CJI Age controversy: SC reserves order in contempt case

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, DEC. 7. The Supreme Court today reserved orders in the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against Mr. S. K. Sundaram, a Chennai-based lawyer for sending a telegram to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) asking him to step down on the ground that the CJI had crossed the age of superannuation.

A Bench comprising Mr. Justice K. T. Thomas and Mr. Justice R. P. Sethi, reserved orders at the conclusion of arguments from the Solicitor General, Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. R. Karuppan, counsel for the contemnor-advocate. The Bench directed the contemnor advocate to be present in the court on the date of pronouncement of the order.

Mr. Karuppan, counsel for the contemnor-advocate argued that the telegram being a private communication between the advocate and the CJI would not amount to a publication and that the law of contempt would not be attracted to it. If at all any action could be taken, it could be done only by the CJI and not by other Judges.

The counsel said the advocate had been pursuing the issue regarding the age of the CJI for the last 10 years and he was unable to get any categorical reply from any of the authorities, including the CJI to whom letters were sent by the advocate. Also the determination of the age by the President under Article 217 (3) in May 1991 was not communicated to him.

Mr. Karuppan also brought to the notice of the court a communication received by the advocate from the President's office in 1999 to the effect that his petition on the age issue of the CJI had been referred to the Union Law Ministry. He said if the age issue had already been determined in 1991, what was the need for the President to again refer it to the Law Ministry.

The counsel said the advocate acted bona fide in pursuing this matter while sending the telegram. The court should take into consideration all these mitigating circumstances and drop the proceedings against the advocate, he said and pointed out that judges received so many telegrams and letters for and against their judgments. In the alternative, the contempt issue might be referred to a Constitution Bench as several aspects needed to be settled in this case, he said.

The Bench told the counsel ``if only the contemnor had not followed it up by filing a criminal complaint against the CJI, we would have ignored his telegram and put it in the waste paper basket.''

Pointing out that the contents of the telegram tend to interfere with the administration of justice, the Bench said ``a message should go that these things could not be repeated with impunity by others.''

The Solicitor General, reiterated that publication was not a pre-condition for initiating suo motu contempt as sending a threatening telegram would come within the ambit of ``doing any other act.''

He regretted that even after pointing out so many records to show that the year of birth of the CJI was 1934, the counsel instead of repenting for the advocate's action was trying to justify the same. Referring to the conduct of the advocate, Mr. Salve said that it was a clear case of contempt but while awarding punishment, the court could take into consideration his fragile health.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Central action sought against website
Next     : Water a fundamental right: apex court