The order passed by Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court’s in Prashant Bhushan’s case once again proved the illegalities committed by the smaller Bench of Justice Deepak Gupta.
order passed by Three Judge Bench of Supreme
Court’s in Prashant Bhushan’s case once
again proved the illegalities committed by the smaller Bench of Justice Deepak
"Explanation/apology submitted by Mr. Prashant Bhushan/ Respondent No.1 and Mr. Tarun Tejpal/Respondent No.2, have not been received so far. In case we do not accept the explanation/apology, we will hear the matter. We reserve the order."
abovesaid order is in conformity with the law laid down by the Full Bench in R. K. Anand’s case (2009)
8 SCC 106 , where it is ruled that, when reply
affidavit is filed by the Alleged Contemnor, then court has to examine the explanation
given in the reply affidavit and if court is not satisfied with the explanation,
then Court is bound to pass a reasoned order directing the contemnor to prove his defence. Court cannot
pass final order and punish the
Contemnor without giving reasons for not accepting the defence and without affording an opportunityto the contemnor
to prove his defence . The relevant para reads as under;
“ The principles
of natural Justice apply with greater rigor to contempt proceedings.
208. We find that the submission is not without substance. The proceeding before the High Court was under the Contempt of Courts Act and the High Court was not following any well known and well established format. In that situation it was only fair to give notice to the proceeded to substantiate the pleas taken in the reply affidavit by leading proper evidence. It must, therefore be held that the High Court rejected a material plea raised on behalf of the IU Khan without giving him any opportunity to substantiate it. ”
In striking contrast to above, few months back, a smaller two-Judge Bench
headed by Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta in the case of Re: Vijay Kurle refused to give findings on the Reply Affidavits and
preliminary objections and without following the above guidelines by Full
Benches, and straightaway pronounced the final judgment and convicted two Lawyers and one Human
Rights Activists vide order dated 27.04.2020.
The said unlawful judgment is
challenged in the Writ Petition and by an application for recall of the
judgment. The Petitioner has prayed for an interim compensation of Rs. 5 Crores
to be paid by the Government of India.
Five Judge Bench in Ramesh
Maharaj’s case (1978) 2 WLR 902, had ruled that, if the charge is not
distinctly stated and served upon the Respondents, but it is used against the
alleged contemnor in the order, then it amounts to violation of fundamental
rights of the alleged contemnor and the State is bound to pay him the compensation
for the mistake of a Judge, as the Judge is the Executive arm of the State.