- (1.) ORDER :- Through this petition, filed on 26/08/1996, the petitioner prays to issue show cause notices to Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 Sri Vayalar Ravi, Sri John. F. Fernandes, Smt. Jayanti Natrajan, Sri S. S. Ahluwalia, Sri S. M. Krishna, Sri Ish Dutt Yadav, Sri Gurudas Das Gupta, Sri M. A. Baby, Mrs. Najma Heptulla, Sri Priya Ranjan Das Munshi, Sri Santosh Mohan Dev, Sri Basudev Acharya, Sri Nirmal Kanti Chatterjee, Sri P. A. Sangama and Sri Surinder Kumar Singla for having criticised on the floor of the Parliament on July 25, 26 and 30, 1996 two of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court, who on 24-7-1996 had issued notices in her Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19386 of 1996 questioning the validity of the appointment of Respondent No. 16 Sri H. D. Deve Gowda as the Prime Minister of the country and had advised him not to appear before this Court and who did not appear before this Court and punish them for committal of contempt of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Records of her writ petition discloses that it was heard on the question of its admission by a Division Bench comprising B. M. Lal, J. (who since 9/07/1997 is the Chief Justice of Patna High Court) and J. S. Sidhu, J. on 24-7-96. Sri U. N. Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India accepted notices on behalf of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the writ petition (Union of India and Secretary to the Govt. of India) and undertook to file counter-affidavit within three weeks. Notices were issued to Respondents Nos. 1 and 4 to the writ petition (Respondent No. 16 herein and the Attorney General of India). The writ petition was directed to be listed on 13-8-1996. The interim prayer for restraining Respondent No. 16 from functioning as the Prime Minister was not granted.2.1. It may be mentioned that on 30/07/1996 the Apex Court considered Civil Misc. Writ Petition filed by one S. P. Anand, similar in nature to one filed by the petitioner, and passed the following order :-"We have heard the petitioner-in-person. We find that the very same issue is being raised from Court to Court and it is, therefore, essential that this Court may examine the question to avoid multiplicity of litigation on the same point. We understand that the High Courts of Delhi and Calcutta have already examined this question but the question is still pending in the High Court of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh. We, therefore, think that to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it is desirable that this Court examines the question so that matters pending in the High Courts may stand concluded one way or the other based on the decision of this Court.Before we decide to issue directions in this petition we would like the Attorney General to assist us in this matter. We direct a notice to go to the Attorney General returnable within four weeks from today. In the meantime, we also direct that all proceedings pending on the question, "whether the present Prime Minister whodoes not happen to be a member of either House of Parliament as alleged by the petitioner can be sworn in and can function as the Prime Minister of this Country", should remain stayed wherever it is pending and any petition raising the same question filed hereafter in any Court in the Country shall not be proceeded with after lodgment till further orders of this Court. Notice to go to the Registrars of all High Courts who will ensure that pending petition, if any, shall remain stayed and fresh petitions if filed shall be dealt with as directed. List this petition after four weeks."2.2. The writ petition filed by S. P. Anand before the Apex Court was finally dismissed after recording elaborate reasons upholding the appointment of Sri H. D. Deve Gowda as Prime Minister vide judgment and order dated 6/11/1996 which stands reported in (1996) 6 SCC 734 : AIR 1997 SC 272.2.3. Thereafter the writ petition of the petitioner was placed before a Division Bench consisting of B. M. Lal and Bhagwan Din, JJ. on 24/02/1997 and the petitioner's husband Sri A. P. N. Giri, Advocate was heard and judgment reserved.2.4. The petitioner on the very day (i.e. 25/02/1997) appeared in person and created a scene resulting into initiation of proceedings in contempt against her and her husband-counsel which, however, were finally dropped by that Bench.2.5. Her writ petition was ultimately dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 11/03/1997 following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in S. P. Anand supra.
(3.) This petition was placed before us on 6/01/1998 for our consideration.3.1. Sri A. P. N. Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very beginning came up with an oral prayer to withdraw certain statements made by the petitioner in regard to the Hon'ble Judges and Parliamentarians and undertook to file an appropriate application. We permitted him to proceed with his arguments keeping his undertaking in mind. We also heard Sri Ravindra Singh, a learned counsel for this Court.3.2. The submissions of Mr. Giri and Mr. Singh were as follows:- (i) Article 121 of the Constitution of India prohibited discussions against the conduct of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. M. Lal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. S. Sidhu, yet from the reports of the Newspapers it is clear that the members of both Houses of Parliament had criticised them. Even though the very opening words of Article 105(1) no doubt talks of freedom of speech of the Parliamentarians but it is subject to the provisions of the Constitution which apparently means subject to Article 121 of the Constitution and the Rules and Standing Orders regulating the procedure of Parliament. Even notice of privilege was served on the President of the Bar Association of the High Court erroneously relying upon the provisions of Article 205 of the Constitution of India when their act was criticised, deprecated and condemned by the Bar Association of the High Court. It is crystal clear that discussion should not have been made in the Parliament in regard to the conduct of the aforementioned Judges which was/is permissible only at the time when a motion is moved for their removal under the provisions of the Judges Enquiry Act. The interpretation of Articles 105 and 121 given by the Supreme Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. A. M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 6 JT (SC) 339 : (1995 AIR SCW 3768) and D. C. Saxena, AIR 1996 SC 2481 that Article 121 of the Constitution puts nail squarely on the projection/prosecution or attempts by an individual or associations to investigate or to interfere into or discussion in regard to the conduct of the Judges or performance of their duty or Court behaviour except as provided under Article 124 of the Constitution was binding on them. Discussion was not permissible in view of the fact that the issues were subjudice before this Court which attempted to interfere with administration of justice of this Court. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in Re-Balwan Singh, (1996) 10 JT (SC) 337 in Re-P. C. Sen, AIR 1970 SC 1821 and E.M.S. Namboodaripad, AIR 1970 SC 2015. Accordingly, contempt of this Court and the Supreme Court was committed by Respondents Nos. 1 to 16 in discussing and criticising the conduct of the two Judges in particular and of the High Court in general. (ii) In view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court rendered through Seven Judges in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : (AIR 1997 SC 1125) the Supreme Court and the High Courts possesspowers of judicial review over legislative acts which is integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting parts of its basic structure and accordingly the Supreme Court and this Court have powers to restrain the members of the Parliament from breaching the express mandate enshrined under Article 121 of the Constitution and in the event of their deliberate violation to take appropriate action under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution and/or under the codified Contempt Law. In State v. Tribhuvan Nath, AIR 1959 Pat 262 it was held that the statement that the particular Judge of the High Court was wrong in directing issuing notice, instead of dropping the proceeding, was held to be contempt of the Court. (iii) The former Prime Minister has committed contempt in not filing counter/show cause pursuant to the notice issued to him in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795. In advising him in not filing show cause and/or not appearing before this Court Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 have also committed contempt. (iv) In our country no one is above law. Even Speaker of Manipur Legislative Assembly Dr. B. Borobabu Singh in (1993) 2 UPLBEC 857 : (AIR 1994 SC 505) was held up for committal of contempt of Court. Similar is the view of the Apex Court in Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 548.3.3. Awaiting filing of the proposed amendment application we reserved our judgment.3.4. Thereafter on 9-1-1998 the petitioner filed an application for deleting certain statements in her petition. She on 9-1-1998 also filed another application seeking impleadment of two newspapers (i) Janmorcha through its Publisher/Editor, 22, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Allahabad and (ii) The Pioneer, through its Publisher/Editor, Allahabad as their reports corroborated her allegations. The petitioner or her husband counsel neither had taken our leave for filing the second application nor was any submission made in their regard during his arguments.3.5. Mr. Singh on 9-1-1998 also filed this written submission.;