Ish Kumar Valecha vs Surjeet Banerjee and Others

M. Katju, J.—These proceedings have been drawn in pursuance of the order dated 26.8.2002 of a learned single Judge of this Court. The facts in the context of which the aforesaid order was issued have been given in detail in the order itself and hence we are not repeating the same again.

In that order it has been mentioned that the contemnor Ish Kumar Valecha had filed an application dated 15.5.2002 supported with an affidavit making allegations against this Court as also against the entire judicial system of this country using extremely contemptuous and scandalizing language which maligns the Court and the judiciary and lowers its dignity. In that application it has been stated by the contemnor that the judiciary only protects the interest of the powerful people and its agents. He has made allegations of corruption, impotence, cowardice, favouritism and incompetence against the judiciary. He has alleged that 90% of the Judges are only the agents of the Executive and indulge in corruption, favouritism, cowardice, crime, etc. It is alleged that the judiciary in fact is dead in this country. Various other allegations have also been made in the application, which need not be repeated here.

Contempt jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. In other words, we are not bound to take action for contempt of Court even though in fact contempt has been committed.

Now-a-days, a lot of allegations are made against the judiciary, most of them being frivolous and false. The best way to treat these allegations is to ignore them. Often such allegations are made so as to provoke learned Judges into taking action for contempt of Court, and the whole object of the contemnor is often to only get publicity in the newspapers when the news about the contempt notice is published. Hence, often the best way for the judiciary is not to react to these contemptuous and scurrilous statements, but to ignore them.

If someone abuses us, the best way to react to this is to ignore such abuse and not to take notice of that person at all.

We are reminded of a story about Lord Buddha. Once someone abused him, but he did not react. When asked why, the Buddha replied, When someone offers me a gift and I do not accept it, it goes back to the giver of the gift. Similarly, when someone abuses me I do not accept the abuse, and hence that too goes back to the giver.

The strength of the judiciary lies in the confidence which the public reposes in it. As along as the judiciary of this country has the respect and confidence of the people, it will be powerful and its orders will be obeyed, but the day it loses this confidence it will lose its strength and its orders will not be obeyed.

The judiciary does not have any army or police, it does not have guns, canons, tank or aircraft to implement its orders. Yet the army, the police, the bureaucracy, the politicians and citizens of this country obey its orders promptly. This is entirely because of its moral strength and reputation. Despite all its defects, the judiciary in India is still respected by the people of India, but the day it ceases to be impartial and honest and loses the confidence and respect of the people, from that day its orders will cease to be obeyed. It is, therefore, imperative for the judiciary to maintain the confidence and trust of the people and as long as it succeeds to do so, it has nothing to fear, and the Judges will be held in respect.

This is an age of turmoil and turbulence and many things are said against the judiciary by various sections of the people. Often we are criticized, maligned and even abused, but the best way to treat these situations is to remain unperturbed, composed and ignore such remarks. To react to them will only be adding fuel to the fire, and that is what often such persons making such allegations really want. We are reminded of the observations of Lord Denning in Rex v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 1968 (2) QB 150:

Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.

It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.

In our opinion, contempt jurisdiction should be very sparingly exercised. This Court does not have to show to the world that it has great powers (though undoubtedly it does). The beauty, however, lies in not exercising those powers. It often happens that people get angry or upset over some judgment, which we deliver, and it is even possible that some of our judgments, may be incorrect. However, this does not mean that we too should get upset just because someone is upset by our judgment. In a democracy, the people are supreme, and if sometimes people criticize us, even if without justification, the Judges should not get upset, but should do introspection and correct themselves if they feel that the criticism was justified.

The Judges should be cool and unperturbed, even if there are unjustified allegations against them. In this way, the Judges will enhance their respect and prestige.

Of course there may be some extreme cases where the Court may be compelled to take action for contempt of Court, e.g., if the contemnor is habitually committing contempt repeatedly, or he is not allowing the Court to function, etc., but there, too, an attempt should first be made to avoid precipitous action. As Lord Denning said, we do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it.

On the facts of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction in this case and we are inclined to ignore the allegations, which the contemnor has made against this Court as well as against the entire judiciary of the country. The contempt proceedings are dropped.