Contempt of Court

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

— S. 12 — Contempt by high government officials in their official capacity — Vindication of the rule of law — Minister and Principal Secretary to Minister committing contempt of court (both civil and criminal) — Appropriate punishment for — Exemplary punishment — Need for — Imposition of custodial sentence instead of mere imposition of exemplary costs — Minister and Principal Secretary, Department of Forests, Government of Maharashtra found to have acted brazenly and wilfully in defiance of orders of Supreme Court, by permitting certain sawmills/veneer and plywood industries to recommence operations in State of Maharashtra — Said contemnors also found to have manipulated official record to try and hide their guilt — Held, in this case contemnors deserve severe punishment — This will set an example for those who have a propensity for disregarding court's orders because of their money power, social status or posts held — Exemplary sentences called for — Mere imposition of exemplary costs would not be adequate — Considering the high positions held by the contemnors more stringent punishment is called for, and therefore custodial sentence be imposed — On facts, custodial sentence of one month's SI imposed, (2006) 5 SCC 1-A

Constitution of India

— Arts. 163 & 164 and 74 & 75 — Responsibility of Ministers for action of their Departments — Educational attainment of Minister, and experience in Government and State Affairs — Relevance, (2006) 5 SCC 1-B

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

— Ss. 2(b) and (c) — Nature and scope of contempt jurisdiction — Government officials acting in official capacity — Liability to punishment for contempt of court — Held, it is open to a court as a matter of law to make a finding of contempt against any official of the Government, say, Home Secretary or a Minister — This would be the case even though contempt proceedings against a government department or a Minister in an official capacity would not be either personal or punitive — Reasons for, discussed, (2006) 5 SCC 1-C

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

— S. 2(b) — Implementation of order neither practicable nor feasible, or in opinion of party concerned wrong or against rules — Course open to such party — Held, in such cases party aggrieved should show respect to the court and approach the court rather than disobeying or acting in defiance of such an order, (2006) 5 SCC 1-D

Rule of Law

— Supremacy of the law in constitutional democracy, reiterated and emphasised, (2006) 5 SCC 1-E

Judiciary

— Role of, as guardian of rule of law and hence, democratic society itself, highlighted, (2006) 5 SCC 1-F

Contempt of Court

Generally

— Nature of contempt proceedings — Held, proceedings for contempt are essentially personal and punitive, (2006) 5 SCC 1-G

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

— S. 12 — Apology — When acceptable — Held, if apology is offered at the time when contemnor finds that court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward, (2006) 5 SCC 1-H

Practice and Procedure

Affidavit

— Need for care in filing of (especially before the Supreme Court) — Excuse of typographical mistakes — When unacceptable, (2006) 5 SCC 1-I