitutional
(ii) R.P.(C) 3.1.2011 (a)The order impugned Dismissed
No. dated 6.12.2010 may on 26.4.2011 D
I 030/2011 kindly be recalled and
In W.P.(C) reviewed, and the writ
No. petition may kindly be
469/2009 decided after issuing
the notice to the
respondent and after
E
hearing both the parties
on the merits and
demerits of the case in
the interest ofjustice
(iii) I.A. D. 13.12.2016 (a)The AC may kindly ,Lodged vide
No. 92906 be appointed in light of Order dt.
of2016 the order dt. 6.12.2010 18.l.2017of F
(Applicatio passed by Hon'ble Ld. Registrar
n for Sup re me Court J-I
adjudication
ofPIL
Petition No.
I 0605 of
2015) G
pending
before Delhi
High Court
in W.P. (C)
469/2009

H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A (iv) I.A 6.2.2017 (a) This appeal Pending for
No.4 may kindly be accepted listing
(Appeal by and allowed and the
way of I.A. impugned order dt.
against Ld. 18.1.2017 passed by the
Registrar's Registrar (J-1) may
Order) & kindly be quashed and
B
I.A. No. 5 set aside and the above
(Condonati writ petition may kindly
on of be ordered to be placed
delay) in before the Hon'ble
W.P. (C) Division Court as
469 of provided under the
c 2009 provisions of Sub Rule
(dismissed (I) and (2) of Rule 1 of
matter) Order XXXV llI of the
Supreme Court Rules,
2013 to protect the
fundamental right of the
petitioner enshrined
D under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India and
to meet the ends of
justice
6 (i)W.P. 10.9.2009 (a) Adjudicate the Dismissed on
(C) legal questions raised in 7.1.2013
204/2010 para 3 of the writ
E petition;
(b) Reconsider and
review the law laid down
by 9 Judges Bench
passed in the case of
Supreme Court
Advocate-on-Record
F Association Vs. Union of
India & Ors. (reported in
(1993) 4 sec 441) so
also in the case of
Special Reference No. I
of 1998 (reported in
(1998) 7sec 739);
G
(ii) 4.2.2013 (a) Application for Lodged vide
Application restoration may kindly Ld.
for be accepted and allowed Registrar's
restoration and writ petition may order dated
of Writ kindly be restored to its 23.2.2013
Petition original number
H
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 9
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

(iii) Appeal 1.4.2013 (a) Application may Dismissed on A
a&iinst the kindly be accepted and 3.7.2015
registrar order allowed and writ petition
dated no. 204/2010 may kindly
23.2.2013 be restored.
(IA. No.5)
(iv) Contempt 5.7.2013 (a) to direct the Lodged vide B
Petition (C) D Contemnor to rrnke Ld.
20400/2013 compliance of the orders Registrar's
dated 4.4.2011 and order dated
9.11.2012 27.7.2013
(v) Appeal by 27.8.2013 (a) Appeal may Dismissed on
way of I.A. kindly be accepted and 3.7.2015
a&iinst allowed and the
c
registrar order contempt petition may
dated kindly be posted for
27 .7.2013 (IA preliminary hearing
No.7) before the Hon'ble
Court.
(vi) Contempt 11.7.2014 (a) Direct the Lodgedvide D
petition (C) D Contemnors not to Ld.
22286/2014 interfere with the judicial Registrar's
proceedings of the order dated
Hon'ble Supreme Court 16.8.2014
and · not to obstruct the
administration of iustice; E
(vii) Appeal 27.9.2014 (a) appeal may Dismissed on
byway of!A kindly be accepted and 3.7.2015
a&iinst allowed and the
registrar order contempt petition may
dated kindly be posted for
16.8.2014 preliminary hearing
(I.A No.9) before the Hon'ble F
Court. -
(viii) RP.(C) 27.7.2015 (a) Order Dismissed on
3486/2015 impugned dated 3. 7.2015 15.12.2015
may kindly be recalled
and reviewed, and the
writ petition may kindly G
be restored and be
' adjudicated by a larger
Bench in compliance to
the orders dated 4.42011
and 9.11.2012 passed by
Hon'ble Court.
H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A (ix) 22.1.2016 (a) Direct the Lodged vi de
Contempt respondent Chief Justice Ld
Petition (C) of India, Supreme Court Registrar's
D2868/ of India to make order dated
2016 compliance of the orders 9.2.2016
dated 4.4.2011 and
B 9.l l.2012 in their letter
and soirit.
(x)IANo. 29.2.2016 (a) Appeal may Dismissed on
1 (Appeal kindly be accepted and 20.3.2017
byway of allowed and the
IA. against contempt petition may
Ld. kindly be placed before
c Registrar's the Hon'ble Court as
Order dated provided under the
9.2.2016) provisions of Rule 5 of
along with the Rules of 1975.
application
for the
condonatio
D n ofdelav
7 (i) W.P. 26.5.2015 (a) to declare the Disposed of
(C) Constitution (Ninety on
209/2015 Ninth Amendment) Act, 16.12.2015
2014 and the National
Judicial Appointments
E Commission Act, 2014
being unconstitutional
and ultra vires;
(ii) 18.3.2015 (a) Recalling of the Lodged vi de
Application order dated 12.5.2015 Ld.
for may kind! y be allowed Registrar's
recalling of and the matter may order dated
F order dated kindly be referred to the 4.6.2015
12.5.2015 large bench
(iii) Appeal 9.6.2015 (a) Appeal may Disposed of
byway of kindly be accepted and on 15.7 .2015
I.A. against allowed and the I.A. for
registrar Recalling of Order dated
order dated 12.5.2015 may kindly be
G 4.6.2015 for placed before the
(I.A No.4) Hon'ble Court as
provided under the
provisions of Rule I (2)
of Order XXXVIII of the
Supreme Court Rules,
H 2013
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 11
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

(iv) 3.8.2015 (a) Recalling of Lodged vi de A
App Iication order dated 15.7.2015 Ld.
for may kindly be allowed, Registrar's
recalling of and the matter may order dated
order dated kindly be referred to the 12.8.2015
15.7.2015 larger Bench. Or in the
alternative, the matter
may kindly be placed
B
before the Hon'ble Chief
Justice for constitution
of Bench of of
annrooriate strength.
(v)Appeal 31.8.2015 (a) Appeal may Dismissed on
by way of
!.A. against
kindly be accepted and
allowed and the !.A. for
17.2.2017 c
registrar Recalling of Order dated
order dated 15.7.2015 may kindly be
12.8.2015 for placed before the
{!.A. No.5) Hon'ble Court as
provided under the
provisions of Rule 1(2) D
of Order XXX Vlll of the
Supreme Court, 2013
(vi) R.P. 16.11.2015 (a) The judgement Dismissed on
(C) impugned dated 1.3.2016
83/2016 16.10.2015 may kindly
be recalled and
reviewed, and the matter E
may kindly be referred to
the larger Bench for
deciding the controversy
as to which one of the
two methods i.e.
Constitutional Method
OR Collegium Method F
will · continue after
declaring NJAC /

unconstitutional and
void.

8 (i) W.P. 10.9.2009 (a) Reconsider the Dismissed on
(C) law laid down in the case 10.9.2010 G
303/2010 of K. Veeraswami
(reported in 1991(3)
Judgement Today p.
198) by the larger bench
in the changed
circumstances.
H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A
(ii) R.P. 14.12.2010 (a)Order impugned dated Dismissed
(C) 10.9.2010 may kindly be on
1994/2010 recalled and reviewed, 14.12.2010
and tre writ petition may
kindly be decided after
issuing the notice to the
B respondent and after
hearing both the parties
on the merits and
dem:rits of the case in
the interest of justice.
9 (i) W.P. 22.1.2016 (a)Set aside the order dt. Lodged on
c (C)D.No. 7.1.2013 passed in Writ 2.7.2016
2910of Petition (C) No. 204 of
2016 2010 (Suraz India Trust
versus Union oflndia &
Anotrer) by rectifying
the error ex debito
D justitiae;

(ii) I.A. 22.7.2016 (al)This appeal may I.A. I was
No. I kindly be accepted and lastly listed
(Appeal by allowed and the before the
way of IA impugned order dt. Courton
againstLd. 2.7.2016 passed by the 27.2.2017
E
Registrars Registrar (J-I) may and directed
Order dt. kindly be quashed and to be listed
2.7.2016) set aside and the above on
writ petition may kindly 10.4.2017
be ordered to be placed
before the Hon'ble
F Division Court as
provided under the
provisions of Sub Rule
1(1) of Order XXXVIII
of the Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 to protect
G the fundam:ntal right of
the petitioner enshrined
under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India and
to meet the ends of
justice
H
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 13
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

A
10 (i) W.P. 13.12.2016 (a)Set-aside the order Lodged vide
(C)D. No. dt 1.3 .2016 passed in Orderdt.
41438 of Review Petition (C) 20.1.2017 of
2016 No. 83 of2016 titled Lei. Registrar
Suraz India Trust vs. J-I
Union of India by
rectifying the error ex B
debito iustitiae
11 (i) W.P. 8.2.2016 (a) Direct the Dismissed on
(C) 210 of respondent Union 20.3.2017
2016(Main Law Minister to
matter: abide by the oath
W.P.(C) taken by him and c
295 of further to maintain
2016) and sustain the oath
taken by the
President of India
12 (i) W.P.(C) 20.11.2015 (a) Declare the Listed on
No. provisions of section 20.1.2017.
D
880/2016 3 of the Judges
(Enquiry) Act, 1968 Next date of
as unconstitutional hearing:
and void; the same 27.3.2017 .
being inconsistent
and in contravention ..
- E
to the provisions of
Article 124(4) of the
Constitution oflndia

The matters summarized above, were taken up for hearing, in 64 different
proceedings. The summary extracted hereinabove, affirms the position,
that Suraz India Trust, has not been successful in any matter. F
4. After the hearing of this case on 27.3.20I 7, the instant petition
came up for consideration on 24.4.2017. During the course of hearing
on 24.4.2017, Suraz India Trust was represented by its Chairman, Mr.
Raj iv Daiya. We granted him liberty, to make a voluntary statement to
this Court, if he considered appropriate, that Suraz India Trust would G
· henceforth, not file any petition urging a cause in public interest. This
offer was extended to him, because it prima facie appeared to the Court,.,
that the litigation initiated by the Trust was thoughtless and frivolous.
·We had m~de it clear to Mr. Rajiv Daiya, that in case he made such a
statement, the matter would be closed, and assured him, that no further H
. .
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A consequences would follow. Alternatively, he was asked to file a
response, to establish the bona tides of the Trust. On his desire to file a
reply, he was afforded an opportunity to do so, by 28.4.2017. In fact,
this was the second opportunity granted to him. On the first occasion,
i.e. on 27.3.2017, he was required to file his response, within four weeks.
It is obvious, that there was ample opportunity for the petitioner, to reflect
B
on the liberty granted to it, to obtain advice and counsel, and thereupon,
to take a conscious decision, one way or the other.
5. When the matter was taken up for hearing at 11.30 A.M. today,
Mr. Rajiv Daiya stated, that he would assist this Court, without any
written response. He therefore took a conscious decision, not to adopt
C the course suggested to him, by this Court on 27.3.2017. At the very
outset, it was acknowledged by Mr. Raj iv Daiya, that the factual position
referred to in the compilation furnished to him (as detailed in para 3
above) was correct. While assisting this Court, the petitioner referred
to some documents which had been placed on the record of this case,
D and to other additional documents, which the petitioner furnished to us
during the course of hearing. We accepted all the documents, and agreed
to hear Mr. Daiya.
6. The first letter brought to our notice, dated 20.1.2011, was
addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India to this
E Court. The text of the aforesaid communication.is reproduced below:
"I am directed to forward herewith (in original) a representation
dated 27 .12.20 I0, along with its enclosures, of Shri Raj iv Dai ya,
Chairman, Suraz India Trust, Rajmata Ji Ka Nohra, Near Fateh
Sagar, Jodhpur, received through the President Secretariat, vide
F their letterno. Pl /E/0601110044, dated 6.1.2011, for appropriate
action.
2.lt is requested that the grievances/complaints under reference
may be looked into at the earliest under intimation to the applicant."
It is important to indicate, that through the above correspondence, a
G representation dated 27 .12.20 I 0, filed by Mr. Raj iv Daiya, in his capacity
as Chairman, Suraz India Trust, was forwarded to this Court for
appropriate action. Mr. Rajiv Daiya, also placed reliance on a similar
letter, dated 13.2.2013. The text thereof is also reproduced below:
"I am directed to forward herewith a representation dated
H 5.11.2013 (in original) received from Shri Raj iv Daiya, Chairman,
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 15
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

Suraz India Trust, Raj Mataji Ka Nohra, Near Fateh Sagar, A
Jodhpur, Rajasthan for appropriate action.
2. It is requested that the grievance/complaint under reference
may be looked into and action taken as deemed appropriate under
intimation to the applicant at an early date."
The instant communication was forwarded by the Deputy Secretary to B
the Government of India, to this Court, for appropriate action. The action
sought was based, again on a representation (dated 5.11.2013) filed by
Mr. Rajiv Daiya, Chairman ofSuraz India Trust.
7. It was the pointed contention of Mr. Daiya, that none of the
representations, filed by him, was appropriately dealt with by this Court. C
In order to demonstrate his dissatisfaction, in the manner in which this
Court - on the judicial side, and on the administrative side - by the Registry,
was dealing with his petitions and representations, he invited our attention
to a communication dated 27.12.2010, which he had addressed to the
ChiefJustice of this Court, and to all the then sitting Judges of this Court, D
in his capacity as Chairman, Suraz India Trust. It was pointed out, that
the aforesaid communication was forwarded to the residential addresses
·of Hon 'ble Judges, so as to invite their attention to his complaints, while
they were relatively free, to visualize his grievances and protestation. In
the communication dated 27.12.2010, Suraz India Trust, demanded action
against the Registrar (J)- Shri T. Sivdasan and the Assistant Registrar E
PIL (Writ)- Shri Vimal Jaitely. The first four paragraphs of the instant
communication, narrate the anxiety of Mr. Rajiv Daiya. The same are
reproduced hereinbelow:
"l. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner served a Notice
upon Shri T. Sivadasan, the Registrar (Judicial) and Shri Vimal F
Jaitely, the Assistant Registrar PIL (Writ) on 8.10.2010 through
speed post for contempt of Hon'ble Supreme Court in creating
obstruction in getting justice as well as disrespecting the
proposition oflaw laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of(l) Nilima Priyadarishini vs. State ofBihar (AIR 1987 G
SC 2021); (2) Prem Chand vs. Excise Commissioner, UP (AIR
1963 SC 996); and (3) M.V. Vali Pero vs. Femandeo Lopez
(AIR 1989 SC 2206) as also for initiating criminal prosecution
under Section 210, IPC for making reports maliciously and
contrary to law. A copy of the notice dated 8.10.2010 is enclosed
herewith and marked as Annexure-A. H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 2.That this notice dated 8.10.2010 was served upon Shri T.
Sivadasan and Shri Vimal Jaitely in personal/individual capacity
with a view to bring into their kind notice about their misconduct
and abuse of power and post. The Registrar (Judicial) and
Assistant Registrar PIL (Writ) and while performing their duties
as such, have abused the process of law and have acted in
B
contravention to the provisions of the law of the land, and are
still acting as if they are above the law and they do not have any
faith in the law of the land and our Constitution as well.
3.That even when the notices were served upon both the
authorities in their individual capacity and by name, and it is an
c admitted position that these papers were not sent as a document
under the provisions of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 nor the notices
served upon in personal capacity fall under the category of
documents to be dealt with by the Registry for adjudication after
registering the documents, nor these are papers to be denied to
D accept by the Registry which were sent in personal/individual
capacity just to bring into the kind notice about contravention of
the law. The petitioner thought it proper first to apprise the
Registrar (J) and Assistant Registrar PlL(Writ) themselves about
their errors/mistakes through the aforesaid Notice, so that the
same may be rectified and may not be repeated in future. But
E they have been still acting in contravention to the provisions of
law in returning these notices to the petitioner by letter dated
30.10.2010 (dispatched on 90.11.2010 and received on
12.11.20 l 0) while mentioning therein that the documents received
by post are not entertainable under Order X Rule 6( I) of Supreme
F Court Rules, 1966. Thus.it is height ofabuse of power and post
so also abuse of process of law. A copy of the letter dated
30.10.2010 returning the notices to the petitioner is enclosed
herewith and marked as Annexure-B.
4. That it is also very pertinent to mention here that the petitioner
drawn kind attention ofHon'ble Supreme Court by representation
G dated 2.11.2009 for acting in contravention to the provisions of
the law of the land, but the same was never placed before the
Hon 'ble Chief Justice, so that the petitioner could be provided
proper opportunity to plead the cases pending adjudication. A
copy of the representation dated 2.11.20 I 0 addressed to the ( 1)
H Hon'ble President oflndia; (2) Hon'ble Prime Minister oflndia;
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 17
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

and (3) Hon'ble Chief Justice oflndia is enclosed herewith and A
marked as Annexure-C. The said representation dated 2.11.2009
was forwarded to the Ministry of Law & Justice, wherefrom
the representation sent to the Hon'ble Prime Minister was
forwarded in original to the Registrar (Judicial) for redressal of
the grievances vide communication dated 13.9.2010, and likewise B
the representation addressed to Hon 'ble President of India was
also forwarded in original to the Registrar (Judicial), for redressal
of the grievances vide communication dated 20.9.2010, but all in
vein, because this representation was neither put up before the
Court for taking judicious note of the same nor the same was
placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the administrative C
capacity, and the Registry had sit tight over the said.
representation. The copies of the communications dated
13.9.2010 and 20.9.2010 are enclosed herewith and marked as
Annexure-D and Annexure-E respectively."
(emphasis is ours) D
8. In order to support the impropriety and wrongfulness expressed
in the letter; dated 27.12.2010, Suraz India Trust had appended a number
of enclosures with its above letter (dated 27.12.2010). One of the letters
to which our pointed attention was drawn, had been addressed to Smt.
Pratibha Patil - the then President oflndia. The subject of the aforesaid
communication reveals, that the same was addressed to the President E
of India, besides the Prime Minister of India, and the Chief Justice of
India. This course of action had been adopted, according to the petitioner,
· to draw their attention against the Supreme Court of India, for having
acted in contravention of the law. The opening paragraph of the instant
communication, dated 2.11.2009, depicts the crux of the grievance of F
the Suraz India Trust. The same is reproduced below:
"l. That at the very outset. it is humbly submitted that when a
person violates the provisions of the law of the land. it amounts
to civil/criminal wrong, but when the Courts of law does not
follow the provisions oflaw enacted for adjudication of the matters G
.oflitigants and commits judicial dishonesty. what is the remedy
to such a victim? Nothing can be more serious than such judicial
dishonesty. There are various orders of Courts and Compete"nt
Authorities in the matters of petitioner which are not being
complied with resulting into contempt of Court, but ofno avail."
(emphasis is ours) H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 9. Having understood the tenor and text of the grievances ofSuraz
India Trust, it is also necessary for us to observe, that disparaging remarks
were contained therein, not only with reference to Judges of the
Rajasthan High Court, but also with reference to Judges of this Court.
With reference to the three Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, besides
B the Chief Justice, the views of Suraz India Trust, are contained in
paragraph 9 (of the communication dated 27.12.2010). The same is
essential to understand the tenor of the grievance of the Trust, and is
therefore being extracted hereunder:
"9. That it is humbly submitted that it appears that the Registrar
(Judicial) Shri T. Sivdasan and Assistant Registrar PlL (Writ)
c Shri Vimal Jaitely haw come in rescue ofjudiciary of Rajasthan.
The petitioner has filed a Contempt Petition against the then
Chief Justice of Rajasthan Shri Narayan Roy and three Judges
ofRajasthan High Court which was diarized at Diary no. 28301
of 2010 on dated 7.9.2010. But the same is not being placed
D before the Bench for its adjudication deliberately, and possibility
of rejection of the same on technical grounds by the Registry
cannot be ruled out, even when the contempt is said to be
committed against the Court and it is between the Court and
contemnor. On the one hand, the contempt petition is not being
placed before the appropriate bench for adjudication and on the
E other hand, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur is not issuing
notice even after hearing the matter various times in contempt
petition no. 1/2006 !Rajiv Daiya vs. Umesh Garg & another) nor
the subordinate judiciary (presently pending before the Judge,
Economic Offences. Jodhpur) is getting compliance of summons
(even after the specific orders of High Court in Cr. Misc. Petition
no. 626/2001 Rajiv Daiya vs. State ofRajasthan) which is.lying
pending at the stage where it was in the year 1999, nor anything
is being done from year 2004 in criminal trial initiated on the
complaint of the petitioner side in Cr. Case no. 210/2004 (State
vs. Chandraveer Singh & Ors.) pending before Munsif & Judicial
G Magistrate no. 3, Jodhpur. It can safely be inferred from the
above facts and circumstances that the judiciary ofRajasthan is
in collusion with the Registry of Hon 'ble Supreme Court which
is waiting for end oflitigations filed by the petitioner and pending
adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so that they
H can proceed thereafter in above narrated pending matters and
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 19
.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

pass the orders in these cases according to their whims and A
fancies. Therefore, these matters are almost kept in abeyance
from last so many years, and nothing is being done in these cases.
This corroborates and supports the allegations of the petitioner
against the High Court ofRajasthan and its subordinate judiciary
so also the Registry of Supreme Court which is vehemently B
prejudiced to the petitioner."
(emphasis is ours)
10. Insofar as Judges of this Court are concerned, the position
adopted by Suraz India Trust is apparent from the factual narration
recorded in the first enclosure (to the letter dated 27.12.2010), dated
8.10.20 I0. The instant communication, dated 8.10.20 I 0, was addressed C
to Shri T. Sivdasan, Registrar (Judicial) and Shri Vimal Jaitely, Assistant
- Registrar, PIL (Writ). Suraz India Trust, in the above letter, indicated
the details of various matters in which the Trust has approached this
Court. The remarks with reference to this Court, were recorded in
paragraph 7 thereof, which is reproduced below: D
"7. That the applicant apprehended that he cannot ventilate his
grievance against the Justice Imparting Agency, and therefore,
he was hesitant to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which
is clear from the notice dated 25.2.2009 (annexed with complaint
dated 2.11.2009 at pages 11 to 13), he had made a specific E
submission that he cannot get justice from Hon'ble Supreme
Court, Paras I to 6 of the said notice dated 25.2.2009 are
reproduced hereinunder for ready reference:
"I. That at the very outset, it is humbly submitted that under
the legal framework of the Constitution, the People of India
F
govern themselves through the Functionary of Executive as
per the statutory provisions promulgated under the system as
enshrined in our Constitution, and the judiciary has been
bestowed upon the power to adjudicate the disputes and
controversies brought before it, as per the provisions of law.
The Supreme Court and High Courts under Article 32 and 226 G
vest the right to test the legislative law at the anvil of Chapter
III of the Constitution ofindia under extra ordinary jurisdiction
meaning thereby that the Constitution of India is supreme in
our country, and the Judges and Chief Justice of High Courts
take oath to uphold the Cpnstitution and laws of the land while
entering into their offices. H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A 2. That since the applicant has moved the Mercy Petition to the
Hon'ble President of India when he has experienced time and
again that the higher judicial officers have come in rescue of
lower judicial officers, and the applicant being the victim of
judicature of Rajasthan as he is victim of all the tiers of the
judiciary of Rajasthan which includes the Judicial Magistrate,
B
Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Additional District Judge/District Judge, Dy. Registrar/Addi.
Registrar, Registrar General, High Court Judges including Chief
Justice, and with this view. he has not approached the Hon'ble
Supreme Court because there is every likelihood that now the
c Hon'ble Supreme Court may come in rescue of Judicature of
Rajasthan. To make it more clear your attention is drawn that
there are three Judges presently holding the office in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court who have relation not only from Rajasthan but
from Jodhpur, and as experienced so far by the applicant he has
reason to apprehend that he cannot get justice from Hon'ble
D
Supreme Court. Taking this view into matter, the applicant
considered it appropriate to make a complaint in the form of
Mercy Petition so as to be considered by the Hon'ble President
of India himself being the Appointing and Terminating Authority
and with further view that the applicant would be provided ample
E opportunity of hearing as he has bulky material so as to prove his
contentions by making order for enquiry as was conducted in
the case ofHon'ble Justice ofKolkata High Court Shri Somesh
Mitra, and thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India Shri
K.G. Balakrishnan has recommended his case for impeachment.
F 3.That the applicant has not approached the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on yet another ground that the applicant sought various
information from the Public Information Officer, Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur, wherein there is a non-responding attitude of the
First Appellate Authority under RTI Act. The applicant moved
to the Hon'ble President oflndia so that the record of the High
G Court may be called that may prove the contentions of the
applicant, so as to make out he (sic) of contempt of Hon'ble
Supreme Court with incomplete material in aforementioned
circumstances.
4. That it is out of place to mention here that the applicant has a
H
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 21
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

reasonable apprehension that the Ministry of Law and Justice is A
trying to suppress the complaint of the applicant so as to avoid
enquiry into the matter allowing the applicant to put up the material
on record as a piece of evidence. The applicant has experienced
that higher judicial officers have come in rescue of lower judicial
officers, but it is experience for the first time that the President B
Secretariat so also the Ministry of Law & Justice has come in
rescue of Judiciary which has drafted the bill for making
complaints against the Judges. Whether the action of bringing
the said bill into Parliament is merely an illusion?
5.That the notice of contempt petition upon six Judges of
Rajasthan High Court including the Chief Justice is merely an C
iceberg seen out of the water to your goodself, there is a very
big piece of ice floating beneath the water surface which has
remained unseen and if come into limelight, may prove a
BURNING SCAM of the country and the name of your goodself
may found place in the pages of the historv. Admittedly, neither D
your goodself nor the Ministry of Law and Justice is competent.
to make any interference in the judiciary which is clear from the
order of dismissal dated 5.2.2009. Under such circumstances, it
is in the interest ofjustice that the Mercy Petition dated 29.9.2008
and Complaints dated 14.11.2008 and 22.12.2008 deserves to be
either placed before the Hon 'ble President oflndia for decision E
or in the alternative, the same may be forwarded to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court oflndia which is competent to proceed into the
matter under the provisions ofArticle 129 of the Constitution of
India. In case of any hindrance and obstruction on your part wiH
certainly amount to obstruction in administration of justice and F
punishable for contempt ofHon'ble Supreme Court.
6. That it is a case where the faith of applicant has been Jost in
judiciary/justice imparting agency, and it is the pious duty of the
President Secretariat being the part and parcel of the Parliament
to honour the Sovereign of the Nation 'We the people oflndia'. ·G
Therefore, the Mercy Petition dated 29 .9 .2008, Complaints dated
14.11.2008 and 22.12.2008 may either be put up before the
Hon'ble President of India or in the alternative to forward the
same to the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the recommendation
to place the same before the Bench comprising ofHon'ble Chief
H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 8 S.C.R.

A Justice of India he being the head of the Judiciary for taking
such decisions in light of the law laid down in the case of K.
Veeraswami vs. Union of India by Constitutional Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court (reported in JT 1991 (3) SC 198). If
the applicant still remains unheard, the President Secretariat the
more particularly Your goodself will be solely responsible for the
B
consequences. The concerned abstract of the law laid down in
the case of K. Veeraswami is reproduced for ready reference:-
"Undoubtedly, respect for the judiciary and its public credibility
and dignity has to be maintained in order to ensure respect for
the Judges in public and also for the decisions rendered by the
c Judges... If these things are allowed to go unnoticed it will
create serious inroad on the dignity, respect and credibility and
integrity of the high office which a Judge of the Supreme Court
and of the High Court occupies resulting in the erosion on the
dignity and respect for the high office of the Judges in the
D estimation of the public. As has been suggested by my learned
Brother Shetty, J. that the President is given the power to
appoint the Judges of Supreme Court as well as of the High
Court by warrant under his hand and seal and similarly even
after passing an address by both the Houses of the Parliament
in the manner provided in Article 124, clauses (4) and (5) and
E (sic) placed before the President, a Judge cannot be removed
from his office unless an order to that effect is passed by the
Parliament.... In order to adequately protect a Judge from
frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment the
President will consult the Chief Justice of India who will
F consider all the materials placed before him and tender his
advice to the President for giving sanction to launch prosecution
or for filing FIR against the Judge concerned after being
satisfied in the matter."
(emphasis is ours)
G A perusal of the highlighted portion of the letter reproduced above reveals,
that the Trust had cast serious aspersions against three Judges of the
Rajasthan High Court, besides its Chief Justice. It is also apparent from
the extract reproduced above, that Suraz India Trust had also allegedly
issued notices of contempt, to six Judges of the above High Court, besides
fl its ChiefJustice. This vilification extended to all levels ofjudicial officers
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 23
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

in the State ofRajasthan, including District Judges, Additional District A
Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrates
and Judicial Magistrates. The condemnation of the Trust, included officers
of Rajasthan High Court, including its Registrar General, Additional
Registrars and Deputy Registrars. The Chairman of the Trust had written
the above letter to the then President oflndia, by assuming the position, B
that he did not expect any justice from the Supreme Court, as there
were then, three Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, in this Court. In
this veiled narration, the Trust clearly identified the concerned Judges of
this Court. The denunciation in the above letter, extended even to the
Ministry of Law and Justice, as the Chairman of the Suraz India Trust
felt, that it would rescue the judiciary, by suppressing its complaints. C
11. The presentation of Suraz India Trust, during the course of
hearing, through its Chairman - Mr. Raj iv Daiya, was indeed disturbing,
in view of the insinuations levelled not only against six Judges of the
Rajasthan High Court, besides its Chief Justice, but also against three
Judges of this Court, besides its Chief Justice. Mr. Raj iv Daiya was D
very candid in explaining to this Court, that the factual position depicted
in the latter part of the above Jetter (which has been extracted
hereinabove), was indeed the truth, and emerged out of his actual and
personal experiences.
12. In order to demonstrate, the truthfulness of the position E
expressed in the foregoing paragraph, Mr. Daiya placed reliance on an
order passed by this Court, in Suraz India Trust vs. Union oflndia (Writ
Petition (C) no. 204 of2010), wherein, a two-Judge Division Bench of
this Court inter alia observed in its motion-Bench order dated 4.4.2011,
as under:
F
"13. At this juncture, Mr. Ganguli as well as Mr. Vahanvati have
submitted that even at the stage of preliminary hearing for
admission of the petition, the matter requires to be heard by a
larger Bench as this matter has earlier been dealt with by a
three Judges Bench and involves very complicated legal issues."
G
(emphasis is ours)
It was the submission of Mr. Daiya, that the Division Bench dealing with
the above writ petition, filed by Suraz India Trust, had framed ten important
issues for adjudication, on the subject of appointment of Judges under
Article 124(2) of the Constitution oflndia. It was submitted, that given H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A the importance of the issues framed, the two-Judge Division Bench which
had heard the matter, had expressed the view, that the matter required
to be heard by a larger Bench. It was also pointed out during the course
of hearing (as was indicated in the order, itself), that the matter had
earlier been heard by a three-Judge Bench. It was submitted, that when
the same case came up for hearing on 9.11.2012, it was placed before a
B
three-Judge Bench (including, the then Chief Justice oflndia). Noticing
the fact, that in the earlier order dated 4.4.2011, the writ petition had
been referred to a larger Bench (see, order extracted above), the Bench
hearing the matter on 9.11.2012, directed the files of the case to be
placed before the Chief Justice, for appropriate orders. It was the
c submission of Mr. Daiya, that the earlier judgments, on the issue, were
rendered by a Bench of nine Judges, and accordingly, in tenns of the
order passed by the Division Bench on 4.4.2011, it ought to have been
placed for consideration, before a still larger Bench. It was the submission
of Mr. Daiya, that despite the above clear position, the Chief Justice,
D exercising his administrative discretion, posted the matter for hearing,
yet again, before a three-Judge Division Bench. It was submitted, that
the three-Judge Bench constituted by the Chief Justice (in furtherance
of the order, dated 4.4.2011 ), heard the matter on 7.1.2013, and dismissed
the same, by passing the following order:
"Having considered the submissions made by Mr. A.K.
E Ganguli, learned senior counsel, with regard to the maintainability
of the writ petition and the prayers made therein, we are not
inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is accordingly
dismissed."
13. It was submitted, on the basis of the factual position recorded
F in the preceding paragraph, that the posting of the case before a three-
Judge Bench, by the then Chief Justice, was in clear disrespect, disregard
and derogation, of the order dated 4.4.2011. It was submitted, that the
writ petition filed by Suraz lndia Trust, wherein, ten important issues
were crystalized for consideration was summarily dismissed on 7.1.2013,
G by the three-Judge Bench. This determination, by the members of the
Division Bench, was attacked by Suraz lndia Trust, as being in disregard
of all nonns oflaw and propriety.
14. It was the submission of Mr. Daiya, that all further aCtions
and endeavours adopted at the behest of the Trust, were stonewalled. It
H was explained, that all these efforts of the Trust were only aimed at
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 25
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

seeking the enforcement of the order dated 4.4.2011. The actions of the A
Trust, as indicated above, included Contempt Petition (C) no. 20400 of
2013, which was filed by Suraz India Trust, against the then Chief Justice
oflndia, as the conternnor. It was pointed out, that the Registry of this
Court unfairly lodged/filed the above contempt petition. The Registry; it
was submitted, was duty bound to place the same for consideration on B
the judicial side. The Trust, therefore filed Contempt Petition (C) no.
22286/2014, against the then Secretary General of this Court, as the
contemnor. It was pointed out, that the above contempt petition was
also unfairly lodged/filed, and was not placed before the Court, for its
. consideration on the judicial side. It was submitted, that repeated
endeavours of Suraz India Trust, on the administrative side, and on its C
judicial side, were treated with abject apathy, and led to prompt rejection,
without any consideration. It was pointed out, that all the efforts of the
Suraz India Trust, were completely devoted to public interest. It was
also the contention of Mr. Daiya, that none of the matters filed before
this Court by Suraz India Trust, was ever decided on merits. It was D
submitted, that on all occasions (while dealing with matters, filed by the
Trust), this Court had expressed the view, that it was not inclined to
entertain the matter, and therefore, rejected the same. It was submitted,
that it was in the above background, that Suraz India Trust had had .to
approach this Court, in all the 64 matters.
15. Mr. Rajiv Daiya while concluding his submissions contended, E
that he should be provided assistance of an amicus curiae, so that, the
true and meaningful efforts ofSuraz India Trust, can be highlighted before
this Court, so that the legitimacy of its causes, can best be appreciated .
. By the time Mr. Daiya concluded his submissions, it was 1.00 P.M. Mr.
Daiya had taken over one and half hours, of this Court's judicial time. F
And at that, of a three-Judge Bench. Having heard him arguing in person,
we were individually satisfied, that Mr. Daiya could express his views
clearly, and could explain his position unambiguously. He could bring out
the nuances of his views, in the manner perceived by him. He could
also project his insinuations, as he understood them, without any difficulty.
After concluding his submissions, as have been noticed above, Mr. Raj iv G·
Daiya made a canny remark - that in his understanding, we were not
inclined to allow him the assistance of an amicus curiae. The above
remark, confirmed to us, that besides his astuteness, he had the ability _to
convey his impressions, without any awkwardness.
H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 8 S.C.R.

A 16. All that can be said is, that he has understood the position in
which he was placed (consequent upon the issuance of the show cause
notice, to him), correctly. Having heard Mr. Daiya at considerable length,
and keeping in mind the manner in which he assisted us, as also, his vast
experience in appearing before Courts at all levels, we are of the view,
B that his request to be provided with a counsel, has necessarily to be
declined. We accordingly decline the same.
17. After we declined the request of Mr. Raj iv Daiya, to be provided
with professional assistance, he made the required undertaking, as a last
ditch effort ... and as a desperate final attempt, that Suraz India Trust
would henceforth, not file any public interest litigation. In other words,
C he desired us to accept the liberty which we had afforded to him, at the
outset, after his long-drawn submissions. Mr. Raj iv Daiya also requested
us, that his statement be so recorded. We have painstakingly narrated
the entire sequence of facts, as they unfolded during the course of
hearing. We also hereby, record his undertaking to this Court, as he
D suggested.
18. We shall now deal with the consequence of the notice issued
to Suraz India Trust, vide our order dated 27.3.2017. Before we venture
to do so, at the cost of repetition, we may note, that Mr. Daiya did not
find any fault, factual or otherwise, with the veracity of the narration
E extracted hereinabove, which was recorded in open Court, in the presence
of a packed Court-hall, where learned counsel were waiting for the tum,
whilst Mr. Daiya merely advanced his submissions.
19. It is also necessary to again notice (though in a different
context), that at the beginning of our consideratioi1, Mr. Raj iv Dai ya had
F made a request to us, to render him assistance, by appointing an amicus
curiae, as he himself was not fully.qualified to pursue the cause raised in
the main writ petition. We have already recorded the reasons of our
rejection, of his request. This aspect, however, requires an examination
from another point of view, because when the petitioner - Suraz India
Trust had approached this court by filing Writ Petition (C) no. 204 of
G 20 I0, this Court had recorded the following observations in respect of
Mr. Rajiv Daiyahimself:
"2. As Mr. Raj iv Daiya, Chairman of the Trust appeared in person
and was not able to render any assistance to the Court. thus. we
requested Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel alongwith
H Mr. Bharat Sangal to assist the Court as amicus curiae. The
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 27
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

petition raises large number of complicated issues. Meanwhile, A
we also sought assistance of the learned Attorney General for
India."
(emphasis is ours)
We find no contradiction in the position expressed above, and the
inference drawn by us. We may only state, that he may not be in a B
position to project complicated questions oflaw, but he certainly had no
difficulty in explaining and clarifying factual issues. In this context, we
find it difficult to comprehend, why the petitioner - Suraz India Trust,
had approached this Court again and again. Mr. Raj iv Daiya personally
represented Suraz India Trust, in all Court proceedings. He was C
individually found to be incompetentto render assistance, on complicated
legal issues. Through the present writ petition, the Trust has prayed for
a declaration, that Section 3 of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968, be held
unconstitutional, being violative ofArticle 124(4) of the Constitution. In
the present writ petition it is also the prayer of the petitioner, that this
Court declare, that the provisions of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 are D
violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution, and as such, the entire enactment
be set aside. Why should a Trust be pursuing such a cause? Even ifthe
prayers made in the petition were to be accepted, who would benefit
threrefrom? One would wonder, whether this petition had been filed
bona-fide? Or, is this petition, a proxy litigation? For the present E
consideration, it is not necessary for us to go into all these questions.
But these are certainly issues of concern, specially when, the same
petitioner has been approaching this Court again and again, always on
complicated legal issues.
20. Before venturing to arrive at an affirmative view, on the show. F
cause notice issued to the petitioner, it is necessary for us to deal with
the submissions advanced by Mr. Daiya, on the basis of the order passed
by this Court, on 4.4.2011. The alleged non-compliance of the above
order, constituted the thrust of his submissions. In the above order, passed
in Writ Petition (C) no. 204 of2010, all that this Court had observed in
paragraph 13 (extracted above) was, that given the importance of the G
issues involved, the case required to be heard by a larger Bench. It was
also noticed, in the same order dated 4.4.2011, that on an earlier occasion,
a three-Judge Bench of this Court had heard the same matter. The
order in question (dated4.4.2011) was passed by a two-Judge Division
Bench: The p~titioner felt, for the reasons expressed above, that-the H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A case needed to have been placed before a Bench of at least eleven-
Judges. We find no justification in the instant inference drawn by Mr.
Daiya. The two-Judge Division Bench, on 4.4.2011, merely required,
that the matter be heard by a larger Bench. Again when the matter was
taken up on 9.11.2012, it was listed before a three-Judge Bench, presided
B over by the Chief Justice, when the following order was passed:
"Since by the order of 4th April, 2011, this matter has been referred
to a larger Bench, let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble
the Chief justice oflndia, for appropriate orders.
In the meantime, notice may issue to the respondent no. I,
c as also to the learned Attorney General for India, who has already
appeared in the matter."
It is not possible for us to infer from the aforesaid order, that there was
any expression of opinion by the Bench {which passed the order dated
9.11.2012), that the matterneeded to be placed before a Bench of eleven-
D Judges {-or, before a Bench comprising of more than three Judges). In
fact, in our view, no definitive position whatsoever, was expressed in the
above order. The only inference, that could legitimately and logically be
drawn from the order dated 9.11.2012 was, that the earlier Bench by its
order dated 4.4.2011 had referred the matter to a larger Bench. The
order dated 4.4.2011 had recorded, that the matter was previously heard
E by a three-Judge Bench. The above indication in the order dated 4.4.2011
would be irrelevant, if the intent expressed through the order dated
4.4.2011, was to be understood in the manner comprehended by Mr.
Raj iv Daiya. It could only have been understood to mean, that the matter
be posted before a three-Judge Bench. Nonetheless, the order dated
F 9.11.2012, required the Chief Justice to take a conscious decision in that
behalf. And accordingly, when the matter was placed before the Chief
Justice for appropriate orders on the administrative side, the then Chief
Justice posted the case for hearing before a three-Judge Bench. This
decision of the Chief Justice was in consonance with the order passed
on 4.4.2011. Since the order dated 4.4.2011, was passed by a two-Judge
G Bench, when the Chief Justice ordered the case to be listed before a
three-Judge Bench, the Chief Justice fully complied with the order of
4.4.2011. The assumption, that the petition ought to have been listed
before an eleven-Judge Bench {-or, before a Bench comprising of more
than three Judges), is a matter of the petitioner's imagination, and is not
H founded on any legal basis.
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 29
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI] .,

21. When the case (Writ Petition (C) no. 204 of2010) was heard A
by the three-Judge Bench on 7.1.2013, the same was dismissed. The
understanding of the petitioner, that the matter was wrongfully placed
before a three-Judge Bench, and thereafter, was wrongfully dismissed
by the three-Judge Bench, obviously lacks any justification (for the reasons
recorded, in the foregoing paragraphs). We are, therefore satisfied, that B
the inferences drawn by .Mr. Raj iv Daiya, were the result of his lack of
maturity and understanding, oflegal issues. The observations recorded
by this Court (on an earlier occasion), that Mr. Daiya was not competent
to assist this Court on legal issues, is therefore, hereb~ endorsed.
22. As recently as in January, 2017, Suraz India Trust filed the
present Writ Petition (C) no. 880 of 2016 incorporating the following C
prayers:
"15. MAIN PRAYER
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that by an appropriate writ, order
or direction, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: D
(a) to declare the provisions of Section 3 of the Judges (Enquiry)
Act, 1968 as unconstitutional and void; the same being inconsistent
and in contravention to the provisions of Article 124(4) of the
Constitution of India;
(b) to struck down the provisions of Section 3 of the Judges E
(Enquiry) Act, 1968 being unconstitutional and against the basic
struc~re of the Constitution;

(c) to declare that provisions of Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 are
in violation to Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia;
(d) to pass any other as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and F
proper in the interest ofjustice in the facts and circumstances of
the present case."
We are, yet again constrained to observe, why should the Trust be
pursuing such a cause? We woulct choose to say no more.
G
23. After Writ Petition (C) no. 204 of2010 was dismissed (-on
7.1.2013), this CoYrt was repeatedly approached by Suraz India Trust,
to assail the order dated 7.1.2013 through a variety ofroutes, including
contempt petitions (fully detailed above), questioning the legitimacy of
listing of the above writ petition for hearing, before a three-Judge Bench.
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A All these challenges were impermissible in law. These challenges
completely lacked jurisdiction. The narration recorded hereinabove,
leaves no room for any doubt, that Suraz India Trust's actions, in
repeatedly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, were clearly uncalled
for. In 64 of the cases, when Suraz India Trust approached this Court,
as per the details indicated above, it did not find any success whatsoever,
B
and not a single direction, ever came to be issued by this Court, out of its
repeated endeavours. No one, who does not understand the nicety of
legal issues, as has been demonstrated by the actions of Suraz India
Trust, can be permitted to endlessly wash: Court time. The different
contempt petitions filed by Suraz India Trust, against a Chief Justice
c (whilst he was still in office), and against the Secretary General of the
Supreme Court, amongst others, were wholly groundless, baseless and
ill-founded.
24. The waste of judicial ti rm: of this Court, is a matter of serious
concern. The course of action adopted by the petitioner (despite its
D alleged, bona fide intention), was not in consonance with law. When the
petitioner did not get the orders that it hoped for (or, felt it was entitled
to), the petitioner pointedly expressed its anger, towards all and sundry ...
and even by name. The petitioner took its grievance, to the highest
executive functionaries in this country. The petitioner agitated its claim,
by airing its grievances to the Chief Justice of India and the Judges of
E
this Court- at their private residences. The petitioner aired its protestation,
even against the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. These officers
were targeted because they had filed/lodged matters filed by Suraz India
Trust, for the simple reason. that they were not maintainable. Having
considered the same, we are satisfied, that the administrative
F determination by officers of the Registry ofthis Court, was fully justified.
25. The posting of a matter filed by the petitioner, by the then
Chief Justice, before a three-Judge Bench, was also a matter which
was unnecessarily agitated repeatedly. Even by filing contempt petitions
against the then Chief Justice himself. Filing contempt petitions, one
G after the other, on issues which lacked justification, also highlighted the
Trust's illegitimate misadventures. Mr. Raj iv Daiya, appearing for the
petitioner Trust, is an emboldened persona. He has expressed his ire
even against six Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, including its Chief
Justice, and against three Judges of the Supreme Court, besides its Chief
Justice. We are of the view, that all these actions of the petitioner, were
H
SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA 31
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI]

wholly unjustified. Mr. Raj iv Daiya did not attempt, to even make the A
slightest effort, to reason out the same, or to demonstrate the veracity of
his actions. Having gone through the hearing, over a length of time
expressed hereinabove, the least we can say is, that the petitioner has
been seriously remiss, in his judicial interventions.
26. Extremely important matters are taken up for consideration B
on a daily basis, and they lag behind sometimes, because individuals who
were not competent to assist this Court, insist without due cause, to be
granted a prolonged hearing. Hearing is sometimes sought (as in the
instant case) even in matters, which the petitioners themselves are
incompetent to understand and handle. All such misadventures have to
be dealt with sternly, so as to prevent abuse ofjudicial time. Specially by C
such individuals, who freely cast imaginary and scandalous accusations,
in making out their submissions. We could have initiated sterner action
against Mr. Raj iv Dai ya, for the position canvassed by him, against the
Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, as also, of this Court. We, have
. restrained ourselves from any strong handed approach, just for once. In D
future, such leniency may not come by. But this order, should be
considered as a warning enough, for the future.
2T It is however not possible for us, to let off Suraz India Trust,
without any remedial consequences, for its filing of misconceived
petitions. We. therefore hereby direct, that Suraz India Trust shall E
henceforth refrain itself absolutely, from filing any cause in public interest,
before any Court in this country. Similarly, Mr. Raj iv Daiya shall absolutely
refrain himself from filing any cause in public interest, either directly or
through any other individual, hereinafter, in any Court. In all pending
matters, whether before this Court or before any other High Court, which
may have been initiated by Suraz India Trust and/or by Mr. Raj iv Daiya, F
as a cause in public interest, it shall be imperative for Suraz India Trust/
Mr. Raj iv Daiya, to place the instant judgment/order on the record of the
case, in case the petitioner decides not to withdraw the same unilaterally.
28. For the judicial time wasted by Suraz India Trust, we consider
it just and appropriate to impose exemplary costs on it. This is imperative, G
as it would discourage, the instant nature of indiscretion, not only at the
hands ofSuraz India Trust, but also at the hands of other similarly placed
individuals, who may have been emboldened, to adopt the course treaded
by Mr. Rajiv Daiya. The costs imposed on the petitioner are hereby
quantified as Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs only). The aforesaid H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R.

A costs shall be deposited by Suraz India Trust, with the Supreme Court
Advocates on Record Welfare Trust, within three months from today.
Failing deposit, the above costs shall be recoverable from Mr. Rajiv
Dai ya, its Chairman, through his personal proceeds, if necessary.
29. In case the petitioner does not deposit the aforesaid cost, within
B the time stipulated hereinabove, the Registry is directed to list the matter,
for recovery of cost.
30. The instant writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms.

Ankit Gyan Writ Petition disposed of.