G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) Whether respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have wilfully disobeyed order dated 30.9.2007 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18879 of 2007 and thereby made themselves liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Act') read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and whether respondent No.6 is guilty of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the 1971 Act are the questions which arise for determination in this petition filed by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam through its Presidium Chairman Shri E. Madhusudhanan.
(2.) Background facts : 2.1 In an apparent bid to pressurize the Central Government to expedite implementation of Sethu Samudram Project, Democratic Progressive Alliance comprising Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Pattali Makkal Katchi, passed a resolution on 24.9.2007 to resort to total cessation of work and closure of shops on 1.10.2007 and to conduct a general meeting of the leaders of all parties on 30.9.2007 at Chennai. The relevant portions of the resolution are extracted below : "... in order to make understand the fact that the support of the people is only to implement the Sethu Samudram Project expeditiously to the Central Government, it is resolved to conduct total cessation of work and closure of shops on the 1st of October. and to conduct a general meeting of the leaders of all parties on the 30th day of September, at Chennai." 2.2 The petitioner challenged the aforementioned resolution in Writ Petition No.31435 of 2007 filed before Madras High Court and prayed that the call given by the political parties for organizing bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu either on 1.10.2007 or any other day may be declared as violative of Articles 19 and 21 and the Directive Principles of the State Policy and fundamental duties embodied and enumerated in the Constitution of India. Shri Subramania Swamy of Janta Party, Shri K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy (founder Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Social Workers Association, Chennai) and Shri R. Balasubramanian also filed Writ Petition Nos.31478, 31462 and 31631 of 2007 with similar prayers. 2.3 Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed two miscellaneous petitions with the prayer that a direction be issued to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam represented by its President M. Karunanidhi (Respondent No.4 in the contempt petition) to deposit a sum of Rs.100 crore with the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu on or before 28.9.2007 which could be utilized to compensate the damage caused to the general public and the five political parties be restrained from proceeding with the call for bandh in the State in terms of resolution dated 24.9.2007. 2.4 After hearing counsel for the parties, the High Court admitted the writ petitions and issued the following directions to the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, District Collectors and other officers of the State : "(i) To ensure that no political party, organization, association, group or individual can, by organizing 'bandh/hartal' or by force or intimidate, stop or interfere with the road and rail traffic or free movement of the citizens in the State of Tamil Nadu on the day of 'Bandh' i.e. 01.10.2007. (ii) To ensure that the public transport in the State including the Civil Aviation run smoothly on the day of the 'Bandh' i.e. 1.10.2007. (iii) To take appropriate action against the person(s) indulging in stoppage or interference with the road and rail traffic or free movement of the citizens in the State of Tamil Nadu. (iv) Chief Secretary to the Government shall issue a Press Note to the Print Media and also the Electronic Media on 29/30.9.2007 informing about the preparation made by the Police to deal with the 'Bandh' and to make people secured." 2.5 Feeling dissatisfied with the High Court's order, the petitioner filed S.L.P. (C) No. 18879 of 2007 in this Court. The same was heard on 30.9.2007. The counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who volunteered to appear, also made their submissions. After considering the respective submissions, this Court passed a detailed order, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below : "From a bare perusal of the aforesaid decision, it would be clear that neither anybody can give a call for Bandh nor the same can be enforced. The High Court, in the present case, has recorded a, prima facie, finding that, in the present case, the call was given for Bandh and not strike/hartal. Ordinarily, High Court as well as this Court refrains from passing an interim order the effect of which would be granting the main relief. But in cases where a party approaches court without loss of time, there are no laches on its part, it is not possible to give notices to all the necessary parties and hear them because of paucity of time and in case interim order is not passed in a case like the present one, which, prima facie, in the opinion of court is concluded by judgment of this court, the main case would become infructuous, different considerations would arise and appropriate interim order should be passed. In the present case, apart from the State of Tamil Nadu, out of the political parties, namely, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Pattali Makkal Katchi, only Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam has appeared before us, whom we have heard at length. After taking into consideration the entire matter, prima facie, we are also of the view that the call given by the aforesaid political parties is a call for Bandh and not strike/Hartal. Accordingly, we have no option but to issue notices to the non-appearing respondents and pass inferim order. Issue notice. Until further orders, Respondent Nos.3 to 7 are restrained from proceeding with the call for Bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu on 1st October, 2007 pursuant to resolution dated 24th September, 2007 or any other day." 2.6 Even before filing of writ petition by the petitioner, the then Chief Secretary of the State - Shri L.K. Tripathi (respondent No. 1 herein) directed that the concerned officers be asked to take steps necessary for maintaining essential services and for providing protection to important offices and establishments apart from markets and business places. The instructions given by the Chief Secretary were circulated vide telefax No.SR.11/50641/2007 dated 27.9.2007, the relevant portions of which are extracted below :- " 1. Essential services like Telephone and Telecommunication, water supply, milk distribution, power supply, fire services, newspapers, hospitals, shall be ensured to function and protection given. 2. Provide adequate protection to vital installations such as power stations/grids, sub-stations, important Government buildings, telecommunication and bridges, oil installations, railway bridges, etc. 3. Arrange open line patrol with immediate effect. 4. Arrange for regular supply of milk and other essentials. 5. Provide adequate protection to the High Court and other Courts. 6. Action to be taken against anti-social elements and persons indulging in acts of violence and vandalism. 7. A visible police presence shall be maintained throughout the city. 8. A visible bandobast outside railway stations, bus depots, main roads, main junctions, hospitals, courts, schools and colleges will be maintained. 9. Necessary protection to market and business places shall be given. 10. All police control rooms will be fully activated to follow up incident to take proper stern and timely action. 11. Ensure that the 'Hartal' passes off peacefully. 12. Collectors may requisition and spare other department vehicles if required by the District Superintendent of Police. Any incident of law and order and other matters of significance should be informed to Chief Secretary's Control Room Telephone Nos.26571388 and 26570372, followed by FAX-25677128. Bi- hourly report commencing from 0600 hours on 01.10.2007 about the 'Hartal' should be given to Chief Secretary's Control Room even if there is no incident. First Report should commence from 0600 hours on 01.10.2007." 2.7 On coming to know of this Court's order through electronic media, respondent No. 1 directed that telephonic instructions be given to all the Collectors to convene meetings with the respective Superintendents of Police for ensuring that law and order and public tranquillity are maintained. 2.8 The Court's order was officially communicated to respondent No. 1 on the same day i.e., 30.9.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. by fax. The latter immediately forwarded the same to respondent No.2 for taking necessary action. In turn, respondent No.2 directed the concerned police officers that steps should be taken for facilitating unobstructed movement of public transport and maintenance of essential services like water and electricity supply, milk distribution, telephone and telecommunication service, fire service, hospitals and protection be given to Central Government offices, courts, bus stands, railway stations, banks, market places, shops, industrial establishments, etc. These directions were conveyed to Zonal Inspector Generals of Police and Commissioners of Police by Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) vide fax dated 1.10.2007 which was sent between 11.28 p.m. on 30.9.2007 and 6.30 a.m. on 1.10.2007. The contents of that fax are reproduced below :- Date 30.09.2007 "From ADGP (L and O) Chennai-4. To All Zonal IGPs and COPs All unit officers are instructed to strictly follow the following instructions, 1. The Depots Managers of the State Transport Corporation will decide about running the buses subject to availability of crew. Sufficient Bandobust must be provided to all Bus Depots under their jurisdiction. 2. Anyone who obstructs the movement of Public transport should be picked up. 3. Bandobust should be provided to all essential services like Hospital, Electricity, Offices, Bus stands and railway stations etc. 4. Bandobust must be provided to all Central Government offices, Courts and Banks. 5. Beats and Patrol should be provided to all market places, shops and industrial establishments. 6. All anti-social elements should be picked up. 7. Sufficient Bandobust arrangements should be provided at the places where Hunger strike is scheduled to be held. Sd/- D.S.P.C.O.S.R. For ADGP (LandO) Chennai-4 30.9.2007 C.No.D1/17566/IGP/NZ/2007 DATED 1.10.2007 COPY COMMUNICATED TO ALL SsP. AND DIsG. IN NORTH ZONE AND ARE REQUESTED TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AND REPORT COMPLIANCE. Sd/- 1.10.2007 For IGP/NZ/CNI-16" 2.9 The Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department also sent fax No.SR.II/5064-5/2007 dated 1.10.2007 to all the District Collectors at 11.25 a.m. requiring them to send hourly reports to the Chief Secretary's Control Room regarding the law and order situation, movement, transport, functioning of essential services, functioning of schools and colleges, opening of shops, hotels and other public utilities, attendance in Government offices etc.
(3.) On 3.10.2007, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with the 1971 Act and prayed that the respondents be punished for violation and disobedience of the Court's order dated 30.9.2007. The gravamen of the petitioner's allegation is that in complete disregard of the restraint order passed by this Court, the concerned political parties including Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam enforced the bandh in the entire State by ensuring that buses owned by the State Transport Corporation are kept off the road and shops and other business establishments remain closed; that 45,000 private buses were also not allowed to ply on that day; that shops and other business establishments were forcibly closed by the cadres of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party and that the State machinery did not take any action to ensure functioning of public transport system and opening of the shops etc. It is also the petitioner's case that even though 50,000 employees of the State Transport Corporation came forward to carry out their duties but they were prevented from entering the bus depots by the Depot Managers, Supervisor, etc. on the instructions of higher authorities and even the main gates of many bus terminals were closed and locked. To substantiate these allegations, the petitioner has placed on record the photographs collectively marked as Annexure P-5 and the telegrams which are said to have been sent by Shri K.K. Madeswaran, C. Sengottaiyan and M.A. Paneerselvam to Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation, representation made by A.J. Selvaraj, Anna Trade Union Secretary, Radhapuram Taluk. In paragraph 14 of the Contempt Petition, it has been averred that several workers of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party moved in various vantage areas of the State with deadly and lethal weapons to ensure that no business or commercial activity was done on 1.10.2007 and whoever opened the shop was forced to down the shutters. It has been further averred that in Chennai, a restaurant at Arterial Mount Road was attacked and looted and many other shops and restaurants were ransacked and eatables were thrown out and bottles were broken, but the police remained mute spectators. In support of these averments, the petitioner placed on record copies of various newspapers. In paragraph 23, a reference has been made to the speech allegedly made by respondent No.6, Shri T.R. Balu, Union Minister for Shipping and Surface Transport, at the venue of the hunger strike on 1.10.2007 and it has been averred that the same was calculated to scandalize judiciary in general and order dated 30.9.2007 in particular. The relevant portions of the speech allegedly made by respondent No.6, which is said to have been published in the newspapers and also telecast on the television channels are extracted below :- "If we want to conduct a Bandh in a democratic manner to ensure speedy implementation of this Project, the Supreme Court is injuncting the same. Are judgments being delivered correctly in the Courts If that is so, why are higher courts granting stay of orders of lower Courts If Judges are not making mistakes why are there conflicting judgments Today there are many complaints against many Judges. Corruption charges are appearing everyday. What does that mean If they were upright yesterday, does it mean that they are not upright now When was a sitting ever held on a Sunday Unprecedented things are taking place. We are expressing our feelings. How many complaints are received against Judges There is provision in law for impeachment of sitting Judges. The MPs sitting here should also think about it. Nothing wrong about it. Our MPs, including the ministers should know about it. Everyone including the ministers can sign it." ;