NEWDELHI:In alandmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that commissions of inquiry and tribunals, even if headed by sitting apex court judges, have no contempt of court powers. With this judgment, afive-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice R M Lodha dropped contempt of court charges against noted journalist Arun Shourie for his scathing August 13,1990 newspaper article on Justice Kuldip Singh-headed commissions June 22,1990 inquiry report on alleged acts of omission and commission of former Karnataka chief minister Ramakrishna Hegde. Subramanian Swamyon August 23,1990 had initiated contempt of court proceedings against Shourie, alleging that the editorial written by him in anewspaper was ascandalous statement in respect of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court and the judiciary in general. Then CJISabyasachi Mukherjee obtained the opinion of then attorney general Soli J Sorabjee, who on August 27,1990noted that the editorial had prima facie overstepped the limits of permissible criticism and the law of contempt. Sorabjee had suggested that an explanation be sought from Shourie. On September 3,1990,the SC sought response from him on the suo motu contempt proceedings as well as on Swamys petition. The matter remained dormant for eight years. On August 25, 1998,athree-judge bench referred the matter to aconstitution bench, which examined whether aSupreme Court judge carried contempt powers and jurisdiction of the apex court while heading a commission of inquiry. A bench of Justices Lodha, A R Dave, S J Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra and S K Singh did not waste time on deciding the question whether truth was adefence in contempt of court proceedings as Parliament has already amended the contempt of court proceedings providing for this argument to contemnors. However, it discussed in detail the issue relating to asitting judge of high court or Supreme Court heading acommission of inquiry and his contempt powers. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Lodha agreed with then solicitor general Mohan Prasaran that merely because a commission of inquiry was headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, it did not become an extended arm of the court. It was merely afact finding body meant to help the government to decide the course of action to be followed, he had said. The bench said, Such commission is not required to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has no adjudicatory functions. The government is not bound to accept its recommendations or act upon its findings. The mere fact that the procedure adopted by the commission is of alegal character and it has the power to administer oath will not clothe it with the status of court. That being so, in our view, the commission appointed under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952is not a court for the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act even though it is headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge. Though his petition was dismissed, Swamy tweeted, Ihave let Arun Shourie off the hook in not pursuing the contempt case against him of 1988in the Hegde matter. So SC today disposed it off.
Posted on: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 05:04:42 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015