IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL)NO.D 22040 of 2008

Leila David   …    Petitioner

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.   …    Respondents

WITH

Crl.M.P.No.12870/2008  in  W.P.(Crl.)No.D22040/2008,  W.P.(Crl.)No.D24281/2008,W.P.(Crl.)No.D25985/2008,  Suo  Motu  Contempt  Pet.(Crl.)No.3/2008  in  W.P.  (Crl.)No.D22040/2008, Suo Motu Contempt Pet.(Crl.)  No.7/2009,  Suo  Motu  Contempt  Pet.(C)No.225/2008,  Suo  Motu  Contempt  Pet.(C)No.226/2008  in  SLP(C)  No.9434/2006  and  Suo  Motu  Contempt  Pet.(C)No.  228/2008  in  SLP(Crl)No………/2007  (Crl.M.P.No.  553/2007)  

O R D E R  

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. Writ Petition (Crl.) D. No.22040 of 2008 (since  

renumbered as Writ Petition (Crl.) No.91 of 2008)

was filed by one Leila David in this Court on 4th  

August, 2008, under Article 32 of the Constitution  

of India, inter alia, for the following reliefs :

1. Writ of Mandamus directing the Maharashtra  Govt.  to  ensure  that  the  Petitioner  is  able  to  reside  in  her  home  without  any  illegal  interference,  threats,  harassment  or visits from the police.

2. Writ  of  Mandamus  directing  Director  of  CBI/  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs-  organize  Interpol  protection  to  Ms.  Lydia  Desai,  Mrs.  Priscilla  D’souza  and  Ms.  Rebecca  Desai in Australia.

3. Writ of Mandamus directing army protection  to BOSS School members and their families  in  India,  since  all  levels  of  police,  politicians  and  judges  are  involved  in  this Genocide and the situation is set to  escalate.

4. Writ  of  Mandamus  directing  criminal  proceedings  and  strongest  punishment  to  following judges of Bombay High Court, for  being party to the Genocide: a. R.M.S. Khandeparkar b. P.V. Kakade

2

c. Ranjana Desai d. D.B. Bhosale e. B.H. Marlapalle f. Roshan Dalvi g. D.G. Deshpande h. V.K. Tahilramani i. Swatanter Kumar j. J.P. Devadhar k. JN Patel l. Nishita Mhatre

5. Writ  of  Mandamus  directing  immediate  arrest and strongest punishment to the anti- BOSS petitioners who have filed bogus cases,  initiate a nationwide witch-hunt and destroyed  a  pioneering  organization  and  the  lives  of  brilliant  young  educationist,  only  to  gain  control over their adult son and daughter.

2. In the meantime, another Writ Petition, being  

Writ  Petition  (Crl.)  D.  No.24281  of  2008  (since  

renumbered as Writ Petition (Crl.) No.92 of 2008)  

was filed by one Ms. Annette Kotian and the same  

was taken up for consideration along with the Writ  

Petition filed by Leila David on 29th August, 2008.  

At the outset, this Court observed that some of the  

3

allegations made in the two writ petitions, as well  

as  in  the  supporting  affidavits,  appeared  prima  

facie  to  be  per  se  contempt  of  this  Court.  

Although, the petitioners were asked to withdraw  

the allegations made, they refused to do so and  

submitted that they stood by the said averments and  

strongly urged the Court to issue process to arrest  

the 12 Judges of the High Court of Bombay mentioned  

in prayer (4) to the Writ Petition.   In view of  

the obstinate stand taken by the petitioners, who  

were  appearing  in  person,  the  Court  had  no  

alternative but to issue notice as to why contempt  

proceedings should not be issued against them.  The  

matters  were  thereafter  directed  to  be  placed  

before the appropriate Bench presided over by the  

Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat (as His Lordship  

then was).  

3. The said two writ petitions along with a third  

Writ Petition, being WP (Crl) D. No.25985 of 2008,  

4

filed by one Pavithra Murali and four Special Leave  

Petitions  were  listed  before  the  Bench  presided  

over by Dr. Justice Pasayat on 10th September, 2008.  

While the writ petitioners appeared in person, the  

respondents were duly represented by counsel and  

after hearing the petitioners, the Court was of the  

view  that  the  show  cause  reply  was  equally  

contumacious  and  some  action  was  required  to  be  

taken against the petitioners for contempt of this  

Court. Accordingly, the Court initiated proceedings  

for  contempt  and  observed  that  charges  would  be  

framed. Since the writ petitioners were appearing  

in person, the Court appointed Mr. G.E. Vahanvati  

(who was then the learned Solicitor General) to act  

as amicus curiae, in the matter.  The matters were  

directed to be listed on 18th November, 2008, with  

liberty  to  the  petitioners  to  file  any  further  

response if they wished to by 10th November, 2008.  

The  Special  Leave  Petitions,  which  had  appeared  

along with the writ petitions, were de-linked.  The  

5

writ  petitions  and  the  suo  motu  contempt  

proceedings were taken up for consideration on 20th  

March, 2009.  As it appears from the record, when  

the  hearing  commenced,  the  writ  petitioners  

disrupted the proceedings by using very offensive,  

intemperate and abusive language at a high pitch.  

The order recorded by Dr. Justice Pasayat indicates  

that one of the petitioners had gone to the extent  

of  saying  that  the  Judges  should  be  jailed  for  

having initiated proceedings against them and that  

the Judges should be punished for not taking care  

of  their  fundamental  rights.  One  of  the  writ  

petitioners, namely, Dr. Sarita Parikh, went to the  

extent of throwing a footwear at the Judges.  His  

Lordship also recorded that all this happened in  

the presence of the learned Solicitor General of  

India (now Attorney General for India), two learned  

Additional Solicitor Generals and a large number of  

learned  counsel  and  advocates,  including  the  

President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record  

6

Association.  Having  recorded  the  said  incidents  

which had occurred within the sight of the Hon’ble  

Judges and the other persons present in Court, Dr.  

Justice  Pasayat  held  such  behaviour  to  be  

contemptuous in the face of the Court.  Since the  

petitioners stood by what they had said and done in  

Court, His Lordship felt that there was no need to  

issue any notice and holding them to be guilty of  

criminal  contempt  of  this  Court,  inflicted  a  

punishment of three  months’ simple imprisonment on  

them.  

4. The  said  course  of  action  did  not  meet  the  

approval of the other learned Judge, the Hon’ble  

Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, who by a separate  

order  of  even  date,  observed  that  the  writ  

petitioners  could  not  have  been  punished  for  

contempt without due compliance with the provisions  

of Section 14(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) of the Contempt  

of Courts Act, 1971.  His Lordship was also of the  

7

view that the Court’s power under Article 142 was  

not meant to circumvent the statutory requirements.  

His Lordship, accordingly, observed as follows :

“Therefore,  in  this  view  of  the  matter,  I  cannot  agree  with  the  view  expressed  in  the  order  of  His  Lordship  Justice Pasayat, for sending the alleged  contemnors  to  prison  for  allegedly  committing the contempt in the face of the  Court without following the mandate of the  Statute under Section 14.  I, therefore,  cannot  at  all  agree  with  His  Lordship’s  order by which sentence has been imposed.  I am of the view that the liberty of those  persons cannot be affected in this manner  without  proceeding  against  them  under  Section  14  of  the  Act.   In  my  opinion  Section  14  is  in  consonance  with  a  person’s  fundamental  right  under  Article  21.”

5. Having regard to the difference of opinion as  

to  the  procedure  to  be  adopted  before  the  

petitioners could be found guilty of contempt of  

Court and sentenced, the matter was directed to be  

placed before Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India  

and a direction was given that the contemnors would  

8

remain in custody till the matter could be heard by  

an appropriate Bench.  

6. On  the  same  day  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  

constituted  a  Bench  comprising  the  Hon’ble  Mr.  

Justice B.N. Agrawal (as His Lordship then was),  

the  Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice  G.S.  Singhvi  and  the  

Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice  H.L.  Dattu  and  directed  the  

matter  to  be  placed  before  the  said  Bench  on  

23.3.2009 at 2.00 p.m.  A direction was also given  

for production of the contemnors before the said  

Bench on the said date. Pursuant to the said order,  

the matters were duly listed before the said Bench  

and were adjourned till 13th April, 2009.  In the  

meantime, the alleged contemnors were enlarged on  

bail and the application for intervention filed by  

the Supreme Court Bar Association was allowed. On  

15th April, 2009, the matters were released by the  

aforesaid Bench and were subsequently placed before  

this Bench.

9

7. The matters were thereafter taken up by this  

Bench  on  5th May,  2009,  when  the  Writ  Petitions  

filed by the alleged contemnors were taken up for  

consideration for the purpose of issuance of notice  

and were, thereafter, directed to be listed on 16th  

July, 2009, at 10.30 a.m. for passing orders. The  

contempt  proceedings  were  also  directed  to  be  

listed for consideration on that date.

8. On  16th July,  2009,  when  the  two  differing  

orders dated 20.3.2009, in the Contempt Proceedings  

were  taken  up  for  consideration,  the  alleged  

contemnors  refused  to  make  any  submissions  and  

insisted that the hearing of the Writ Petitions,  

which  had  already  been  concluded,  be  reopened.  

Having no other alternative this Court requested  

the learned Attorney General, the learned Solicitor  

General as well as the President of the Supreme  

Court Bar Association to make their submissions in  

10

regard to the two orders on account of which the  

matter was referred to this Bench.   

9. The learned Attorney General supported the view  

taken by Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and submitted  

that  Section  14  of  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  

1971, did not preclude the Court from  deciding the  

contempt matter summarily when such contempt was  

committed in the face of the Court. The learned  

Attorney General submitted that while Section 14  

provides a procedure to be normally followed so as  

to give the contemnors an opportunity of showing  

cause against the action proposed to be taken, in  

cases of the instant nature where the incident had  

taken place within the precincts of the Court room  

and  within  the  sight  of  all  present  therein,  

including the Hon’ble Judges who constituted the  

Bench, there could be little justification in going  

through the procedure prescribed in Section 14 in  

order to establish that the alleged contemnors had,  

11

in fact, committed contempt of Court.  The learned  

Attorney General submitted that the footwear was  

thrown at the Hon’ble Judges within the vision of  

everyone present in the Court and the very attitude  

of the alleged contemnors was not only demeaning  

but  contumacious  as  well  and  calculated  to  

scandalize and lower the image of the Court and the  

Judiciary as a whole.  Apart from the above the  

learned Attorney General also submitted that the  

language used in the writ petitions and the reliefs  

prayed for was also aimed at scandalizing the Court  

and debasing the judicial process in the eyes of  

the  public.  It  was  urged  that  the  alleged  

contemnors have scant regard for the Courts and the  

judicial process and were required to be dealt with  

firmly in order to uphold the dignity and majesty  

of the Courts.  

10. In  support  of  his  submissions  the  learned  

Attorney  General  referred  to  several  decisions,  

12

and, in particular, that of a three Judge Bench of  

this  Court  in  the  case  of  Vinay  Chandra  Mishra  

[(1995) 2 SCC 584], which was a criminal contempt  

proceeding  initiated  by  this  Court  on  a  letter  

received  from  the  Acting  Chief  Justice  of  the  

Allahabad High Court alleging highly contumacious  

conduct on the part of Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra, a  

Senior  Advocate  and  President  of  the  Bar  and  

Chairman of the Bar Council of India, which not  

only tended to scandalize and over-awe the court,  

but to lower its dignity in the eyes of the public.  

This Court, accordingly, in exercise of its powers  

under  Article  129  and  Article  142  of  the  

Constitution,  sentenced  the  contemnor,  Vinay  

Chandra Mishra, to undergo simple imprisonment for  

6 weeks and also suspended him from practising as  

an advocate for a period of 3 years from the date  

of the order.  The sentence of imprisonment was,  

however, kept suspended for a period of 4 years  

with the provision for activating the same in case  

13

the contemnor was convicted for any other offence  

of contempt of court within the said period.

12. The learned Solicitor General and the President  

of  the  Bar  Association,  while  adopting  the  

submissions made by the learned Attorney General,  

submitted that the contempt having been committed  

in the face of the court, following the procedure  

in  Section  14  would  be  redundant,  since  the  

incident had taken place in full public view and  

within  the  view  of  the  Judges  and  no  other  

explanation could be given with regard to the said  

incident.  Furthermore, the contemnors did not show  

any  sign  of  remorse  or  repentance  for  their  

conduct,  but  continued  to  behave  intemperately,  

throwing all decorum to the winds.

13. The  learned  Solicitor  General  also  contended  

that  despite  having  been  given  several  

opportunities  to  purge  their  contumacious  

behaviour,  not  only  had  the  alleged  contemnors  

14

remained  defiant,  but  they  had  compounded  the  

offence by filing a fresh writ petition, wherein,  

not only were the earlier statements reiterated,  

but the Office of the President of India, the Prime  

Minister,  Attorney  General  and  other  high  

dignitaries were also scandalized and denigrated.  

The learned Solicitor General submitted that this  

was not a case where the contemnors had committed  

an error unintentionally, but the actions of the  

contemnors  were  deliberate  and  wilful  and  were  

carried  out  purposefully.  Accordingly,  the  

contemnors did not deserve any leniency and were  

required to be dealt with in a firm manner.  At  

this stage, we had invited the contemnors to make  

their  submissions  with  regard  to  the  contempt  

proceedings taken against them and the submissions  

made by the learned Attorney General as well as the  

Solicitor General and the President of the Supreme  

Court Bar Association.  As the contemnors submitted  

that  they  required  some  time  to  consider  the  

15

judgments cited by the Attorney General, the matter  

was adjourned.

14. On 20th August, 2009, when the matter was taken  

up once again, an unnumbered application filed in  

W.P. (Crl.) Diary No.2428/2008 was found on record  

asking the Bench to recuse itself from the present  

case.  For the reasons given in our order of 20th  

August, 2009, such prayer was rejected and despite  

being given an opportunity to express regret for  

their scandalous behaviour, not only Ms. Annette  

Kotian, one of the writ petitioners, but the other  

contemnors continued to use indecorous, indecent,  

slanderous and offensive language, claiming that it  

was their fundamental right to protect themselves  

under Article 21 of the Constitution.  Reference  

was  also  made  to  Article  19  and  Ms.  Kotian  

submitted  that  she  was  addressing  the  Court  in  

keeping with the fundamental right to free speech  

guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.  

16

Ultimately, Ms. Kotian speaking for herself and the  

other  contemnors,  contended  that  since  all  the  

orders which had been passed by this Court violate  

the fundamental rights of the contemnors, there was  

no need for further submissions to be made in the  

contempt matter.   

15. Dr. Sarita Parikh submitted that she had thrown  

the footwear in order to make the learned Judges  

sitting on the Bench aware of her constitutional  

and fundamental rights which she claimed had been  

violated.  This Bench, therefore, had no option but  

to  reject  the  application  filed  by  Ms.  Kotian  

asking this Bench to recuse itself from the case.  

On the other hand, the fresh writ petition which  

was  filed  by  the  contemnors  was  taken  up  for  

consideration and for the reasons recorded in our  

order  of  20th August,  2009,  the  same  was  also  

dismissed.

17

16. As far as the first batch of writ petitions  

filed  by  the  contemnors  are  concerned,  the  very  

nature  of  the  pleadings  and  the  prayers  made  

therein,  require  the  same  to  be  dismissed  in  

limine.   Despite  the  above,  we  had  given  an  

opportunity to the writ petitioners/contemnors to  

redeem  themselves,  which  opportunity  they  

deliberately spurned and proceeded to file a fresh  

writ petition, which, as indicated hereinabove was  

replete  with  the  earlier  scandalous  remarks  and  

fresh expletives. We, therefore have no hesitation  

in  dismissing  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  Leila  

David, Ms. Annette Kotian and Ms. Pavithra Murali,  

with cost of Rs.1 lakh in respect of each writ  

petition to be paid by the writ petitioners into  

the Registry of this Court within 12 weeks from  

date, failing which further action will be taken  

against them. As and when such deposits are made,  

the  Registry  shall  keep  the  same  in  short-term  

Fixed Deposits pending further orders.

18

17. As far as the suo motu proceedings for contempt  

are concerned, we are of the view that Dr. Justice  

Arijit Pasayat was well within his jurisdiction in  

passing  a  summary  order,  having  regard  to  the  

provisions  of  Articles  129  and  142  of  the  

Constitution of India.  Although, Section 14 of the  

Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  1971,  lays  down  the  

procedure  to  be  followed  in  cases  of  criminal  

contempt in the face of the court, it does not  

preclude the court from taking recourse to summary  

proceedings  when  a  deliberate  and  wilful  

contumacious incident takes place in front of their  

eyes and the public at large, including Senior Law  

Officers, such as the Attorney General for India  

who  was  then  the  Solicitor  General  of  India.  

While, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Ganguly, it is  

a statutory requirement and a salutary principle  

that  a  person  should  not  be  condemned  unheard,  

particularly  in  a  case  relating  to  contempt  of  

19

Court involving a summary procedure, and should be  

given an opportunity of showing cause against the  

action proposed to be taken against him/her, there  

are  exceptional  circumstances  in  which  such  a  

procedure may be discarded as being redundant. The  

incident  which  took  place  in  the  court  room  

presided over by Dr. Justice Pasayat was within the  

confines of the court room and was witnessed by a  

large  number  of  people  and  the  throwing  of  the  

footwear was also admitted by Dr. Sarita Parikh,  

who without expressing any regret for her conduct  

stood by what she had done and was supported by the  

other contemnors.  In the light of such admission,  

the  summary  procedure  followed  by  Dr.  Justice  

Pasayat cannot be faulted.   

18. Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,  

deals  with  contempt  in  the  face  of  the  Supreme  

Court or the High Court.  The expression “Contempt  

in  the  face  of  the  Supreme  Court”  has  been  

20

interpreted to mean an incident taking place within  

the sight of the learned Judges and others present  

at the time of the incident, who had witnessed such  

incident.  In  re: Nand Lal Balwani [(1999) 2 SCC  

743], it was held that where an Advocate shouted  

slogans and hurled a shoe towards the Court causing  

interference with judicial proceedings and did not  

even  tender  an  apology,  he  would  be  liable  for  

contempt in the face of the Court.  It was observed  

by the Bench of three Judges which heard the matter  

that law does not give a lawyer, unsatisfied with  

the  result  of  any  litigation,  licence  to  permit  

himself the liberty of causing disrespect to the  

Court or attempting, in any manner, to lower the  

dignity of the Court.  It was also observed that  

Courts  could  not  be  intimidated  into  passing  

favourable orders. Consequently, on account of his  

contumacious  conduct,  this  Court  sentenced  the  

contemnor to suffer four months simple imprisonment  

and  to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.2,000/-.  In  another  

21

decision of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union  

of India and another [(1988) 3 SCC 255], a petition  

filed by an experienced advocate of this Court by  

way of a public interest litigation was couched in  

unsavoury language and an intentional attempt was  

made  to  indulge  in  mudslinging  against  the  

advocates,  the  Supreme  Court  and  other  

constitutional  institutions.   Many  of  the  

allegations made by him were likely to lower the  

prestige of the Supreme Court.  It was also alleged  

that the Supreme Court had become a constitutional  

liability without having control over the illegal  

acts of the Government.  This Court held that the  

pleadings in the writ petition gave the impression  

that they were clearly intended to denigrate the  

Supreme Court in the esteem of the people of India.  

In the facts of the case, the petitioner therein  

was prima facie held to be guilty of contempt of  

Court.   

22

19.  Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act no  

doubt  contemplates  issuance  of  notice  and  an  

opportunity to the contemnors to answer the charges  

in the notice to satisfy the principles of natural  

justice. However, where an incident of the instant  

nature takes place within the presence and sight of  

the learned Judges, the same amounts to contempt in  

the face of the Court and is required to be dealt  

with at the time of the incident itself. This is  

necessary for the dignity and majesty of the Courts  

to  be  maintained.   When  an  object,  such  as  a  

footwear, is thrown at the Presiding Officer in a  

Court  proceeding,  the  object  is  not  to  merely  

scandalize  or  humiliate  the  Judge,  but  to  

scandalize the institution itself and thereby lower  

its dignity in the eyes of the public.  In the  

instant case, after being given an opportunity to  

explain their conduct, not only have the contemnors  

shown no remorse for their unseemly behaviour, but  

they have gone even further by filing a fresh writ  

23

petition  in  which  apart  from  repeating  the  

scandalous  remarks  made  earlier,  certain  new  

dimensions in the use of unseemly and intemperate  

language have been resorted to to further denigrate  

and scandalize and over-awe the Court.  This is one  

of such cases where no leniency can be shown as the  

contemnors have taken the liberal attitude shown to  

them  by  the  Court  as  licence  for  indulging  in  

indecorous  behaviour  and  making  scandalous  

allegations  not  only  against  the  judiciary,  but  

those holding the highest positions in the country.  

The writ proceedings have been taken in gross abuse  

of the process of Court, with the deliberate and  

wilful intention of lowering the image and dignity  

not only of the Court and the judiciary, but to  

vilify the highest constitutional functionaries.    

20. In such circumstances, while agreeing with the  

procedure  adopted  by  Dr.  Justice  Pasayat  in  the  

facts  of  this  case,  we  are  not  inclined  to  

24

interfere with the sentence which has been imposed  

on the contemnors. The order dated 20th March, 2009,  

granting bail to the contemnors is hereby recalled.  

The  Secretary  General  is  directed  to  take  the  

contemnors into custody forthwith and to arrange to  

have them sent to the appropriate jail to serve out  

the sentence.  

21. Let  arrest  warrants  be  issued  against  Leila  

David and Pavithra Murali, who are not present in  

Court  today,  despite  our  directions.  The  

Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, is directed to take  

steps to execute the arrest warrants and to take  

them  into  custody  and  to  arrange  for  their  

detention in prison in terms of the order passed on  

20th March, 2009, and the order being passed today.

25

22.  Let copies of this order be made available to  

the Registry for communication to the Commissioner  

of Police, Mumbai, forthwith.  

…………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

……………………………………………J. (H.L. DATTU)

New Delhi Dated: October 21, 2009.

26