http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: J. VASUDEVAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: T.R. DHANANJAYA

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/09/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  137            1995 SCC  (6) 249  JT 1995 (7)   484        1995 SCALE  (5)245

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Shri S.  Swatantra Rao  has appeared  in person and has filed an  affidavit. He  is examined. On his attention being drawn to  what finds place in the order of this Court passed on 1.9.1995,  he states that what has been mentioned therein as regards  his meeting  one of  us (K.  Ramaswamy,  J.)  is correct. On  being further asked as to whether he had met on his own  or at the instance of anybody, his reply is that he had done  so on  his own  and then  brings to our notice the statements made by him in the affidavit. 2.   We have  perused the  affidavit which  was verified  at Bangalore on  7.9.1995. It  has mentioned  the "sequence  of events" leading  to  his  meeting  Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice  K. Ramaswamy. It  states that  having read  in  the  newspaper, while on  tour to  West Bengal,  about the  judgment of this Court imposing  sentence on Shri J. Vasudevan, on his return to Bangalore  he tried  to contact Shri Vasudevan to console him. He  was informed  that Shri Vasudevan was not available in Bangalore and that he was still in Delhi. 3.   On 29.8.1995  it was  told to  the deponent  that  Shri Vasudevan was  in a  shock and despair and that the sentence imposed would  be implemented  within a day or two. This led the deponent  to feel that Shri Vasudevan might not bear the punishment and  something untoward  could happen  during his imprisonment.  Being   a  colleague   and  friend   of  Shri Vasudevan,  he  could  not  curb  his  concern  and  started wondering whether something could be done to help him. 4.   The  affidavit   then  mentions   about  the  long  and cherished desire of the deponent to meet Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy  to seek  his good wishes and blessings whom he had met  about last  four decades ago. It is the concern for Shri Vasudevan and long and cherished desire to meet Hon’ble Ramaswamy, J.  which prompted  him to  come to  Delhi and he left Bangalore  by East West Airlines on 30.8.1995 which was scheduled to  depart at 8 P.M. As the flight was delayed, he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

reached Delhi around mid-night and being of the view that if he were to go to Karnataka Bhavan, he might have to wait for long as  its employees  would be  asleep,  he  proceeded  to Kanishka, an ITDC Hotel, and checked in. Next day morning he rang up  Shri Vasudevan  at Karnataka Bhavan but he was told that Shri  Vasudevan had left the room around 7 A.M. As such there was no chance for him to get in touch with him. 5.   The deponent  states that thereafter he met Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy at his residence and the object of this visit was  to seek  his Lordship’s blessings and good wishes and also  "to beg  some mercy  for Shri  J.  Vasudevan".  No sooner did  he realise that Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy resented the  prayer for mercy, than he sincerely apologised and left the place and left for Bangalore in the afternoon. 6.   It  is  reiterated  that  neither  Shri  Vasudevan  nor anybody else  had suggested  him  to  approach  Hon’ble  Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and it was his "un-subdued concern as a colleague" which,  inter alia,  had  prompted  him  to  meet Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy. 7.   The further  averments made  in the  affidavit are that the deponent  had no  intention of influencing the judiciary and he  sought  apology  for  the  embarrassment  caused  to Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy and for the violations made on the  judicial ethics.  The affidavit  ends by saying that the deponent  would be  careful in future and has prayed "to pardon him  for the improprieties" committed under the above circumstances. 8.   The affidavit  thus is clear on one aspect and the same is that the deponent had not met one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J) at the instance of Shri Vasudevan. There cannot however, two opinions that  the act  of meeting K. Ramaswamy, J. was most reprehensible and  has to  be disapproved  in the  strongest terms. As,  however, the  deponent has  realised  the  gross mistake committed by him, we are of the view that we may not proceed further  with the  matter  and  close  the  same  by ordering that  an entry  would be  made in his CCR about the gross impropriety  committed by him in meeting K. Ramaswamy, J. 9.   We have  heard Shri Nariman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,  to at  least remit  the sentence, for which purpose our mercy jurisdiction has been invoked, and invoked very forcibly  and fervently.  We are  aware that even under the proviso  to Section  12 of  the Contempt  of Courts Act, 1971, the  punishment awarded  may be  remitted  on  apology being made  to the  satisfaction of  the Court. He mentioned about this  legal provision  despite the  fact that  we  had invoked our  constitutional power  in the matter at hand. We would agree  with Shri  Nariman that  in an appropriate case the prayer  for remission of sentence imposed on a contemnor may be  considered when the Court is satisfied, on the facts of that case, that it requires to be done. 10.  The  entire  emphasis  of  Shri  Nariman  is  that  the petitioner had  acted the  way he  had done on legal advice; more so, in the background of the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka passed in W.P. No.15458/1991 and batch rendered on 31.3.1994. Shri Nariman has taken us through the relevant part of  that judgment in which the High Court accepted that the claim  of one  M. Venkatesh was fully protected, despite the order  which had  been passed by this Court on 26.7.1993 in I.A.  No.3. In the order which we had passed on 24.8.1995 this fact  had been  noted, to which our attention was drawn by Shri  Santosh  Hegde,  who  had  then  appeared  for  the petitioner. In  the order we stated that after Venkatesh had been promoted nothing could have reasonably stood in the way of T.R.  Dhananjaya to  get appointed  to the  supernumerary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

post which  had been  created by  the Bangalore  Corporation pursuant to  the order  passed  by  this  Court.  That  was, however, not  done. Shri  Nariman’s submission  is that this was not  done by  the petitioner,  not because  he  did  not desire to comply with this Court’s order, but because he had been advised  by his  counsel to act the way he subsequently did and  which ultimately  resulted in  the proceeding dated July 10,  1995, the purport of which has been noted by us in the order in question. 11.  Shri Nariman  strenuously urges  that the  petitioner’s sentence for imprisonment be remitted because he acted under wrong legal advice, and not mala fide. It may be pointed out that in  our order  we had  not attributed  mala fide to the petitioner but  had concluded that he was quality of willful disobedience. As to the advice by the counsel, which is said to be available in the file, may we mention, as noted in our earlier order,  that a  submission had been made before this Court itself  on May  10, 1995  by Shri  Hegde to grant time till after  vacation for implementation of the order. We had allowed this prayer. According to us, therefore, nothing was left except  to implement the order which had not been done. The fact  that the  order has  been implemented subsequently has no relevance. 12.  Shri Nariman urges that in the aforesaid background his submission is  only to remit the sentence in exercise of our mercy jurisdiction.  It is mentioned that the petitioner has only few  years to  retire and imprisonment would affect him adversely. According  to us, this cannot be a ground to show mercy because  in every case of government servant this plea would be advanced and in no case a government servant who is found to  have wilfully  disobeyed the  orders of  the court would be sentenced to imprisonment. 13.  It may  be stated  that while  awarding the sentence of imprisonment we  had considered the submission of Shri Hegde to show  leniency so  far as  the question  of  sentence  is concerned and  it was  stated in  the order passed on August 25, 1995 there were no "extenuating circumstances", as after promoting Venkatesh  nothing at  all could  have  reasonably stood in  the way of T.R. Dhananjaya to get appointed to the supernumerary post  of Addl.  Chief Engineer  created by the Corporation. 14.  Coming to  the mercy  jurisdiction,  let  it  be  first stated that  while awarding  sentence on  a  contemnor,  the court does so to uphold the majesty of law, and not with any idea of  vindicating the  prestige of the Court or to uphold its dignity.  It is  really to see that unflinching faith of the people in the courts remain intact. But, if the order of even the highest court of the land is allowed to be wilfully disobeyed and  a person  found guilty of contempt is let off by remitting  sentence on  plea of  mercy, that  would  send wrong signals to everybody in the country. It has been a sad experience that  due regard  is not always shown even to the order of  the highest  court of  the country.  Now, if  such orders are  disobeyed, the effect would be that people would lose faith  in the  system of  administration of justice and would desist  from approaching  the court, by spending time, money and  energy to  fight their legal battle. If in such a situation mercy  is shown,  the effect  would be that people would not  knock the door of the courts to seek justice, but would settle  score on  the streets,  where muscle power and money power  would win,  and the  weak and  the  meek  would suffer. That  would be  a death knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow. This Court cannot be a  party to  it and, harsh though it may look, it is duty bound to  award proper punishment to uphold the rule of law,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

how so  high a person may be. It may be stated, though it is trite, that  nobody is  above the  law. The  fact  that  the petitioner is an I.A.S. officer is of no consequence, so far as the  sentence is concerned. We would indeed think that if a high  officer indulges  in an act of contempt, he deserves to be punished more rigorously, so that nobody would take to his head  to violate  court’s order.  May we also say that a public officer,  being a  part of  Government,  owes  higher obligation than  an ordinary citizen to advance the cause of public interest,  which requires maintenance of rule of law, to protect which contemnors are punished. 15.  In the  aforesaid circumstances,  we are constrained to reject the  prayer fervently advanced by Shri Nariman in his usual vehemence and dismiss the petitions.