Sub-Commitiee on Judicial Accountability v. Justice V. Ramaswamy

Judgment

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 1992. Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Shan,ti Bhushan, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Prashant Bhushan alld A.K. Nigam for the Petitioner. Dipankar Prasad Gupta, Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhashini, K. Swamy an<! M.M. Gangadeb for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered: The 'Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability', a group of members of the leg<i! profession, bas brought this petition for suo motu initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondent. The matter is stated to arise out of a letter dated 21st January, 1992 which the respondent wrote to the Enquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 in certain proceedings for removal of the respondent initiated by the Parliament. In this letter the respondent is said to have made certain sweeping allegations against certain Judges and the Judiciary.

A copy of that letter is Annexure 'A' to the petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have sought the assistance of Sri Dipankar Gupta, learned Solicitor General. We place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by the learned counsel on both sides. Thete is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2164 of 1992 filed by Sri K.K. Jba, 'Kamal', Advocate, Patna High Court, for intervention. In our opinion, this application for intervention is misconceived and is dismissed. Though the letter, read by itself, raises certain apprehensions about its propriety, however, the respondent himself by bis subsequent letter dated 28.3.1992, which bas since been brought on record, has explained the context in which it was written and the apprehensions about the generality of its sweep stand mitigated. However, we feel that a lot of misunderstanding could have been avoided if the letter Annexure 'A' had not been written.

We are unhappy that it came to be written. SUB-COMMITI'EE ON JUDL. ACCOUNTABIUTY v. JUSTCE V. RAMASWAMY 641 But, on a careful consideration of the matter we, while expressing . A our unhappiness about the episode, however think we should decline in the larger interest to suo motu institute any proceedings for contempt against the respondent. The petition is dismissed accordingly. A.G. Petition dismissed.