- (1.) In a clash of competing interest in constitutional contours, this case calls to strike a balance between the freedom of speech and expression, a salutary right in a liberal democratic society and paramount countervailing duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. The petitioner had initiated public interest litigation under Art. 32 of the Constitution to direct Sri P. V. Narsinma Rao, the President of Indian National Congress and the former Prime Minister of the country to pay a sum of Rs.8.29 lakhs and odd said to be due to the Union of India for use of India. Air Force aircraft or helicopters from October 1, 1993 to November 30, 1993. When Writ Petition No. 432/95 was posted for hearing on July 17, 1995 before the learned Chief Justice of India and brother Justice S.C. Sen the Solicitor General of India, Shri Dipankar P. Gupta was sent for and the Court directed him to have the averments verified to be correct and directed the petition to be listed after two weeks. On August 7, 1995, the writ petition came before the Bench comprising the learned CJI, Justice S.C. Sen and Justice K. S. Paripoornan. It is not in dispute that the Solicitor General had placed the record before the Court and upon perusal thereof and after hearing the petitioner-in-person, the Bench summarily "dismissed" the writ petition which had triggered the petitioner to file yet another writ petition, this time against the learned Chief Justice of India, Justice A.M. Ahmadi. The Registry raised objections for its maintainability but, at the insistence of the petitioner, it was posted, with office objections, for hearing, as unregistered Writ Petition (C) No. D-17209/95 on January 13, 1996 before a Bench of three learned Judges, viz., Justice J.S. Verma and two of us (Justice N. P. Singh and Justice S.P. Bharucha). The petitioner, again appearing in person, persisted to justify the averments made against the learned CJI. Justice A.M. Ahmadi in the writ petition. Inspite of the Court having pointed out that the averments were scandalous, the proceedings of the Court did indicate that the petitioner reiterated that he "stood by the averments made therein" and sought for declaration (1) that Justice A.M. Ahmadi is unfit to hold the office as Chief Justice of India; (2) that he should be stripped off his citizenship; (3) to direct registration of an FIR against him under various provisions of Indian Penal Code for committing forgery and fraud and under the Prevention of Corruption Act; (4) to direct prosecution of him under the Prevention of Corruption Act; (5) to direct him to defray from his personal pocket the expenses incurred by the petitioner in filing the two writ petitions i.e. W.P. No. 432/95 and the second writ petition; (6) to direct justice A.M. Ahmadi to reimburse from his pocket to the public exchequer the entire loss caused to the State, as a consequence of non-payment of the dues by Sri P. V. Narasimha Rao with interest at 18% per annum and (7) other consequential directions.
(2.) After hearing the petitioner, the Bench dismissed the second writ petition with the order as under : "The several averments in the writ petition are scandalous and it is surprising that the petitioner, who is, said to be Professor in a University, has chosen to draft and file such a writ petition. His understanding of the meaning of Article 32 of the Constitution, is to say the least, preposterous. The allegations made are reckless and disclose irresponsibility on the part of the petitioner. This writ petition is wholly misconceived and is an abuse of the process of the Court. The writ petition has no merit. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. In view of the attitude of the petitioner even at the hearing, when he persisted in this stand and, on our asking him, reiterated that he stood by the scandalous averments made therein, we consider it our duty to issue to the petitioner a notice to show cause why proceedings to punish him for contempt of this Court should not be initiated against him. The Registry to take the necessary steps for registering the matters as a contempt petition. The petitioner who is present-in-person is given notice of the contempt petition. He is required to file his reply within four weeks to show cause why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated against him. We request the learned Solicitor General to assist the Court in this contempt List the matter after notice of the date fixed by Registry is given to Dr. D.C. Saxena and the Solicitor General".
(3.) While dismissing the petition, this Court observed in the later part of the order the petitioner's conduct in his persistence to stand by the scandalous averments made against the learned Chief Justice of India. This Court was constrained to initiate contempt proceedings and enlisted 14 instances which would prima facie constitute contumacious conduct of the petitioner to scandalise the Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner wrote in a newspaper criticising Justice J.S. Verma. Resultantly, Justice J. S. Verma reclused himself from the Bench. Thus the matter was posted before this Bench.;