http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: CHARAN LAL SAHU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/10/1987

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR  107            1988 SCR  (1) 441  1988 SCC  (3) 255        JT 1987 (4)   128  1987 SCALE  (2)754

ACT:      Contempt of Court Act, 1971: s. 15-Writ Petition by way of public  interest litigation-Couched in unsavoury language with a  designed attempt to lower the prestige of the Court- Petitioner issued show cause for contempt of Court.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner,  an advocate,  filed the application by way of  a  public  interest  litigation  alleging  that  the working of  the Judges of the apex Court was cocktail, based on Western  Common Law  and American  techniques;  that  the Court had  become a  constitutional liability without having control over  the illegal  acts of  Government, and that the Court was sleeping over the issues.      Dismissing the writ petition, ^      HELD: The petitioner is prima facie guilty of contempt. The petition  is clearly intended to denigrate the Court in. the esteem  of the  people of  India.  The  allegations  are clumsy.  It  is  an  intentional  attempt  at  lowering  the prestige of  the Court  as the  apex  Judicial  Institution. [442G, D; 443A]      The Registry  to draw  up an appropriate proceeding for contempt of court and issue notice to the petitioner. [443C]      The petition  is an  act against  public interest.  The petitioner has  certainly  overstepped  the  limit  of  self restraint so much necessary in such litigation. The Registry directed not  to entertain  any public  interest  litigation application filed by the petitioner in future. [443E]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 849 of 1987.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      Petitioner-in-person and M.S.Ganesh for the petitioner. 442      K. Parasaran,  Attorney General  and Ms.  A. Subhashini for the Respondents.      The following order of the Court was delivered:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

                           O R D E R      This application  has been filed by an Advocate of this Court by  way of  a public  interest litigation. It had been listed earlier  and learned  Attorney  General  had  entered appearance on behalf of the Union of India.      We have  heard the  petition. It  has been  couched  in unsavoury language  and the petitioner seems to have made an intentional attempt  to indulge  in mud-slinging against the advocates,  this   Court  in   particu  lar  as  also  other constitutional institutions.  Many of the allegations in his writ petition are likely to lower the prestige of this Court as the  apex judicial  institution. At one place in the writ petition, he has alleged:-           "Thus the working of the Judges are cocktail based           on Western Common Laws and American techniques, as           such  unproductive  and  out  dated  according  to           socio-economic conditions of the country. "      At one another place, the petitioner has stated that:           "This Court  has become a constitutional liability           without having  control over  the illegal  acts of           the Government ...... Thus the people for whom the           Constitution is  meant have  now turned down their           faces against  it which  is a did-illusionment for           fear that justice is a will of the Wisp."      Yet at  another place  the petitioner  has stated  that this Court  is sleeping  over the  issues like ’Kumbhkarna.’ The reading  of the  writ petition gives the impression that it is clearly intended to denigrate this Court in the esteem of the  people of India. We are of the priam facie view that the petition  has been  drawn up  with a designed purpose of bringing the  Court into  contempt and  the  petitioner  is, therefore, prima facie guilty of contempt.      The writ  petition  has  been  drafted  in  a  careless manner. At  several places the pleadings are meaningless. At several other places 443 they  are   contradictory.The  allegations  are  clumsy  and several irrelevant  facts have been put into the petition to inflate its size.      The petitioner  has left  out no  institution from  his attempt of  mud-slinging.  We  have  a  feeling  that  while drawing  up  the  petition  the  petitioner  has  considered himself to  be the only blemishless person and everyone else including social  institutions to  be blame-worthy.  We  are surprised that  an advocate  practising in  this Court  with considerable experience  has  choosen  to  act  in  such  an irresponsible manner.  The writ  petition, in  our  opinion, therefore,  deserves   to  be  dismissed.  We,  accordingly, dismiss the writ petition.      We direct  the  Registry  to  draw  up  an  appropriate proceeding for  contempt and  issue notice to the petitioner calling upon  him to show cause in person on 9.11.1987 as to why he may not be proceeded under the Contempt of Court Act.      At page 41 of his petition, the petitioner has stated.-           "This is  a  public  interest  litigation  in  the           interest of  independence of  judiciary and social           justice .. " We are  of the  view that  the petition  is an  act  against public interest.  The petitioner  has certainly over-stepped the limit  of self-restraint,  so much necessary in a public interest litigation. We direct the Registry not to entertain any application  by way of public interest litigation by the petitioner in future. P.S.S.                                    Petition dismissed 444

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3