IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CRIMINALORIGINAL...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINALORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF

Ranjana Agnihotri & Ors. Petitioners

Versus

Prashant Bhushan & Anr. Respondents

PAPER BOOK

(for index kindly inside)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS: VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)




IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Ranjana Agnihotri (Advocate)

D/o. Late Rajendra Kant Agnihotri R/o. 512/695 Balda Road, Nishant Ganj, Lucknow, U.P.

2. Bandana Kumar (Advocate) W/o Shri Ajay Kumar R/o. 1101 Alaknanda Apartment, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow, U.P. 3. Durgesh Kumar Tiwari (Advocate),

Son of Sri Sheetla Prasad Tiwari, R/o Pandit Deen Dayal Updhaya Nagar, Sarsawan, Arjunganj, P.O.-Arjunganj, Lucknow-226002, U.P.

4. Pankaj Kumar Verma (Advocate),

Son of Sri Mahadev Verma, R/o E-3/178,Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar, P.O.-Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, U.P.

5. Ashutosh Mishra(Advocate)

Son of Dr. Vidya Sagar Mishra, R/o A-1479/7 Indira Nagar, P.O.-Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016, U.P. Petitioners

Versus

1. Shri Prashant Bhushan S/o Shri Shanti Bhushan Advocate,

115,New Lawyers Chamber Supreme Court of India, Bhagwan Das Road New Delhi-110001.

2. Editor in Chief, Aaj Tak News Channel

The India Today Group Mediaplex, Fc-8, Sector - 16A, Film City, Noida – 201301(Proforma Party)

3. Editor in Chief

Times Now News Channel, Plot No-FC 6, Second Floor, Film City-Noida Sector 16a, Noida – 201301, Uttar Pradesh. (Proforma Party)

… Contemnors-Opposite parties


CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 129 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 15 OF THE CONTEMPT OF THE COURT ACT, 1971 AND RULE 3 OF RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDING FOR CONTEMPT OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1975 FOR TAKING SUO MOTO ACTION AGAINST CONTEMNORS

To, THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioners are practicing Advocates at Lucknow

Bench of Allahabad High Court. They are filing the instant petition

under Article 129 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 15 of the

Contempt of Courts Act against the Respondents with great

anguish and pains in discharge of their duty towards the court and

the society as the statements and remarks made by Shri Prasant

Bhushan an Advocate practicing in this Hon’ble Court on

19.04.2018 after the pronouncement of judgment rejecting his

arguments in case of Tehsin Poonawala vs. Union of India reported

in 2018(6) SCALE tarnishes the image of the institution of the

judiciary and particularly the Supreme Court in the eyes of public

within and outside the country and making reckless allegations and

imputations made against the institution and casting derogatory

remarks against the judicial system amounts to committing an

offence of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (c) of the

Contempt of Courts Act and punishable under Section 15 of the

said Act.

2. That it is relevant to mention that it is usual practice of Shri

Prashant Bhushan to malign the Hon’ble Judges and the


institution of judiciary if he fails to get favorable judgment from the

court attributing reasons for passing the judgment/order against

him.

3. That Shri Prashant Bhushan had filed a petition seeking SIT

probe into the matter of alleged payoffs by Birla Sahara Groups to

the then Gujarat Chief Minister. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the

plea of Shri Prashant Bhushan seeking probe into Sahara Birla

diary observing that ‘mere diaries and loose sheets cannot be

taken as admissible evidence in code of law against constitutional

functionaries. Further that if an order to investigate on the basis of

material with no evidentiary value, it would be difficult for

constitutional functionaries to function, which would not be safe for

the democracy. Immediately after the judgment Shri Prashant

Bhushan made statement before the Press on11.01.2017 to the

following effect:-

“It is very unfortunate and abject judgment and it will go down

as one of the worsted judgment in the history. It is black day

at the top court today.”

Further that ‘it is mockery of the constitution’. 4. That Shri Prashant Bhushan in an interview to the

correspondent of A.N.I. had severely criticized in bad taste the

judgment rendered in Birla Sahara Diary Case and said that:-

“the verdict shows that when it comes to dealing with and

mighty, sometimes even the Supreme Court wilts under

pressure.”

5. That it is relevant to mention that Shri Prashant Bhushan had

appeared in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.176 of 2017. In the said

petition an order was passed by a bench headed by Hon’ble Chief

Justice. On 11.11.2017 Shri Prashant Bhushan made public

statement against the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Court terming

the judgment as a ‘black day’ in the history of the Supreme Court.

Further that ‘I feel that the behavior of the CJI and the Bench was

not proper. We have not seen the order of the


Court. We will first see and then take all our future course of action’.

He gave an interview to the correspondent of ANI, a TV News

Channel, which was widely circulated, he had stated that:-

“But this is certainly a black day in the history of the Supreme

Court”.

6. That from the statement made by Shri Prashant Bhushan to

the press on 11.11.2017 it is clear that he had made baseless

allegations scandalizing and tarnishing the image of judiciary. It

was highly improper that any judgment passed by the Court is

termed as black day. There was no basis and also there was no

occasion to say that the behavior of CJI was not proper.

7. That Shri Prashant Bhushan had also tweeted that ‘CJI

Deepak Mishra presided over a ‘handpicked bench’ to override

Yesterday’s order’. He spokes to ANI explaining the order of the

days proceeding as follows:

“It was one of most unfortunate date for the Supreme Court

and the Judiciary, where the credibility of the Court has been

greatly undermined that too effectively by the CJI himself”.

8. That the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 14.11.2017

dismissed Writ Petition (Criminal) No.176 of 2017 (Kamini Jaiswal

vs. Union of India & Anr.) observing that:-

“We cannot fall prey to such unscrupulous devices adopted

by the litigants, so as to choose the Benches, as that is a real

threat to very existence of the system itself and would be

denigrated in case we succumb to such pressure tactics”.

9. That Writ Petition (Criminal) No.169 of 2017 with similar

prayer as made in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.176/2017 had been filed.

Shri Prasant Bhushan had also appeared in the said case. The

aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order


dated 1.12.2017 imposing costs of Rs.25 lacs on the Petitioner. In

the said petition in para 9 the Hon’ble Court has mentioned that:-

“…the present petition, in particular, the manner in which it

has been perused without any remorse of questioning the

decision rendered on the subject matter by this court

including the plea taken in earlier petition as noted in

paragraph 29 of the said decision, is gross abuse of the

process of the court. Therefore, it has to be dismissed with

exemplary costs in order to ensure that such attempt is not

repeated in future.”

10. That from the narration of facts and comment made by Shri

Prasant Bhushan it is clear that he had made derogatory remarks

against Hon’ble Judges attributing the motive for passing the order

without their being any basis and thus he has committed an offence

of criminal contempt punishable under Section 15 of the Contempt

of Courts Act.

11. That the statement made by Shri Prasant Bhushan Advocate

was widely criticized by legal fraternity throughout the country.

There was great resentment within the advocates and also in the

public regarding the derogatory remarks made by Shri Prashant

Bhushan against the judiciary. The Petitioners were of the view that

Shri Prasant Bhushan will not repeat the same thing and he will

respect the judicial system and judiciary and he will refrain himself

from making scrupulous remarks and any remark derogatory to the

judicial system and that he would mend his ways.

12. That Writ Petition(C) No.19 of 2018 Teshin Poonawala vs.

Union of India & Anr. was filed for issuing direction to constitute

Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into the death of judge

Shri Brijgopal Harkishan Loya who had died in the night of 29/30

November,2014 while on a trip to Nagpur. Several other petitions

and transfer petitions were also connected with the said petition.

All the petitions and transfer petitions have been dismissed by a


common judgment dated 19.04.2018.

13. That in the aforesaid matter Shri Prasant Bhushan had filed

intervention application on behalf of ‘the Centre for Public Interest

Litigation’. He made submissions in the matter which have been

discussed in para 64 of the judgment. In paragraph 65 it has been

mentioned in the judgment that:-

“The affidavit in support of the application for intervention has

been sworn by Mr.Prashant Bhushan personally. Mr.Prasant

Bhushan appeared on behalf of the intervenor as its counsel

during the course of the hearing and not as a party in person.”

14. That in paragraph 74 of the judgment referring to the

arguments made on behalf of the Petitioners and the intervenors it

has been observed by the Hon’ble Court that:-

“…but as the submissions have evolved it has become clear

that the petition is a veiled attempt to launch a frontal attack

on the independence of the judiciary and to dilute credibility

of the judicial institutions.”

15. That it is relevant to mention that Shri Prasant Bhushan had

questioned the formation of the bench consisting of two Hon’ble

Judges (Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.M.Khanwilkar and Hon’ble

Mr.Justice D.Y.Chandrachud) since they belong to Maharashtra.

His objection was rejected by the bench. In paragraph 76 the

Hon’ble Court has held that:-

‘..the conduct of the Petitioners and intervenors scandalizes

the process of the court and prima facie constitutes criminal

contempt. However, on a dispassionate of the view of the

matter, we have chooses not to initiate proceedings by way

of criminal contempt if only not to give impression that the

litigants and the lawyers every for them have been subjected

to unequal battle with authority of law”.


16. That the Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 19.4.2018 had

rejected all the objections and pleas raised by Shri Prasant Bhusan

and other advocates appearing for the Petitioners/Intervenors. Shri

Prasant Bhushan immediately after pronouncement of the

judgment on 19.4.2018 with a view to scandalize the judges and

the institution of judiciary addressed the press in the lawns of the

Supreme Court which was broadcast by different news channels.

The Television News Channel ‘Aaj Tak’ in Hindi and ‘Times Now’

news channel in English broadcast said statement throughout the

day in the news bulletins. In his statement Shri Prashant Bhushan

has severely criticized the judgment including attributing motive for

passing the judgment and terming the same as the black day in the

history of Supreme Court. The address made by Shri Prashant

Bhushan is also available on Youtube. The address made by Shri

Prashant Bhushan was broadcast by a TV News Channel Times

Now a number of times. A true copy of complete press address

made by Shri Prashant Bhushan on 19.4.2018 downloaded in a CD

is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-1 (page

17. That Shri Prashant Bhushan addressed the press in Hindi on

19.4.2018. The transliteration in English of the most offending

portion of the aforesaid statement and the translation of the same

in English is being given below:-

(a) Transliteration:-

(i) In char jujon ke statement ke aadhar per jo ke affidavit par

bhi nahi aayethe Supreme Court ne aaj swatantra janch ki

maang thukra di jabki itne saare sandeh utpanna huye thhey.

(ii) Meri rai men yeh bahut hi galat faisala hua hai aur

Supreme Court ke liye meri rai me yeh ek kaladin hai kyoki

Supreme Court ne bajay iske ki ek swatantra janch ho jai ki

itne sare sandeh utpanna ho gaye thhe unpar parda dalne ka

kaam kiya hai juj Loya ki maut ke uper.

(iii) Agar koi jan yeh baat lekar Supreme Court me aaye ki


bhai iske swatantra janch kara lijiye to swatantra janch ki

mang karna bhi political motive hogaya. Yeh to aur bhi bada

prashna chinha lagata hai ki yeh faisala kis aadhar per diya

gaya aur kiske kahne per diya gaya.

(b) Translation in English:-

(i) On the basis of the statement of these four judges

which were not even on affidavit, the Supreme Court has

rejected the prayer for independent investigation into the

matter despite a number of suspicions had arisen.

(ii) In my opinion this is a very wrong judgment and for

Supreme Court this is a black day because Supreme Court

instead of ordering for independent probe when a number of

suspicion had arisen, the Supreme Court had worked to draw

the curtain on the death of judge Loya.

(iii) If any person comes to the Supreme Court demanding

for making an independent probe into the matter then the

demand for making independent probe will amount to having

political motive. It also puts a very big question on the

judgment as to on which basis and on whose instruction the

same was given.

18. That from the address made by Shri Prashant Bhushan it is

clear that he has stated that:-

(i) “It is a black day in the Supreme Court history.”

(ii) “the judgment has been passed at the instance of some person”.

(iii) “the judgment has been passed to shield the culprits”

(iv) “the judgment has been passed to suppress regarding the death of judge Loya”

19. That it is relevant to mention that Shri Prashant Bhushan had

also questioned the constitution of Bench to hear the petition

regarding judge Loya and had objected that two judges hailing from

Maharasthra could not hear the matter. This objection was rejected

by the Hon’ble Court.

20. That while delivering judgment the Hon’ble Court has


recorded a finding that the conduct of the Petitioners and

intervenors scandalized the process of the Court amounting to

criminal contempt. However, in the fitness of things the Hon’ble

Court thought not to take action for committing criminal contempt

against the Petitioners and Intervenors.

21. That it is respectfully submitted that the points raised by the

Petitioners and intervenors regarding the Constitution of the Bench

as also the demand for constituting SIT to probe the death of judge

Loya were rejected on merits by the Hon’ble Court vide judgment

dated 19.4.2018. Shri Prashant Bhushan while addressing the

press on the said date not only severely criticized the judgment on

those points but also attributed the motive for passing the order in

a most derogatory and disgraceful language.

22. That the very purpose of enacting the Contempt of Court Act

would be frustrated if in grave contempt the contemnors are not

punished. In such a situation the people’s confidence in judiciary

would be shaken. The public may think that allegations made by

the contemnor were correct and as such no action was taken by

the court.

23. That Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 runs

as follows:-

“(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by,

spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or

otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act

whatsoever which-

(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to

lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due

course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends

to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”

24. That Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lays


down that the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action in

his own motion or on a motion made by:-

a) the Advocate General or b) any other person with the consent writing to the advocate

general or c) in relation to the High Court. In relation to Supreme Court the

expression ‘Advocate General’ means the ‘Attorney General’ or ‘the Solicitor General’.

25. That in view of the facts, circumstances and nature of the

case it would not be desirable for the Petitioners to approach

Learned Attorney or Solicitor General seeking permission as

prescribed by Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

26. That the Petitioners pray that to maintain the majesty of the

court and to repose confidence of the public in the judicial system,

the Hon’ble Court may take action against the opposite party for

committing criminal contempt of the Supreme Court.

27. That in case of suo moto contempt petition reported in AIR

2017 Supreme Court Pg.3836 it has been held by the Hon’ble

Court that:-

‘the contempt jurisdiction is not only to protect reputation of

judge but also to protect fair name of judiciary and extends to

protect registry from false and unfair allegations’.

28. That in case of Bal Thakare vs. Haris Pimpalkare reported in

(2005)1 SCC 254 E it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that:-

‘the whole object of prescribing procedure mode of taking

cognizance is to safeguard the valuable time of the court from

being vested by frivolous contempt petitions’.

29. That the Hon’ble Court in case of Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi

Ilamvazhuthi reported in (2011) 5 SCC 496 has interpreted the

provision relating to seeking consent of the Attorney

General/Advocate General and has held that:-

‘if the issue involved in the proceedings had greater impact


of the administration of justice and on the justice delivery

system, the court is competent to go into the contempt

proceedings even without the consent of the Advocate

General’.

30. That in view of the statement made by Mr. Prasant Bhushan

to the press after the judgment rendered by the Court in the said

case rejecting his submissions and dismissing the plea demanding

for making probe through SIT, he has tried to give a political motive

for passing the judgment and even went on terming the judgment

as the black day in the history. Thus it is high time for the Hon’ble

Court to take action in the matter on the basis of the present

application in exercise of the powers of taking suo moto action for

committing the offence of criminal contempt.

31. That it is submitted that if action under Section 15 of the

Contempt of Courts Act is not taken against the opposite party the

tendency to scandalize the judiciary and to pressurize the judges

for getting favourable order would continue unabated and may give

rise for repeating the offence of the like nature.

32. That the very purpose of making provision under Section 15

for punishing for committing Criminal Contempt as defined in

Section 2(c) of the Act would be a dead letter unless in the matter

of grave contempt of the Hon’ble Court, the High Court or any other

court the culprit is not tried and punished in accordance with the

provisions contained Article 129 of the Constitution of India and

Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

33. That the offence of criminal contempt was committed by

opposite party on 19.4.2018. The cause of action for filing the present

petition is occurring from 19.4.2018 and the petition is being filed

within the prescribed period of limitation provided by Section 20 of

the Contempt of Courts Act.

34. That the Petitioners have not filed any other Petition before


this Hon’ble Court or any other court seeking initiation of contempt

proceedings against the contemnor/opposite party.

PRAYERS

In the foregoing circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed

that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

a) Exercise suo moto powers under Article 129 of the

Constitution of India and Section 15 of the Contempt of

Courts Act taking cognizance of the criminal contempt on the

basis of the facts placed on record against the

contemnor/opposite party for committing criminal contempt

within the meaning of Section 2(c) punishable under 15 of

the contempt of courts Act;

b) Issue necessary guidelines for advocates in the matter of

making statements before or after any verdict or about the

judicial proceeding and the Union of India may be directed

to implement such guidelines;

c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit proper in the interest of justice.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS SHALL IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

DRAWN & FILED BY

VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN, Advocate for the Petitioners

Drawn on: .07.2018 PLACE: NEW DELHI FILED ON: 06.08.2018





IN THE MATTER OF


Versus


AFFIDAVIT

I, Ranjana Agnihotri, D/o. late Rajendra Kant Agnihotri, age 49

years, R/o. 512/695 Balda Road, Nishant Ganj, Lucknow, U.P., do

hereby state on oath and declare as under:

1. That I am Petitioner No.1 in the above mentioned contempt petition. I have been authorized by Co-Petitioner to swear this affidavit on her behalf also. I am fully aware of and conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case hereinafter deposed.

2. I say that the contents of Contempt Petition as contained at para 1 to ___ at pages 1 to ___ are true to my information received from the records and believed by me to be correct. I say that the facts are true and correct to my knowledge, information and belief.

3. That the Annexure contained in the form of CD is true and contains true statement made by the Contemnor/opposite party.

4. That I say that the facts stated in this affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, the above deponent hereinabove do hereby verify the contents of para 1 to 4 of this affidavit to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I state that no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at Lucknow on this day of ___ July, 2018.

DEPONENT


INDEX

Sl. No.

Particulars Pages

1. Contempt Petition with affidavit

2. ANNEXURE P-1: A true copy of complete press address made by Shri Prashant Bhushan on 19.4.2018 downloaded in a CD





IN THE MATTER OF


Versus


VAKALATNAMA

I/We, Ranjana Agnihotri, Bandana Kumar Appellants(s)/Petitioner(s)/ Respondent(s)

/Opposite party in the above Suit/ Appeal: Petition/ Reference do hereby appoint and retain

Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate of the Supreme Court to act and appear for me/us in the

above Suit/ Appeal/ Petition/ Reference and or my /our behalf to conduct and prosecute (or defend) the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of my application connected

with the same of any decree order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation and

application for Review, to file and obtain return of documents, and to deposit and receive money on my/ or behalf in the said Suit Appeal/ Petition Reference and in application of

Review, and to represent me/us and to take all necessary steps on my /our behalf in the above

matter, I/We agree to ratify all acts done by the aforesaid Advocate in pursuance of this authority. Dated this the____________________day of_______________________2018

VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN

Counsel for the Petitioners Petitioners/Appellant

MEMO OF APPEARANCE

To, The Registrar, Supreme Court of India New Delhi Sir,

Please enter my appearance on behalf on the Petitioner(s) /Appellant(s)/

Respondent(s) /Intervenor in the matter above mentioned.

Dated this the___________day of_____________________2008

Yours faithfully,

(VISHNU SHANKAR JAIN) Advocate for Petitioner(s)


Date post:	14-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CRIMINALORIGINAL...

Documents