AARTHY SHANKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a student of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Law College, Chennai and she is the wife of one Mr.Achimuthu Shankar, who is a Senior Assistant (under suspension) at the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption at Chennai. The present writ petition has been filed by her alleging that a witch hunting has been going on against her husband and therefore she has to file a criminal complaint before this Court. However, she is unable to do so in view of the statutory prescription as mandated by Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. As she may not be able to get a sanction from the learned Advocate General, Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act will have to be declared as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Based upon unsubstantiated allegations the petitioner has sought for the following prayer:

(2.) Mr.Manikandanvathan Chettiar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the learned Advocate General, being a representative of a party, cannot be invested with duty of granting sanction. The learned counsel also submitted that the said exercise of power would lead to bias. He further submitted that the petitioner's husband has been hounded and therefore she could get the relief only when Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is declared as ultra vires of the Constitution.

(3.) We do not find any merit, whatsoever, in the writ petition filed. The writ petition has been filed based upon unsubstantiated allegations. It is very unfortunate that allegations have been made against persons holding high office without any basis. The petitioner has not raised any substantial legal ground except bias. It is settled law that a provision of law has to be challenged on the touch stone of Constitution of India. Even in a case, where the facts are established, the resultant inconvenience by itself cannot be a ground to declare a provision of law as unconstitutional. On the contrary, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition based upon unwarranted and baseless allegations. It is unfortunate that instead of seeking remedy against a judicial order if aggrieved, the petitioner has thought fit to file the writ petition before this Court. We also do not find any violation of Article 14 or 21 involved in the impugned provision of law.