Dr. D.C. Saxena vs Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Of India on 19 July, 1997

PETITIONER: DR. D.C. SAXENA
Vs.
RESPONDENT: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/07/1997
BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY

J U D G M E N T K. Ramaswamy, J.
In a clash of competing interests in constitutional contours, this case calls to strike a balance
between the freedom of speech and expression, a salutary right in a liberal democratic society
and paramount countervailing duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of
justice. The petitioner has initiated public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution
to direct Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao, the President of Indian National Congress and the former
Prime Minister of the country to pay a sum of Rs.8.29 lakhs and odd said to be due to the union of Indian for use of Indian Air Force aircraft or helicopters from October 1, 1993 to November 30, 1993. When writ Petition No. 432/95 was posted for hearing on July 17,1995 before the learned Chief Justice of India and brother Justice S.C. Sen the solicitor General for India, Shri Dipankar P. Gupta was sent for and the Court directed him to have the averments verified to be correct and directed the petition to be listed after two weeks. On August 7,1995, the writ petition came before the Bench comprising the learned CJI, Justice S.C. Sen and Justice K.S. Paripoornan. It is not in dispute that the Solicitor General had placed the record before the Court and upon perusal thereof and after hearing the petitioner-in-person, the Bench summarily "dismissed"" the writ petition which had triggered the petitioner to file yet another writ petition, this time against the learned Chief Justice of India, Justice A.M. Ahmadi. The Registry raised objections for its maintainability but, at eh insistence of the petitioner, it was posted, with office objections, for hearing, as unregistered Writ petition After hearing the petitioner, the Bench dismissed the second writ petition with the order as under:

"The several averments in the writ petition are scandalous and it is surprising that the
petitioner, who is said to be a Professor in a University, has chosen to draft and file such a writ
petition. His understanding of the meaning of Article 32 of the Constitution, is to say the least,
preposterous. The allegations made are reckless and disclose irresponsibility on the part of the
petitioner. This writ petition is wholly misconceived and is an abuse of the process of the
Court. The writ petition has no merit.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
In view of the attitude of the petitioner even at the hearing, when the persisted in this stand
and, on our asking him, reiterated that he stood by the scandalous averment made therein, we
consider it our duty to issue to the petitioner a notice to show cause why proceedings to punish
him for contempt of this Court should not be initiated against him. The Registry to take the
necessary steps for registering the matter as a contempt petition. The petitioner who is present-
in-person is given notice of the contempt petition. He is required to file his reply within four
wheels to show cause why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated against him. We
request the learned Solicitor General to assist the Court in this contempt matter.
List the matter after notice of the date fixed by Registry is given to Dr. D.C. Saxena and the
Solicitor General."