The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on an Advocate on Record, who filed a contempt petition against the Secretary General and the Registrar Judicial Administration of the Supreme Court for allegedly non-listing of a matter, despite the Apex Court order for the same.

Calling it a ‘browbeating tactic’ and an abuse of the process of law, the Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs 25,000.

However, the Bench later recalled the imposition of cost after President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Adish Aggarwala, tendered an unconditional apology on behalf of the SCBA member.

Calling the practice a very ‘wrong trend,’ the Apex Court noted that a matter not being listed on a date specified by the court cannot be the ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the Secretary General and the Registrar (Listing) of this court.

It observed that certain difficulties could lead to non-listing of matters, even when the court had directed the matter to be listed on a particular date. 

It further noted that some Benches direct the Registry not to list more than 30 matters. In that case, if a matter came at 31st, the Registry did not have a choice.

The Bench said filing a contempt petition for not listing a matter was an attempt to browbeat the registry, which was highly deprecated. It further rebuked the petitioner and said that if such a practice was permitted, it could eventually be used against the judges too.

Justice Gavai asked the Advocate-on-Record that if a matter was listed for Friday and the Bench could not take it up, would he initiate a contempt petition against Justice Gavai and Justice Mishra, saying that they have committed contempt of their own court for not hearing the matter.

The Bench further pointed out that the petitioner could have raised his grievance by filing a complaint before the administrative side.

Former Rajya Sabha MP Muhammad Adeeb on Thursday moved a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against the Haryana DGP and the Chief Secretary of the Haryana government for contempt of the order of the Apex Court alleging their inaction in complying with the directions passed by the Court regarding measures to be taken to curb communal violence in Gurugram that result hate crimes.

According to the petition, the Apex Court while taking cognizance of the increasing number of hate crimes, including mob violence and lynching, had passed certain directions with regard to the measures to be taken to curb the communal and violent tendencies that result in perpetration of hate crimes.

Citing an old decision in the Supreme Court, the contempt petition mentioned that it has been said that every state receives rising complaints in the case of inflammatory speech and communal violence. The police should take appropriate steps immediately, the MP urged in his petition.

It has been said in the petition that some mischievous elements are obstructing the Friday namaz and giving provocative speeches at the time of Jumma namaz in Gurugram, where recently there has been an admitted spurt in communal incidents over the place of prayers used by one community. Despite complaining to the police administration several times, no proper steps were taken by the police, the petitioner said.

In the last couple of months, there has been a constant rise in incidents revolving around the Friday prayers offered by Muslims at the behest of certain identifiable hooligans, who portray themselves falsely in the name of religion and seek to create an atmosphere of hatred and prejudice against one community across the city, the petition said.

Also Read: Supreme Court permits bullock cart race in Maharashtra

The directions were effective measures passed by the Top Court ensuring that the law enforcement agencies are sensitized and well-prepared to nip in the bud any such tendencies that may give rise to divisive and violent incidents, the Petition said.

The petition also argued that there is serious inaction on the part of the state machinery in taking effective measures for preventing such incidents in Gurugram. The petition also pointed out that with no strict action being taken against the unruly elements, on December 3, the incidents escalated and a larger group was present at various namaz sites in Gurugram chanting communally divisive and hateful slogans.

The plea has been filed through Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and drawn by Advocates Ashima Mandla, Ibad Mushtaq and Akanksha Rai.

Also Read:

• Setback for Bombay HC judge whose skin-to-skin contact order sparked outrage
• Vanniyar quota: Supreme Court declines to stay Madras HC order, says existing appointments won’t not be disrupted
• Delhi air pollution: Supreme Court asks air quality panel to come up with permanent solution
• US Supreme Court under fire for upholding new Texas abortion law

New Delhi (ILNS): A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against Chief Justice S. A. Bobde for riding a high end motorcycle without proper protection and regulation gear. The contempt is about violation of court order on safety of motorcycles mandated in CMV Rule 123. The petitioner says the Chief Justice is in contempt of having disobeyed his own judgment.

The petition has been filed by Gyan Prakash, founder of Forum for Traffic Safety and Environment Sanitation, and he has submitted: “As on record of Supreme Court on 29th June 2020, he was riding a 50 Lakh Harley Davidson Motorcycle weighing 400 Kg with 2000 cc Registration No. CG07 BP0015 for which he is neither trained nor have a valid Driving License (sic). This motorcycle registered illegally without pollution under control certificate and Conformance of Production Certificate Under Central Motor Vehicle Rule 126-A, for conformance to CMV rule 123 in Chhattisgarh for using in Nagpur. This was subject matter of CA 5359/2010. He has committed various offences under Motor vehicles Act and inspired young to commit offences leading to their killings. His violations are endangering life of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India like 56,136 motorcyclists killed in 2019.”

The petitioner has further submitted that Riding motorcycle violating CMV Rule 123, amounted to violation of Bombay High Court order which was passed by Justice Bobde himself in 2008, Supreme Court order of 2010, MP High Court order of 2006 and Kerala High Court of 2006, which lead to killings of 56,136 motorcyclists in 2019.

The petition is based on a picture which went viral on Twitter in June 2020 where CJI Bobde can be seen riding on a Harley Davidson.

The petitioner has further alleged that the motorcycle is illegally registered with Chhattisgarh Durg RTO for keeping in Nagpur, Maharashtra in violation of section 40 of Motor Vehicle Act.

It has been submitted that CJI has not used a helmet, which is an offence under 129 of MV Act. “He is not using Helmet as a motorcycle enthusiast & doesn’t know his Helmet size for protecting his life & endangering life of CJI,” reads the petition.

The petitioner has thus prayed: “To take cognizance of the Contempt of Court and punish him as an exemplary case of highest order or may be purged by implementing the order of the court.”

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Amitava Roy on Wednesday (January 10) asked petitioner Gulshan Bajwa to file an affidavit stating his objection in the contempt case against him.

Bajwa submitted that the order passed on January 9 by the Bar Council of India against him was served to him yesterday itself. The opposite counsel submitted that after the order he can file statutory appeal before this court. The court has said it was up to the petitioner as to what recourse he wanted to take.

The court had directed the Registry to issue notice to the petitioner “to show cause why appropriate action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or otherwise shall not be initiated against Bajwa who is an Advocate practising in this Court and Petitioner-in-person in CWP No. 9244/2006. In that application, reckless and undesirable allegations were made against the Judges. Averments in regard to curses given by the petitioners to Judges were made in that application. Thereafter, this Division Bench of this Court on August 17, 2006 had noticed the conduct of Mr. Gulshan Bajwa as giving threats to a lady counsel appearing on the other side and opposing him in some cases. By the same order, the Court had directed the counsel to appear on the next date to explain his conduct. However, notice for Contempt of Court was not issued at that stage. On August 18, 2006 none appeared when the case was called out at the initial stage, however, subsequently Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal appeared and undertook to inform the petitioner Mr. Gulshan Bajwa, Advocate to appear on the next date of hearing.

“Mr. Bajwa did not appear in the Court, though Mr. Rajeev Mehra standing counsel for Union of India informed that he was present in the premises of the High Court. Even on August 21, 2006, he did not appear but filed further applications making reckless allegations even against the Bench extending threats and filing transfer applications in the cases without taking instructions from the petitioners and, in fact, without their consent and knowledge.”

“These facts were noticed in the order dated August 21, 2006. It was directed that all the Contempt Petitions may be listed before the same Bench, subject to and after obtaining order of the Acting Chief Justice. The Acting Chief Justice directed the matters to be listed before this Bench. On August 22, 2006, when the cases were listed, again nobody appeared on behalf of Bajwa, nor did he appear in person. There were certain subsequent orders passed, but despite all possible non-ordinary processes of service, Bajwa did not appear before the Court, nor any body appeared on his behalf.

The court said: “In fact, even the addresses given by him were found to be false and incorrect. It may not be necessary to refer to all those orders and we may refer to the order dated August 31, 2006, when the Court had issued formal notice to show cause as to why the petitioner be not dealt with and punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

—India Legal Bureau